44522 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 59 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0672; FRL–8204–9] 

Consumer and Commercial Products: 

Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu 

of Regulations for Lithographic 

Printing Materials, Letterpress Printing 

Materials, Flexible Packaging Printing 

Materials, Flat Wood Paneling 

Coatings, and Industrial Cleaning 

Solvents 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

determination and availability of draft 

control techniques guidelines. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 

183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act), EPA proposes to determine 

that control techniques guidelines 

documents (CTGs) will be substantially 

as effective as national regulations in 

reducing emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) in ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

nonattainment areas from the following 

five product categories: Lithographic 

printing materials, letterpress printing 

materials, flexible packaging printing 

materials, flat wood paneling coatings, 

and industrial cleaning solvents. Based 

on this determination, EPA may issue 

CTGs in lieu of national regulations for 

these product categories. EPA has 

prepared draft CTGs for the control of 

VOC emissions from each of the product 

categories covered by this proposed 

determination. Once finalized, these 

CTGs will provide guidance to the 

States concerning EPA’s 

recommendations for reasonably 

available control technology (RACT)- 

level controls for these product 

categories. EPA further proposes to take 

final action to list the five Group II 

consumer and commercial product 

categories addressed in this notice 

pursuant to CAA section 183(e). 

DATES: Comments: Written comments 

on the proposed determination must be 

received by September 5, 2006, unless a 

public hearing is requested by August 

11, 2006. If a hearing is requested on the 

proposed determination, written 

comments must be received by 

September 13, 2006. We are also 

soliciting written comments on the draft 

CTGs and those comments must be 

submitted within the comment period 

for the proposed determination. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing concerning the proposed 

determination by August 11, 2006, we 

will hold a public hearing on August 14, 

2006. The substance of any such hearing 

will be limited solely to EPA’s proposed 

determination under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C) that the CTGs for the five 

Group II product categories will be 

substantially as effective as regulations 

in reducing VOC emissions in ozone 

nonattainment areas. Accordingly, if a 

commenter has no objection to EPA’s 

proposed determination under CAA 

section 183(e)(3)(C), but has comments 

on the substance of a draft CTG, the 

commenter should submit those 

comments in writing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by applicable docket ID 

number, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Comments concerning the 

Proposed Determination should be sent 

to: Consumer and Commercial Products, 

Group II—Determination to Issue 

Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu 

of Regulations, Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2006–0672. 

Comments concerning any draft CTG 

should be sent to the applicable docket, 

as noted below: Consumer and 

Commercial Products—Lithographic 

Printing Materials and Letterpress 

Printing Materials, Docket No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2006–0536; Consumer and 

Commercial Products—Flexible 

Packaging Printing Materials, Docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0537; 

Consumer and Commercial Products— 

Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0535; or 

Consumer and Commercial Products— 

Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, Docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0538, 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Docket Center, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

the applicable docket. EPA’s policy is 

that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at 

Building C on the EPA campus in 

Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an 

alternate site nearby. Persons interested 

in presenting oral testimony must 

contact Ms. Dorothy Apple, U.S. EPA, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, Natural Resources and 

Commerce Group (E143–03), Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number: (919) 541–4487, fax 

number (919) 541–3470, e-mail address: 

apple.dorothy@epa.gov, no later than 

August 11, 2006. Persons interested in 

attending the public hearing must also 

call Ms. Apple to verify the time, date, 

and location of the hearing. If no one 

contacts Ms. Apple by August 11, 2006 

with a request to present oral testimony 

at the hearing, we will cancel the 

hearing. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44523 

1North American Industry Classification System. 

2 Industrial cleaning solvents are used in various 

manufacturing, repair, and service operations that 

span many industry sectors. A detailed list of 

affected industries and their respective NAICS 

codes are presented in the draft CTG for industrial 

cleaning solvents. 

the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered 

damage due to flooding during the last week 

of June 2006. The Docket Center is 

continuing to operate. However, during the 

cleanup, there will be temporary changes to 

Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, 

and hours of operation for people who wish 

to make hand deliveries or visit the Public 

Reading Room to view documents. Consult 

EPA’s Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147 

(July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm 

for current information on docket operations, 

locations and telephone numbers. The 

Docket Center’s mailing address for U.S. mail 

and the procedure for submitting comments 

to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected 

by the flooding and will remain the same. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning the CAA section 

183(e) consumer and commercial 

products program, contact Mr. Bruce 

Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division, Natural 

Resources and Commerce Group (E143–

03), Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, telephone number: 

(919) 541–5460, fax number (919) 541–

3470, e-mail address: 

moore.bruce@epa.gov. For further 

information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determinations 

and draft CTG for lithographic printing 

materials and letterpress printing 

materials, contact: Mr. Dave Salman, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division, Coatings and 

Chemicals Group (E143–01), Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number: (919) 541–0859, email address: salman.dave@epa.gov. For 

further information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determination 

and draft CTG for flexible packaging 

printing materials, contact: Ms. Paula 

Hirtz, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division, Coatings and 

Chemicals Group (E143–01, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number: (919) 541–2618, email address: hirtz.paula@epa.gov. For 

further information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determination 

and draft CTG for flat wood paneling 

coatings, contact: Mr. Lynn Dail, U.S. 

EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, Natural Resources and 

Commerce Group (E143–03), Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 

telephone number: (919) 541–2363, email address: dail.lynn@epa.gov. For 

further information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determination 

and draft CTG for industrial cleaning 

solvents, contact: Dr. Mohamed 

Serageldin, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division, Natural 

Resources and Commerce Group (E143–

03), Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, telephone number: 

(919) 541–2379, e-mail address: 

serageldin.mohamed@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Entities 

Potentially Affected by this Action. The 

entities potentially affected by this 

action include industrial facilities that 

use the respective consumer and 

commercial products covered in this 

action as follows: 

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of affected entities 

Flexible packaging printing materials.322221, 326112, 322223, 

3265111, 322224, 322225, 

332999.

Facilities that use rotogravure or flexographic processes to print materials such as bags, pouches, labels, liners, and wraps using 

paper, plastic film, aluminum foil, metalized or coated paper or film, 

or any combination of these materials. 

Lithographic printing materials ........ 323110 ........................................... Facilities engaged in lithographic printing on individual sheets or continuous rolls of substrate material. 

Letterpress printing materials .......... 323119 ........................................... Facilities engaged in letterpress printing on individual sheets or continuous rolls of substrate material. 

Industrial cleaning solvents ............. various 2 ......................................... Facilities engaged in cleaning activities associated with manufacturing, repair, and service operations across a wide variety of industry sectors. 

Flat wood paneling coatings ........... 321211, 321212, 321219, 321999 Facilities that apply protective, decorative, or functional material to 

any interior, exterior, or hardboard panel product. 

Federal Government ....................... ........................................................ Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government ........... ........................................................ Not affected. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility would be affected 

by this action, you should examine the 

applicable industry description in 

sections II.A, III.A, IV.A, and V.A of this 

notice. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

appropriate EPA contact listed in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this notice. 

Preparation of Comments. Do not 

submit information containing CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI only to the following 

address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (C404–02), 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711, Attention: Docket 

ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0672, 0535, 

0536, 0537, or 0538 (as applicable). 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD–

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposed action 

will also be available on the Worldwide 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
44524 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

3Pursuant to the court’s order in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 1:01–cv–01597–PLF (D.C. Cir., March 31, 

2006), EPA must take final action on the product 

categories in Group II by September 30, 2006. 

4See 63 FR 48792 (September 11, 1998). 

Web (WWW) through the Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN). Following 

signature, a copy of the proposed action 

will be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. 

The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

Organization of This Document. The 

information presented in this notice is 

organized as follows: 

I. Background Information and Proposed 

Determination 

A. The Ozone Problem 

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

C. Significance of a CTG 

D. General Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

E. Proposed Determination 

F. Availability of Documents 

II. Lithographic Printing Materials and 

Letterpress Printing Materials 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

III. Flexible Packaging Printing Materials 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

IV. Flat Wood Paneling Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

V. Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

A. Industry Characterization 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

D. Considerations in Determining Whether 

a CTG Will Be Substantially as Effective 

as a Regulation 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Background Information and 

Proposed Determination 

A. The Ozone Problem 

Ground-level ozone, a major 

component of smog, is formed in the 

atmosphere by reactions of VOC and 

oxides of nitrogen in the presence of 

sunlight. The formation of ground-level 

ozone is a complex process that is 

affected by many variables. 

Exposure to ground-level ozone is 

associated with a wide variety of human 

health effects, agricultural crop loss, and 

damage to forests and ecosystems. Acute 

health effects are induced by short-term 

exposures (observed at concentrations 

as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)), 

generally while individuals are engaged 

in moderate or heavy exertion, and by 

prolonged exposures to ozone (observed 

at concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm), 

typically while individuals are engaged 

in moderate exertion. Moderate exertion 

levels are more frequently experienced 

by individuals than heavy exertion 

levels. The acute health effects include 

respiratory symptoms, effects on 

exercise performance, increased airway 

responsiveness, increased susceptibility 

to respiratory infection, increased 

hospital admissions and emergency 

room visits, and pulmonary 

inflammation. Groups at increased risk 

of experiencing such effects include 

active children, outdoor workers, and 

others who regularly engage in outdoor 

activities, as well as those with 

preexisting respiratory disease. 

Currently available information also 

suggests that long-term exposures to 

ozone may cause chronic health effects 

(e.g., structural damage to lung tissue 

and accelerated decline in baseline lung 

function). 

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

Under section 183(e) of the CAA, EPA 

conducted a study of VOC emissions 

from the use of consumer and 

commercial products to assess their 

potential to contribute to levels of ozone 

that violate the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, 

and to establish criteria for regulating 

VOC emissions from these products. 

Section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA 

to list for regulation those categories of 

products that account for at least 80 

percent of the VOC emissions, on a 

reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer 

and commercial products in areas that 

violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone 

nonattainment areas), and to divide the 

list of categories to be regulated into 

four groups. EPA published the initial 

list in the Federal Register on March 23, 

1995 (60 FR 15264). In that notice, EPA 

stated that it may amend the list of 

products for regulation, and the groups 

of product categories, in order to 

achieve an effective regulatory program 

in accordance with the Agency’s 

discretion under CAA section 183(e). 

EPA has revised the list several times. 

See 70 FR 69759 (Nov. 17, 2005); 64 FR 

13422 (Mar. 18, 1999). Most recently, in 

May 2006, EPA revised the list to add 

one product category, portable fuel 

containers, and to remove one product 

category, petroleum dry cleaning 

solvents. See 71 FR 28320 (May 16, 

2006). As a result of these revisions, 

Group II of the list now comprises the 

five product categories that are the 

subject of this action.3

Any regulations issued under section 

CAA 183(e) must be based on ‘‘best 

available controls’’ (BAC). CAA section 

183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC as ‘‘the degree 

of emissions reduction that the 

Administrator determines, on the basis 

of technological and economic 

feasibility, health, environmental, and 

energy impacts, is achievable through 

the application of the most effective 

equipment, measures, processes, 

methods, systems or techniques, 

including chemical reformulation, 

product or feedstock substitution, 

repackaging, and directions for use, 

consumption, storage, or disposal.’’

CAA section 183(e) also provides EPA 

with authority to use any system or 

systems of regulation that EPA 

determines is the most appropriate for 

the product category. Under these 

provisions, EPA has previously issued 

‘‘national’’ regulations for architectural 

and industrial maintenance coatings, 

autobody refinishing coatings and 

consumer products.4

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) further 

provides that EPA may issue a CTG in 

lieu of a national regulation for a 

product category where the EPA 

determines that the CTG will be 

‘‘substantially as effective as 

regulations’’ in reducing emissions of 

VOC in ozone nonattainment areas. The 

statute does not specify how EPA is to 

make this determination, but does 

provide a fundamental distinction 

between national regulations and CTGs. 

Specifically, for national regulations, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44525 

5 ‘‘Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile 

Organic Compounds in Ozone State 

Implementation Plans,’’ 70 FR 54046 (September 

13, 2005). 

6See, e.g., 52 FR at 45108, col. 2, ‘‘Compliance 

Periods’’ (November 24, 1987). ‘‘VOC rules should 

describe explicitly the compliance timeframe 

associated with each emission limit (e.g., 

instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules 

are silent on compliance time, EPA will interpret 

it as instantaneous.’’

7Memorandum from John O’Connor, Acting 

Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, January 20, 1984, ‘‘Averaging Times for 

Compliance with VOC Emission Limits-SIP 

Revision Policy.’’

8 ‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs, January 2001,’’ available at 

http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/ 

policy/search.htm. 

CAA section 183(e) defines regulated 

entities as: 

(i) * * * manufacturers, processors, 

wholesale distributors, or importers of 

consumer or commercial products for sale or 

distribution in interstate commerce in the 

United States; or (ii) manufacturers, 

processors, wholesale distributors, or 

importers that supply the entities listed 

under clause (i) with such products for sale 

or distribution in interstate commerce in the 

United States. 

Thus, under CAA section 183(e), a 

regulation for consumer or commercial 

products is limited to the measures 

applicable to manufacturers, processors, 

distributors, or importers of the 

solvents, materials, or products 

supplied to the consumer or industry. 

CAA section 183(e) does not authorize 

EPA to issue regulations that would 

directly regulate end-users of these 

products. By contrast, CTG are guidance 

documents that recommend RACT 

measures that States can adopt and 

apply to the end users of products. This 

dichotomy (i.e., that EPA cannot 

directly regulate end-users under CAA 

section 183(e), but can address endusers through a CTG) created by 

Congress is relevant to EPA’s evaluation 

of the relative merits of a national 

regulation versus a CTG. 

C. Significance of CTG 

CAA section 172(c)(1) provides that 

state implementation plans (SIPs) for 

nonattainment areas must include 

‘‘reasonably available control measures’’

(RACM), including ‘‘reasonably 

available control technology’’ (RACT), 

for sources of emissions. Section 

182(b)(2) provides that States must 

revise their ozone SIPs to include RACT 

for VOC sources covered by any CTG 

document issued after November 15, 

1990, and prior to the date of 

attainment. Those ozone nonattainment 

areas that are subject to CAA section 

172(c)(1) and submit an attainment 

demonstration seeking more than five 

years from the date of designation to 

attain must also meet the requirements 

of CAA section 182(b)(2) and revise 

their ozone SIPs in response to any CTG 

issued after November 15, 1990, and 

prior to the date of attainment. Other 

ozone nonattainment areas subject to 

CAA section 172(c)(1) may take action 

in response to this guidance, as 

necessary to attain. 

EPA defines RACT as ‘‘the lowest 

emission limitation that a particular 

source is capable of meeting by the 

application of control technology that is 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility, 

44 FR 53761 (Sept. 17, 1979).’’ In 

subsequent Federal Register notices, 

EPA has addressed how states can meet 

the RACT requirements of the Act. 

Significantly, RACT for a particular 

industry is determined on a case-by-case 

basis, considering issues of 

technological and economic feasibility. 

EPA provides states with guidance 

concerning what types of controls could 

constitute RACT for a given source 

category through issuance of a CTG. The 

recommendations in the CTG are based 

on available data and information and 

may not apply to a particular situation 

based upon the circumstances. States 

can follow the CTG and adopt State 

regulations to implement the 

recommendations contained therein, or 

they can adopt alternative approaches. 

In either event, States must submit their 

RACT rules to EPA for review and 

approval as part of the SIP process. EPA 

will evaluate the rules and determine, 

through notice and comment 

rulemaking in the SIP process, whether 

they meet the RACT requirements of the 

Act and EPA’s regulations. To the extent 

a State adopts any of the 

recommendations in a CTG into its State 

RACT rules, interested parties can raise 

questions and objections about the 

substance of the guidance and the 

appropriateness of the application of the 

guidance to a particular situation during 

the development of the State rules and 

EPA’s SIP approval process. 

We encourage States in developing 

their RACT rules to consider carefully 

the facts and circumstances of the 

particular sources in their States 

because, as noted above, RACT is 

determined on a case-by-case basis, 

considering issues of technological and 

economic feasibility. For example, a 

state may decide not to require 90 

percent control efficiency at facilities 

that are already well controlled, if the 

additional emission reductions would 

not be cost-effective. States may also 

want to consider reactivity-based 

approaches, as appropriate, in 

developing their RACT regulations.5

Finally, if States consider requiring 

more stringent VOC content limits than 

those recommended in the draft CTGs, 

states may also wish to consider 

averaging, as appropriate. In general, the 

RACT requirement is applied on a shortterm basis up to 24 hours.6 However, 

EPA guidance permits averaging times 

longer than 24 hours under certain 

conditions.7 The EPA’s Economic 

Incentive Policy’’ 8 provides guidance 

on use of long-term averages with regard 

to RACT and generally provides for 

averaging times of no greater than 30 

days. Thus, if the appropriate 

conditions are present, States may 

consider the use of averaging in 

conjunction with more stringent limits. 

Because of the nature of averaging, 

however, we would expect that any 

State RACT Rules that allow for 

averaging also include appropriate 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

By this action, we are making 

available four draft CTGs that cover the 

five product categories in Group II of the 

CAA section 183(e) list. We are 

consolidating lithographic printing 

materials and letterpress printing 

materials into one CTG document. 

These CTGs are guidance to the States 

and provide recommendations only. A 

State can develop its own strategy for 

what constitutes RACT for the Group II 

product categories, and EPA will review 

that strategy in the context of the SIP 

process and determine whether it meets 

the RACT requirements of the Act and 

its implementing regulations. 

Finally, CAA section 182(b)(2) 

provides that a CTG issued after 1990 

specify the date by which a State must 

submit a SIP revision in response to the 

CTG. In the draft CTGs at issue here, 

EPA provides that States should submit 

their SIP revisions within one year of 

the date that the CTGs are finalized. 

D. General Considerations in 

Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 

Substantially as Effective as a 

Regulation 

CAA Section 183(e)(3)(C) authorizes 

EPA to issue a CTG in lieu of a 

regulation for a category of consumer 

and commercial products if a CTG ‘‘will 

be substantially as effective as 

regulations in reducing [VOC] 

emissions’’ in ozone nonattainment 

areas. The statute does not specify how 

EPA is to make this determination. 

On July 13, 1999 (64 FR 37773), EPA 

issued a final determination pursuant to 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), concluding 

that CTGs for wood furniture coatings, 

aerospace coatings, and shipbuilding 

and repair coatings were substantially as 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
44526 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

effective as national regulations in 

reducing emissions of VOC from these 

products in areas that violate the 

NAAQS for ozone. Recognizing that the 

statute does not specify any criteria for 

making a determination under CAA 

section 183(e)(3)(C), EPA, in 1999 

considered several relevant factors, 

including: (1) The product’s distribution 

and place of use; (2) the most effective 

entity to target to control emissions—in 

other words, whether it is more effective 

to achieve VOC reductions at the point 

of manufacture of the product or at the 

point of use of the product; (3) 

consistency with other VOC control 

strategies; and (4) estimates of likely 

VOC emission reductions in ozone 

nonattainment areas which would result 

from the regulation or CTG. EPA 

believes that these factors are useful for 

evaluating whether the rule or CTG 

approach would be best from the 

perspective of implementation and 

enforcement of an effective strategy to 

achieve the intended VOC emission 

reductions. As we consider other 

product categories in the current and 

future phases of regulation under CAA 

section 183(e), there may be other 

factors that are relevant to the CAA 

section 183(e)(3)(C) determination for 

given product categories. EPA believes 

that in making these determinations, no 

single factor is dispositive. On the 

contrary, for each product category, we 

must weigh the factors and make our 

determination based on the unique set 

of facts and circumstances associated 

with each product category. For 

purposes of making the determination, 

EPA analyzed the components of the 

draft CTGs for the product categories at 

issue and compared the CTGs to the 

types of controls and emission strategies 

possible through a regulation. As we 

explained in 1999, it would be 

unreasonable for EPA, in effect, to have 

to complete both the full rulemaking 

and full CTG development processes 

before being able to make a 

determination under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C) validly. EPA believes that 

for most product categories, it is 

possible for the Agency to make a 

determination between what a rule 

might reasonably be expected to achieve 

versus what a CTG might reasonably be 

expected to achieve, without having to 

complete the entire rulemaking and 

CTG processes. To conclude otherwise 

would result in unnecessary wasting of 

limited time and resources by the 

Agency and the stakeholders 

participating in the processes. 

Moreover, such an approach would be 

directly contrary to CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C), which authorizes EPA to 

issue a CTG in lieu of a regulation if it 

determines that the CTG ‘‘will be 

substantially as effective as’’ a 

regulation in reducing VOC emissions 

in ozone nonattainment areas. 

With regard to the five product 

categories at issue here, EPA notes that 

it does not have reliable quantitative 

data that would enable it to conduct a 

ton-by-ton comparison of the likely 

emission reductions associated with a 

national regulation versus a CTG. 

Although we conducted such a 

comparative analysis in 1999 for the 

product categories of wood furniture 

coatings, aerospace coatings and 

shipbuilding and repair coatings, (64 FR 

37773, July 13, 1999), such analysis is 

not necessary for evaluating likely VOC 

emission reductions, particularly, 

where, as here, a CTG can achieve 

significant emission reductions from 

end-users, which cannot be achieved 

through regulation under CAA section 

183(e). 

E. Proposed Determination 

Based on the factors identified above 

and the facts and circumstances 

associated with each of the Group II 

product categories, EPA proposes to 

determine that CTGs for lithographic 

printing materials, letterpress printing 

materials, flexible packaging printing 

materials, flat wood paneling coatings 

and industrial cleaning solvents will be 

substantially as effective as national 

regulations in reducing VOC emissions 

from facilities located in ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

The following four sections address 

the five product categories that 

comprise Group II of the CAA section 

183(e) list. We address lithographic 

printing materials and letterpress 

printing materials in one section below. 

Although these are two distinct product 

categories in the CAA section 183(e) list, 

offset lithographic printing and 

letterpress printing have many 

similarities in terms of the types of inks 

and cleaning materials used, the sources 

of VOC emissions and the controls 

available to address those emissions. 

Based on these similarities, EPA has 

concluded that it is appropriate to 

address the categories together and to 

issue a single CTG that covers both 

product categories. 

In each of the product-category 

sections below, we provide a general 

description of the industry, identify the 

sources of VOC emissions associated 

with the industry, summarize the 

recommended control techniques in the 

draft CTG and describe the impacts of 

those techniques, and discuss the 

considerations supporting our proposed 

determination under CAA section 

183(e)(3)(C) that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a regulation 

in reducing VOC emissions in ozone 

nonattainment areas from the product 

category at issue. 

The specific subsections below that 

address our proposed determination for 

each product category are organized into 

two parts, each of which addresses two 

of the factors relevant to the CAA 

section 183(e)(1)(C) determination. The 

first part addresses whether it is more 

effective to target the point of 

manufacture of the product or the point 

of use for purposes of reducing VOC 

emissions and discusses whether our 

proposed approach is consistent with 

state and local VOC reduction strategies. 

The second part addresses the product’s 

distribution and place of use and 

discusses the likely VOC emission 

reductions associated with a CTG, as 

compared to a regulation. 

Finally, we propose to find that these 

five product categories are appropriate 

for inclusion on the CAA section 183(e) 

list in accordance with the factors and 

criteria that EPA used to develop the 

original list. See Consumer and 

Commercial Products: Schedule for 

Regulation, 60 FR 15264 (Mar. 23, 

1995). 

F. Availability of Documents 

EPA has prepared four draft CTG 

documents covering the five consumer 

and commercial products source 

categories addressed in this action. 

Lithographic printing materials and 

letterpress printing materials are 

included in one draft CTG document. 

Each of the draft CTGs addresses, among 

other things, RACT recommendations, 

cost impacts, and State and local 

regulations. These draft CTGs are 

available for public comment and are 

contained in the respective dockets 

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 

notice. 

II. Lithographic Printing Materials and 

Letterpress Printing Materials 

A. Industry Characterization 

Lithographic printing materials and 

letterpress printing materials are two of 

the product categories in Group II of the 

section 183(e) list. Not only are these 

distinct product categories, they are 

distinct printing processes. 

Nevertheless, offset lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing have 

many similarities in terms of the types 

of inks and cleaning materials used, the 

sources of VOC emissions and the 

controls available to address these 

emissions. Accordingly, for purposes of 

simplifying the discussion in this 

notice, we have combined the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44527 

discussion of offset lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing. 

1. Source Category Description 

These categories of consumer and 

commercial products include the inks 

and other associated materials used by 

offset lithographic printers and 

letterpress printers. 

Offset lithography is a planographic 

method of printing. The term 

‘‘planographic’’ denotes that the 

printing and non-printing areas are in 

the same plane on the surface of a thin 

metal lithographic plate. To maintain 

the distinction between the areas on the 

lithographic plate, the image area is 

rendered oil receptive, and the nonimage area is rendered water receptive. 

Offset lithography is an indirect 

printing method; that is, ink is not 

transferred directly to a substrate. 

Rather, ink is transferred from the 

lithographic plate to a rubber-covered, 

intermediate ‘‘blanket’’ cylinder and 

then transferred from the blanket 

cylinder to the substrate. The offset 

lithographic process is used for a broad 

range of printing applications, including 

books, magazines, periodicals, labels 

and wrappers, catalogs and directories, 

financial and legal documents, business 

forms, advertising brochures, 

newspapers, newspaper inserts, charts 

and maps, calendars, tickets and 

coupons, greeting cards, and stamps. 

Letterpress printing is a printing 

process in which the image area is 

raised relative to the nonimage area and 

the paste ink is transferred to the 

substrate directly from the image 

surface. Letterpress printing is no longer 

an economically significant segment of 

the printing market. Some newspapers, 

corrugated boxes and kraft paper are 

still printed by letterpress. 

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, 

and Controls 

a. Offset Lithographic Printing 

There are two types of offset 

lithography characterized by the method 

in which the substrate is fed to the 

press. In sheet-fed printing, individual 

sheets of paper or other substrate are fed 

to the press. In web printing, continuous 

rolls of substrate material are fed to the 

press and rewound or cut to size after 

printing. VOC emissions from offset 

lithographic printing result from 

evaporation of components of the inks, 

fountain solutions, and cleaning 

materials. 

The inks used in offset lithographic 

printing are a source of VOC emissions. 

The amount of VOC emitted varies 

depending on the type of offset 

lithographic printing process. 

Heatset web offset lithographic inks 

require heat to set the ink. Heatset web 

inks may contain up to 45 weight 

percent VOC (ink oils). In heatset web 

offset lithographic printing, 20 percent 

of the petroleum ink oils and essentially 

all of the vegetable ink oils are retained 

in the substrate and dry ink film. The 

remaining 80 percent of the petroleum 

ink oil is volatilized in and then 

exhausted from the dryer. Consequently, 

volatilized ink oils can be a significant 

source of VOC emissions from heatset 

web offset lithographic printing 

operations. Most heatset web offset 

lithographic printing dryers, however, 

are equipped with control devices such 

as a thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, 

or chiller condenser. These control 

devices significantly reduce VOC 

emissions from heatset web offset 

lithographic printing. 

Coldset web and sheet-fed offset 

lithographic inks dry by absorption into 

the substrate or by oxidation. The 

petroleum ink oils in sheet-fed and 

coldset web inks have higher boiling 

points than the petroleum ink oils in 

heatset inks. Coldset web inks usually 

contain below 35 percent weight VOC 

(ink oils). Most sheet-fed inks contain 

below 25 weight percent VOC (ink oils). 

In sheet-fed and coldset web offset 

lithographic printing, 95 percent of the 

petroleum ink oils and essentially all of 

the vegetable oils are retained in the 

substrate and dry ink film. As a result, 

VOC emissions from sheet-fed and 

coldset web offset lithographic inks are 

very low. 

Some radiation (ultra-violet and 

electron beam) cured offset lithographic 

materials are also used. These materials 

do not contain ink oils. Their VOC 

content and emissions are usually 

extremely low. 

The second source of VOC emissions 

from offset lithographic printing is the 

fountain solution used in conjunction 

with the inks. Fountain solution is 

unique to lithography and is not used in 

other printing processes. 

Fountain solution is applied to the 

lithographic plate to render the nonimage areas unreceptive to ink. The onpress fountain solution is typically a 

mixture of water and fountain solution 

concentrate. The concentrate contains 

additives such as gum arabic or 

synthetic resins, acids, and buffer salts 

to maintain the pH of the solution, and 

a wetting agent or ‘‘dampening aid’’ to 

enhance the spreadability of the 

fountain solution across the plate. The 

dampening aid reduces the surface 

tension of the water as well as increases 

viscosity. 

Fountain solutions can be the source 

of a significant portion of the VOC 

emitted by offset lithographic printing 

operations. Historically, alcohols such 

as isopropyl alcohol, n-propyl alcohol 

and ethanol were used as the 

dampening aid. Over the past 20 years, 

many printers have reduced their 

emissions from fountain solution by 

reducing the alcohol content of the 

fountain solution or refrigerating the 

fountain solution. In addition, many 

printers have further reduced VOC 

emissions by switching to alcohol 

substitutes, most commonly certain 

glycol ethers. 

The third source of VOC emissions 

from offset lithographic printing is 

cleaning materials. Cleaning materials 

are used to wash the blankets, rollers, 

and outside of presses, and to remove 

residues of excess ink between color 

changes. These materials are typically 

mixtures of organic (often petroleumbased) solvents. Cleaning materials can 

be the source of a significant portion of 

the VOC emitted by lithographic 

printing operations. The keys to 

reducing VOC emissions from offset 

lithographic printing cleaning materials 

are reducing the composite vapor 

pressure of the material used and work 

practices. Low-VOC content waterborne 

cleaning materials have been tested but 

have not proven to be a satisfactory 

alternative. 

b. Letterpress Printing 

The VOC emissions from letterpress 

printing result from the evaporation of 

components of the inks and cleaning 

materials. Fountain solution is not used 

in letterpress printing. Letterpress inks 

are similar to offset lithographic inks. 

They are paste inks containing 

petroleum oils or vegetable oils. Both 

sheet-fed and web presses are used for 

letterpress printing. 

Sheet-fed letterpress presses use 

coldset inks. Most web letterpress 

equipment use coldset inks. These 

letterpress inks are similar in 

composition and behavior to sheet-fed 

and coldset web lithographic inks. In 

sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress 

printing, 95 percent of the petroleum 

ink oils and essentially all of the 

vegetable oils are retained in the 

substrate and dry ink film. As a result, 

VOC emissions from sheet-fed and 

coldset web letterpress inks are very 

low. 

There are also some heatset web 

letterpress printers. Heatset letterpress 

ink is similar to heatset lithographic ink 

with 20 percent of the petroleum ink 

oils and essentially all of the vegetable 

ink oils retained in the substrate and dry 

ink film. The remaining ink oil is 

volatilized in and then exhausted from 

the dryer. Heatset web letterpress 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
44528 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

9See. e.g., Model Volatile Organic Compound 

Rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology: 

Planning for Ozone Nonattainment Pursuant to 

Title I of the Clean Air Act, dated June 1992 

(establishing the 15 lb of VOC per day applicability 

threshold for coating applications for eleven 

industries, including automobile and light duty 

truck coating operations and coating of cans, coil, 

paper, fabric, vinyl, metal furniture, large 

appliances, magnet wire, miscellaneous metal parts, 

and flatwood paneling). 

printing dryers may be equipped with 

control devices such as a thermal 

oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, or chiller 

condenser. These control devices would 

significantly reduce VOC emissions 

from heatset letterpress printing. 

The most significant source of VOC 

emissions in the letterpress process is 

cleaning materials. Cleaning materials 

are used to wash the rollers, plates and 

outside of presses. The cleaning 

materials used for letterpress printing 

are similar to those used in lithographic 

printing. These materials are typically 

mixtures of organic (often petroleumbased) solvents. The keys to reducing 

VOC emissions from letterpress printing 

cleaning materials are reducing the 

composite vapor pressure of the 

material used and work practices. 

3. State and Local Regulations 

Seventeen States or local areas have 

VOC emission regulations for offset 

lithographic printing operations. Five 

states or local areas have regulations for 

letterpress printing operations. These 

rules generally limit the alcohol or 

alcohol substitute content of fountain 

solutions and the composite vapor 

pressure of cleaning materials, and 

require control of heatset dryer exhaust. 

More detail on these rules is provided 

in the draft CTG. 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The draft CTG recommends certain 

control techniques for heatset dryers, 

fountain solution and cleaning. The 

recommendations in the draft CTG 

apply to offset lithographic printing 

operations or letterpress printing 

operations that emit at least 6.8 kg/day 

(15 lb/day) of VOC before consideration 

of control. The 15 lb/day level of 

emissions has been the applicability 

threshold for many CTGs in the past.9

For purposes of determining whether 

this applicability threshold is met, 

emissions from all offset lithographic 

printing, letterpress printing, and 

cleaning activities associated with offset 

lithographic printing or letterpress 

printing at a given facility are included. 

The only exception to this threshold 

relates to the add-on control 

recommendations provided below for 

heatset web offset lithographic printing 

operations and heatset web letterpress 

printing operations, and that exception 

is described below. 

1. Offset Lithographic Printing 

In the draft CTG, the recommended 

level of control for VOC emissions from 

exhaust from heatset web offset 

lithographic dryers is a 90 percent 

reduction in VOC for control equipment 

installed before March 14, 1995. The 

draft CTG further recommends that 

control equipment installed on or after 

March 14, 1995, achieve 95 percent 

efficiency. These levels of control can be 

achieved by thermal oxidizers, catalytic 

oxidizers and chiller condensers. In 

light of technological improvements, 

add-on controls installed on or after 

March 14, 1995 can achieve 95 percent 

VOC reduction. To accommodate 

situations where the inlet VOC 

concentration is so low that a 90 or 95 

percent reduction may not be 

achievable, an outlet concentration 

alternative is also recommended. 

The above recommended levels of 

control apply only to heatset web offset 

lithographic printing operations with 

potential to emit from the dryers of at 

least 25 tpy of VOC combined from 

heatset inks and carryover of alcohol 

substitutes (fountain solution) and low 

vapor pressure automatic blanket wash 

materials, before consideration of 

controls. We are recommending the 25 

tpy threshold for add-on controls for 

heatset ink printers because the limited 

information currently available to us 

suggests that controls for small printers 

may be more costly for a given amount 

of emission reduction. In the 1993 draft 

CTG, EPA examined the cost of 

controlling heatset dryer emissions from 

four different size model plants. Annual 

ink oil emissions, before control, from 

the dryers at these facilities were 

approximately 25, 50, 100 and 200 tons 

per year (tpy). The cost-effectiveness of 

controlling these ink oil emissions was 

estimated to range from $1,300 per ton 

at the largest model facility to $2,300 

per ton at the smallest model facility 

(1990 dollars). In 2005 dollars, this 

equates to $1,800 per ton at the largest 

model facility and $3,100 per ton at the 

smallest model facility. More recently, 

EPA learned of a heatset web offset 

lithographic book printing facility with 

potential to emit 26 tpy of VOC from ink 

and alcohol substitute (fountain 

solution) carryover, before control, from 

the dryers on five heatset web offset 

lithographic presses. Book printing 

tends to have much lighter coverage and 

lower dryer exhaust VOC concentration 

than other types of heatset printing (e.g., 

magazine printing). In this case the VOC 

concentration of the dryer exhaust was 

very low. A 2004 state BACT analysis 

for this facility did not require the 

installation of control equipment. The 

cost per ton of controlling heatset dryer 

emissions was estimated by the facility 

to be $15,500 per ton which is 

significantly higher than that estimated 

for the smallest model facility in the 

1993 draft CTG. 

We recognize that we have limited 

information on small heatset web 

facilities and the costs of controlling 

VOCs emitted from the dryers at these 

smaller sources. To allow us to assess 

the cost of controlling dryer emissions 

at small heatset web facilities and the 

appropriateness of the 25 tpy threshold 

for controlling dryer exhaust from 

heatset web printers, we request 

information on the mass of ink oil 

emissions and mass of alcohol 

substitute and automatic blanket wash 

carryover before control, dryer exhaust 

rates, and other relevant operating 

parameters for facilities with potential 

to emit from heatset dryers up to 100 

tpy. We would also welcome 

information on the experience of 

smaller facilities in controlling their 

dryer emissions, including any 

alternative control approaches, and the 

cost of such controls. 

No limits or controls are 

recommended for VOC emissions from 

sheet-fed and coldset web offset 

lithographic inks. In sheet-fed and 

coldset web offset lithographic printing, 

95 percent of the petroleum ink oils and 

essentially all of the vegetable oils are 

retained in the substrate and dry ink 

film. As a result, VOC emissions from 

sheet-fed and coldset web offset 

lithographic inks are already very low. 

The recommended level of control for 

VOC emissions from fountain solution 

for heatset web printing is 1.6 percent 

alcohol (by weight) in the fountain or 

equivalent. The draft CTG recommends 

three different approaches for achieving 

this recommended level of control. The 

first approach involves reducing the 

alcohol content to 1.6 percent alcohol or 

less (by weight). The second approach 

involves using 3 percent alcohol or less 

(by weight) in the fountain solution 

provided the fountain solution is 

refrigerated to below 60 °F (15.5 °C). 

The third approach involves using 5 

percent alcohol substitute or less (by 

weight) and no alcohol in the fountain 

solution. 

The recommended level of control for 

VOC emissions from fountain solution 

for sheet-fed printing is equivalent to 5 

percent alcohol (by weight) in the 

fountain or equivalent The draft CTG 

recommends three different approaches 

for achieving this recommended level of 

control. The first approach involves 

reducing the alcohol content to 5.0 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44529 

percent alcohol or less (by weight). The 

second approach involves using 8.5 

percent alcohol or less (by weight) in 

the fountain solution provided the 

fountain solution is refrigerated to 

below 60°F (15.5° C). The third 

approach involves using 5 percent 

alcohol substitute or less (by weight) 

and no alcohol in the fountain solution. 

The recommended level of control for 

VOC emissions from fountain solution 

for coldset web is 5 percent alcohol 

substitute or less (by weight) and no 

alcohol in the fountain solution. 

For all types of offset lithographic 

printing, the draft CTG recommends the 

use of cleaning materials with a VOC 

composite partial pressure less than 10 

mm Hg at 20 °C, and that cleaning 

materials and used shop towels be kept 

in closed containers. The draft CTG also 

recommends an allowance for limited, 

209 or 418 liters (55 or 110 gallons) per 

year, use of higher vapor pressure 

cleaning materials. We request 

comments on the appropriate size for 

this allowance and additional 

information on the specific cleaning 

activities which require the use of 

higher vapor pressure cleaning 

materials. 

2. Letterpress Printing 

The recommended level of control for 

VOC emissions from exhaust from 

heatset letterpress dryers is a 90 percent 

reduction in VOC for control equipment 

installed before March 14, 1995. The 

draft CTG further recommends that new 

control equipment installed on or after 

March 14, 1995, be required to achieve 

95 percent efficiency. These levels of 

control can be achieved by thermal 

oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and 

chiller condensers. In light of 

technological improvements, add-on 

controls installed after March 14, 1995 

can achieve 95 percent VOC reduction. 

To accommodate situations where the 

inlet VOC concentration is low, an 

outlet concentration alternative is also 

recommended. 

The above recommended levels of 

control apply only to heatset web 

letterpress printing operations with 

potential to emit from the dryers of at 

least 25 tpy of VOC combined from 

heatset inks and carryover of 

automatically applied low vapor 

pressure cleaning materials, before 

consideration of controls. For the 

reasons explained above, we are 

recommending the 25 tpy threshold for 

add-on controls for heatset ink 

letterpress printers because the limited 

information currently available to us 

suggests that controls for small heatset 

printers may be more costly for a given 

amount of emission reduction. Because 

we have limited information on small 

heatset web letterpress facilities and the 

costs of controlling VOCs emitted from 

the dryers at these smaller sources, we 

request additional information on these 

facilities. The type of information we 

are requesting is specified above in the 

discussion concerning add-on controls 

for heatset web offset lithographic 

printers. 

No limits are recommended for VOC 

emissions from sheet-fed and coldset 

letterpress inks. In sheet-fed and coldset 

web letterpress printing, 95 percent of 

the petroleum ink oils and essentially 

all of the vegetable oils are retained in 

the substrate and dry ink film. As a 

result, VOC emissions from sheet-fed 

and coldset web letterpress inks are 

already very low. 

The draft CTG recommends the use of 

letterpress cleaning materials with a 

VOC composite partial pressure less 

than 10 mm Hg at 20 °C, and that 

cleaning materials and shop used towels 

be kept in closed containers. The 

document also recommends an 

allowance for limited, 209 or 418 liters 

(55 or 110 gallons) per year, use of 

higher vapor pressure cleaning 

materials. We request comments on the 

appropriate size for this allowance and 

additional information on the specific 

cleaning activities which require the use 

of higher vapor pressure cleaning 

materials. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

In the 1993 draft CTG, EPA estimated 

baseline emissions from the offset 

lithographic printing industry in ozone 

nonattainment areas, based on 1990 

data, to be 820,000 tons per year (with 

62,000 tpy coming from ink, 631,000 tpy 

from fountain solution and 126,000 tpy 

from cleaning.) Commenters on the 1993 

draft CTG asserted that the alcohol 

content (17 percent) used to generate 

this estimate was too high and that the 

assumed ratio of fountain solution usage 

to ink usage was also too high. Baseline 

emissions from fountain solution may 

have been overestimated in 1993 by a 

factor of 2 to 3. This would reduce 

industry wide baseline emissions to 

between 400,000 to 500,000 tpy. As for 

letterpress printers, we have limited 

emissions data information for this 

industry. Based on available 

information, we estimate that VOC 

emissions from the letterpress printing 

industry as of 1990 were about 28,000 

tons per year. 

Based on VOC emissions data and 

April 2006 ozone nonattainment 

designations, EPA estimates that 6,700 

offset lithographic printing facilities and 

2,200 letterpress printing facilities 

would be affected by the draft CTG. We 

estimate the cost effectiveness of the 

recommended control techniques for 

offset lithographic printing to be $2,000/ 

ton of VOC removed for heatset web 

dryers and $850/ton of VOC removed 

for cleaning materials. A cost savings is 

estimated for fountain solution. We 

estimate the cost effectiveness of the 

recommended control techniques for 

letterpress heatset web dryers and 

letterpress printing cleaning materials to 

be similar to the cost effectiveness for 

offset lithographic heatset dryers and 

offset lithographic printing cleaning 

materials. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to issue a 

national rule or a CTG for the product 

categories of lithographic printing 

materials and letterpress printing 

materials under section 183(e)(3)(C), we 

analyzed the four factors identified 

above in Section I.D in light of the 

specific facts and circumstances 

associated with these product 

categories. Based on that analysis, we 

propose to determine that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a rule in 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

ozone nonattainment areas from 

lithographic printing materials and 

letterpress printing materials. 

As noted above, this section is 

divided into two parts. In the first part, 

we discuss our belief that the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions in these two 

categories is through controls at the 

point of use of the product (i.e., through 

controls on printers), and this can only 

be accomplished through a CTG. We 

further explain that the approaches in 

the draft CTG are consistent with 

existing effective state and local VOC 

strategies. In the second part, we discuss 

how the distribution and place of use of 

the products in each of these categories 

also support the use of a CTG. We 

further explain that there are control 

approaches for these two categories that 

result in significant VOC emission 

reductions and that such reductions 

could only be obtained by controlling 

the use of the product through a CTG. 

Such reductions could not be obtained 

through a regulation under section 

183(e) because the controls affect the 

end-user, which cannot be a regulated 

entity under section 183(e)(1)(C). 

Accordingly, for these reasons and the 

reasons described more fully below, we 

believe that a CTG will achieve greater 

VOC emission reductions than a rule for 

these two categories. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
44530 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

10This section addresses offset lithographic 

printing only because fountain solutions are not 

used in letterpress printing. 

1. The Most Effective Entity To Target 

for VOC Reductions and Consistency 

With State and Local VOC Strategies 

To evaluate the most effective entity 

to target for VOC reductions, it is 

important to first identify the primary 

sources of VOC emissions. There are 

three main sources of VOC emissions 

from offset lithography: (1) Evaporation 

of VOC from the inks; (2) evaporation of 

VOC from the fountain solution; and (3) 

evaporation of VOC from the cleaning 

materials. VOC emissions associated 

with letterpress printing stem from inks 

and cleaning materials only; fountain 

solutions are not used in letterpress 

printing. We address each of these 

sources of VOC emissions, in turn, 

below, as we discuss the CTG versus 

regulation approach. 

a. Inks 

A national rule could contain limits 

for the as-sold VOC content of offset 

lithographic inks and letterpress inks, 

but given the nature of the offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing processes, this would result, in 

little, if any, reduction in VOC 

emissions. 

Inks are a significant source of VOC 

emissions from heatset web offset 

lithographic printing and heatset web 

letterpress printing. In these processes, 

heat is applied in a dryer to set the inks. 

As a result of the heating process, about 

80 percent of the petroleum ink oil 

(VOC) is volatilized in the dryer. The 

remaining 20 percent of petroleum ink 

oil and all of the vegetable ink oil is 

retained in the substrate and dry ink 

film. Since the vegetable ink oil does 

not volatilize in the dryer, the amount 

of vegetable ink oil that can be used in 

heatset inks is very limited. If there is 

too much vegetable oil in a heatset ink, 

the ink will not dry properly. 

Control devices, such as thermal 

oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, or chiller 

condensers, can achieve a 90 percent or 

greater reduction in VOC emissions 

from heatset dryers. In light of the 

significant reductions in VOC emissions 

obtained with such devices, existing 

State and local regulations that address 

offset lithography require the use of 

controls on heatset dryer exhaust. The 

same controls are equally applicable to 

heatset letterpress dryers. 

We could not require such control 

devices at printers through a national 

rule, because, pursuant to CAA section 

183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the regulated 

entities subject to a national rule would 

be the ink manufacturers and suppliers, 

not the printers. The draft CTG applies 

to printers, as the end users of the inks, 

and specifically recommends limiting 

emissions by requiring printers to install 

and operate control devices on heatset 

dryers. 

Although both a national rule and a 

CTG could, in theory, achieve some 

reduction in VOC emissions from 

heatset web inks by requiring minimum 

vegetable oil content or limiting the 

ratio of petroleum oil to vegetable oil, 

we do not believe that such an approach 

is appropriate for addressing the 

emissions associated with these inks. As 

noted above, only very limited amounts 

of vegetable oil can be used in heatset 

inks. As a result, only a small emission 

reduction could be achieved, and we 

believe that this emission reduction—

whether pursued through a rule or 

CTG—would not be cost-effective. 

Accordingly, the draft CTG does not 

contain restrictions on vegetable oil 

content. Given the significant 

reductions achievable through use of 

add-on control devices and the limited 

reductions that would be achieved by a 

national rule for heatset inks, the most 

effective entity to regulate VOC 

emissions associated with heatset web 

offset lithographic inks and heatset 

letterpress inks is the printer. 

The VOC emissions from sheet-fed 

and coldset web lithographic inks and 

sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress 

inks are inherently very low. First, these 

inks are lower VOC-content inks than 

heatset web inks. Second, 95 percent of 

the petroleum ink oil and essentially all 

of the vegetable ink oil in sheet-fed and 

coldset web lithographic inks and sheetfed and coldset web letterpress inks do 

not evaporate and are retained in the 

substrate and dry ink film. Because only 

a small percentage of the sheet-fed and 

coldset web lithographic and letterpress 

ink oils evaporate, VOC emissions 

associated with these inks are small. 

Although both a national rule and a 

CTG could, in theory, achieve some 

reduction in VOC emissions from sheetfed and coldset web inks by requiring a 

minimum vegetable oil content or 

limiting the ratio of petroleum oil to 

vegetable oil, we do not believe that 

such an approach is appropriate for 

addressing the limited emissions 

associated with these inks. Only a small 

emission reduction could be achieved, 

and we believe that this emission 

reduction—whether pursued through a 

rule or a CTG—would not be costeffective. There are therefore no 

restrictions on vegetable oil content in 

the draft CTG. 

In addition, there are no cost-effective 

control devices to address VOC 

emissions from sheet-fed and coldset 

web lithographic and letterpress 

printers because the emissions that 

occur from these processes are diffuse 

and spread over a large area. Such 

emissions stand in contrast to those 

associated with heatset offset web 

lithographic inks and heatset letterpress 

inks, as the petroleum oils in those inks 

volatilize in a dryer and can be 

controlled in a cost-effective manner 

because they are emitted in a more 

concentrated form from a discrete 

source. Thus, the draft CTG, while a 

viable approach for addressing VOC 

emissions associated with heatset web 

inks with add-on controls, does not 

contain any add-on control 

recommendations for sheet-fed and 

coldset web inks because of the absence 

of any cost-effective control devices. 

b. Fountain Solutions 10

Fountain solutions contain alcohol or 

alcohol substitutes, which are VOCs. 

Fountain solutions are generally 

purchased in the form of fountain 

solution concentrate from vendors 

serving offset lithographic printers. The 

printers—the end-users of the fountain 

solution—buy the concentrate and 

dilute it with water to make ‘‘pressready’’ fountain solution. The more the 

concentrate is diluted, the lower the 

VOC content of the press-ready fountain 

solution and the fewer VOC emissions 

result. 

A national rule requiring fountain 

solution concentrate manufacturers and 

suppliers to package the fountain 

solution concentrate with less VOC 

would not be an effective means of 

addressing VOC emissions in ozone 

nonattainment areas. In this regard, we 

could, in theory, require the 

manufacturer or supplier to sell only 

pre-diluted fountain solution with a 

specified amount of VOC content. The 

effect of such a rule could be easily 

subverted, however, because the rule 

would not, in any way, affect the actions 

of the end-user of the fountain solution, 

i.e., the printers. In particular, printers 

can purchase alcohol or alcohol 

substitutes from a variety of sources and 

add these to the pre-diluted fountain 

solution concentrate, which would 

effectively nullify the reformulation 

actions of the manufacturer and 

supplier, resulting in no net change in 

VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment 

areas. By contrast, a CTG can reach the 

users of the product and can therefore 

implement controls or practices by the 

user that are more likely to achieve the 

intended VOC emission reduction goal. 

In addition, printers purchase 

fountain solution concentrate with the 

intention of diluting the solution with 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44531 

water, as appropriate, for the particular 

printing at issue. Thus, a regulation 

requiring dilution of the fountain 

solution concentrate by the 

manufacturer would be redundant of the 

actions that will be taken by the 

printers. The only result of such a 

national regulation would be increased 

shipping costs for printers. Shipping 

costs would increase because diluting 

the fountain solution concentrate would 

increase the volume of material to be 

shipped to the printers. 

A national rule also, in theory, could 

prohibit fountain solution 

manufacturers and suppliers from 

selling fountain solution concentrates 

which contain alcohol or alcohol 

substitutes. Similar to the reformulation 

strategy described above, the net effect 

of such a rule could be easily nullified 

by actions of the printers, because 

nothing precludes the printers from 

purchasing alcohol or alcohol 

substitutes from vendors that would not 

be subject to the section 183(e) 

regulation. Moreover, most offset 

lithographic printing requires some 

alcohol or alcohol substitute in the 

fountain solution, so prohibiting alcohol 

or alcohol substitutes in fountain 

solution concentrate would be 

impractical. 

Although a national rule could, in 

theory, prohibit the sale of all alcohol 

and alcohol substitutes regardless of 

specified end use for purposes of 

reducing VOC emissions from the offset 

lithographic and letterpress printing 

industries, such an approach is 

unreasonable and impractical, as it 

would preclude the use of alcohol in all 

contexts just to obtain VOC reductions 

in ozone nonattainment areas from two 

limited product categories. A more 

effective approach is to target reductions 

through controls on the end-user, the 

printers, through a CTG. Specifically, 

the draft CTG recommends limiting the 

on-press VOC (alcohol or alcohol 

substitute) content of fountain solutions, 

or refrigerating the fountain solution to 

reduce evaporation of VOC. These 

approaches are consistent with 

approaches already taken by State and 

local authorities, and they have proven 

effective in reducing VOC emissions. 

c. Cleaning Materials 

There are two primary means to 

control VOC emissions associated with 

the cleaning materials used in the offset 

lithographic printing process and the 

letterpress printing process: (1) Limiting 

the composite vapor pressure of the 

cleaning materials, and (2) 

implementing work practices governing 

the use of the product. A national rule 

affecting lithographic cleaning material 

and letterpress cleaning material 

manufacturers that limits the composite 

vapor pressure of VOC in the cleaning 

materials sold suffers from the same 

deficiencies noted above with regard to 

fountain solutions. Specifically, 

although lithographic printers and 

letterpress printers generally purchase 

cleaning materials from vendors serving 

their respective industry, nothing in a 

national rule governing manufacturers 

would preclude them from purchasing 

bulk solvents or other multipurpose 

cleaning materials from other vendors. 

The general availability of bulk solvents 

or multipurpose cleaning materials from 

vendors that would not be subject to the 

regulation would directly undermine 

the effectiveness of the regulation. 

A national rule also could, in theory, 

limit the composite vapor pressure of all 

cleaning materials and all solvents sold 

regardless of specified end use, which 

would ensure that only low composite 

vapor pressure materials are available 

for lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing. Such an approach is 

unreasonable and impractical. Cleaning 

materials and solvents are sold for 

multiple different commercial and 

industrial purposes. Reducing the vapor 

pressure of all materials merely to 

achieve VOC emission reduction from 

two limited product categories, could 

preclude the use of such materials in 

many important, legitimate contexts. 

The more effective approach for 

obtaining VOC reductions from cleaning 

materials used by offset lithographic 

printers and letterpress printers is to 

control the use of such materials by the 

printers through a CTG. The draft CTG 

recommends limiting the composite 

vapor pressure of offset lithographic and 

letterpress cleaning materials. With the 

CTG, the composite vapor pressure 

restrictions would apply to the printer 

regardless of the source of the cleaning 

materials and solvents. 

Significantly, we could not impose 

work practices through a section 183(e) 

rule. Work practices, by their nature, are 

directed at the end-user of the product. 

The draft CTG recommends work 

practices such as keeping shop towels in 

closed containers. This measure alone 

results in significant reductions in VOC 

cleaning emissions, when used in 

conjunction with low composite vapor 

pressure cleaning materials. These 

reductions would not be possible 

through a section 183(e) regulation 

because, by statute, such regulations do 

not apply to the end-user. Finally, the 

approaches recommended in the CTG 

are consistent with approaches taken by 

States and localities for cleaning 

materials, and these approaches have 

proven effective in reducing VOC 

emissions. 

Based on the nature of the offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing processes, the sources of 

significant VOC emissions from those 

processes, and the available strategies 

for reducing such emissions, the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions from these product 

categories is through controls at the 

point of use of the products, (i.e., 

through controls on printers), and this 

can only be accomplished through a 

CTG. The approaches described in the 

draft CTG are also consistent with 

effective state and local VOC control 

strategies. These two factors alone 

demonstrate that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only 

further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for offset lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing 

products. 

First, the products described above 

are used at commercial printing 

facilities in specific, identifiable 

locations. This stands in contrast to 

other consumer products, such as 

architectural coatings, that are widely 

distributed and used by innumerable 

small users (e.g., individual consumers 

in the general public). Because the VOC 

emissions are occurring at commercial 

printing facilities, implementation and 

enforcement of controls concerning the 

use of products are feasible and 

therefore the nature of the product’s 

place of use further counsels in favor of 

the CTG approach. 

Second, a CTG will achieve equal or 

greater emission reduction than a 

national rule for each source of VOC 

emissions from offset lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing. In 

total, the CTG will achieve greater 

emission reductions because, as 

explained above, there are certain 

control strategies, applicable to the enduser of the product, that achieve 

significant VOC reductions. In 

particular, a CTG will achieve a 

significant reduction of VOC emissions 

(90 percent or greater) from heatset inks 

through the use of control devices on 

dryers used in heatset web offset 

lithographic printing and heatset web 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
44532 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

letterpress printing. A CTG also 

provides for work practices associated 

with cleaning materials. The VOC 

reductions associated with these 

measures could not be obtained through 

a national regulation because they 

require the implementation of measures 

by the end-user. 

In addition, there are certain strategies 

that arguably could be implemented 

through rulemaking, but are far more 

effective if implemented directly at the 

point of use of the product. For the 

reasons described above, it is more 

effective to control the alcohol or 

alcohol-substitutes content of fountain 

solution concentrate and the composite 

vapor pressure of cleaning materials 

through a CTG, than a regulation. 

Furthermore, the number of sources 

affected by a CTG, as compared to the 

number of sources in nonattainment 

areas does not change our conclusion 

that the CTG would, in total, achieve 

greater VOC emission reductions than a 

rule. Based on the April 2006 

designations, we estimate that 6,700 

offset lithographic printing facilities, 

and 2,200 letterpress printing facilities 

would be affected by the draft CTG. We 

further estimate that there are 30,500 

offset lithographic printing facilities and 

11,000 letterpress printing facilities 

located in ozone nonattainment areas. 

Although there is a large difference 

between the number of facilities affected 

by the CTG, as compared to the number 

of facilities in nonattainment areas, the 

facilities not covered by the CTG are 

predominantly small sheet-fed printing 

facilities that, as demonstrated above, 

are inherently low VOC emitters. 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with these product 

categories, we propose to determine that 

a CTG for offset lithographic printing 

and letterpress printing will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

III. Flexible Packaging Printing 

Materials 

A. Industry Characterization 

1. Source Category Description 

Flexible packaging refers to any 

package or part of a package the shape 

of which can be readily changed. 

Flexible packaging includes, but is not 

limited to, bags, pouches, labels, liners, 

and wraps utilizing paper, plastic, film, 

aluminum foil, metalized or coated 

paper or film, or any combination of 

these materials. Printing, coating, 

laminating, and the use of adhesives, 

primers, and varnishes may all be 

performed on or in-line with a flexible 

packaging printing press, and these 

activities are included in the source 

category. 

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, 

and Controls 

The primary source of VOC emissions 

from the flexible packaging printing 

industry is evaporation of components 

of the printing inks, coatings, adhesives 

and cleaning materials. 

About 80 percent of flexible 

packaging printing is performed using 

rotogravure processes. Gravure printing 

is a printing process in which an image 

(type and art) is etched or engraved 

below the surface of a plate or cylinder. 

Rotogravure package printing uses a 

wide variety of different ink systems, 

including solvent systems (using 

aromatic, aliphatic and oxygenated 

hydrocarbon solvent-borne inks), and 

waterborne inks. VOC are contained in 

the printing inks, coatings, adhesives 

and cleaning materials. 

In flexographic printing, the image is 

raised above the printing plate, and the 

image carrier is made of rubber or other 

elastomeric materials. The major 

applications of flexographic printing are 

flexible and rigid packaging; tags and 

labels; newspapers, magazines, and 

directories; and paper towels, tissues, 

etc. Flexographic inks include both 

waterborne and solvent-based systems. 

Solvents used must be compatible with 

the rubber or polymeric plates; thus, 

aromatic solvents are not used. VOC are 

contained in the printing inks, coatings, 

adhesives and cleaning materials. 

There are two approaches to reducing 

VOC emissions from the inks, coatings 

and adhesives used in the flexible 

packaging printing industry. The first 

approach includes improving existing 

capture and/or control systems or 

adding control systems where none are 

in use. The second approach, focusing 

on pollution prevention, is to substitute 

lower VOC content or VOC-free inks, 

coatings and adhesives for higher VOC 

content materials presently in use. The 

controls employed are influenced by the 

type of inks, coatings and adhesives 

used, the printing process being used, 

the substrate, and performance 

requirements for the end product. 

Capture systems in use include 

combinations of dryer exhausts, floor 

sweeps, hoods, and total enclosures. 

Pressroom ventilation air can also be 

exhausted to a control device. Capture 

efficiencies can vary widely; the 

differences in efficiency contribute 

much more to the variation in overall 

efficiencies than the choice of control 

device. Control devices in use include 

carbon adsorbers, thermal oxidizers, and 

catalytic oxidizers. 

Many facilities in the packaging 

rotogravure and flexographic printing 

industries use waterborne inks. These 

inks typically contain a small 

proportion of alcohols or glycol ethers 

which function to reduce surface 

tension and improve flow 

characteristics. Waterborne inks are 

being used successfully for printing on 

paper packaging and for printing on 

non-absorbent packaging substrates 

such as plastics, aluminum, and 

laminates. 

Use of waterborne inks for rotogravure 

printing is increasing; however, 

problems still limit their use at press 

speeds above 1,000 feet per minute. 

Their use may require redesign of the 

system (e.g., changes in ink formulation, 

cylinder engraving, press operation, and 

dryer design) for rotogravure flexible 

packaging printing. While use of 

waterborne inks reduces or eliminates 

VOC emissions, their higher surface 

tension and slower drying rate continue 

to be obstacles to their expanded use. 

There is widespread use of 

waterborne inks in flexographic 

printing. Most of these facilities have no 

control devices, and may have 

converted from solvent-borne to 

waterborne materials to avoid the need 

to install control devices to comply with 

VOC regulations. Flexographic printing 

is more easily adapted to the use of 

waterborne materials, and may not 

require redesign of the system. 

Flexible packaging producers print on 

many different substrates within the 

same facility. Low-VOC inks are not 

available to meet all of the performance 

requirements of the products produced 

at these facilities or for all substrates in 

all of the colors required by some 

facilities. 

3. State and Local Regulations 

At least 34 States and several more 

local agencies have regulations that 

control VOC emissions from rotogravure 

and flexographic printing for flexible 

packaging. The majority of these 

agencies have adopted control levels 

consistent with the 1978 RACT levels of 

65 percent overall control for 

rotogravure, 60 percent overall control 

for flexography, or use of inks, coatings 

and adhesives with less than or equal to 

25 percent by volume VOC in their 

volatile fraction, more than 60 volume 

percent solids less water, or less than 

0.5 kg of VOC per kg of solids. More 

recently issued regulations for flexible 

package printing operations are more 

stringent than the recommendations 

found in the 1978 CTG. These 

regulations have overall control 

efficiency requirements ranging from 66 

percent to 85 percent. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44533 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The draft CTG recommends certain 

control techniques for flexible 

packaging printing (inks, coatings and 

adhesives) and cleaning. The 

recommendations in the draft CTG 

apply to flexible packaging printing 

operations that emit at least 6.8 kg/day 

(15 lb/day) of VOC before consideration 

of control. This level of emissions has 

been the applicability threshold for 

many CTG in the past. For purposes of 

this threshold, emissions from all 

flexible packaging printing and cleaning 

activities associated with flexible 

packaging printing at a given facility are 

included. The only exception to this 

threshold relates to the control 

recommendations provided below for 

emissions from inks, coatings and 

adhesives, and that exception is 

described below. 

1. Inks, Coatings and Adhesives 

More recently installed presses are 

capable of achieving greater capture 

efficiencies than older presses. For 

presses first installed prior to March 14, 

1995, the draft CTG recommends an 

overall capture and control efficiency of 

70 percent for flexible packaging 

printers. Alternative ‘‘as-applied’’ ink, 

coating and adhesive limits of 0.5 kg of 

VOC/kg of solids applied (0.5 lb of 

VOC/lb of solids applied) or 0.10 kg of 

VOC/kg of materials applied (0.10 lb of 

VOC/lb of materials applied) are also 

recommended. 

For presses installed on or after March 

14, 1995, the draft CTG recommends an 

overall capture and control efficiency of 

80 percent for flexible packaging 

printers. Alternative ‘‘as-applied’’ ink, 

coating and adhesive limits of 0.5 kg 

VOC/kg of solids applied (0.5 lb of 

VOC/lb of solids applied) or 0.10 kg 

VOC/kg of materials applied (0.10 lb of 

VOC/lb of materials applied) are also 

recommended. 

The above recommended levels of 

control apply only to flexible packaging 

printing operations with potential to 

emit at least 25 tpy of VOC from inks, 

coatings and adhesives combined before 

consideration of controls. We are 

recommending the 25 tpy threshold 

because not all flexible packaging 

facilities can use low VOC content inks, 

coatings and adhesives, and because the 

limited information currently available 

to us suggests that add-on controls for 

small printers may be more costly for a 

given amount of emission reduction. 

Based on available information, we 

estimate that for a press exhausting 

approximately 5,800 cubic feet per 

minute, operating 2000 hours per year, 

and achieving 70 percent capture 

efficiency, the VOC emission reduction 

achieved by add-on controls would 

range from 30 to 60 megagrams (Mg) (33 

to 66 tons) per year and the cost 

effectiveness would range from $1,400/ 

Mg to $3,100/Mg ($1,300/ton to 2,800/ 

ton) depending on the average hourly 

solvent use rate. At lower solvent use 

rates, the cost per ton of emission 

controlled would likely be higher. 

We recognize that we have limited 

information on small flexible packaging 

printing facilities and the cost of add-on 

controls to reduce VOCs emitted from 

inks, coatings and adhesives at these 

smaller sources. To allow us to assess 

the cost of controlling emissions from 

inks, coatings and adhesives at small 

flexible packaging printing facilities and 

the appropriateness of the 25 tpy 

threshold for recommending control of 

these emissions, we request information 

on the mass of VOC emissions from 

inks, coatings and adhesives before 

control, dryer exhaust rates, press 

utilization rates and other relevant 

operating parameters for these smaller 

facilities. We would also welcome 

information on the experience of 

smaller facilities in controlling these 

emissions, including any alternative 

control approaches, and the cost of such 

controls. 

2. Work Practices for Cleaning Materials 

The draft CTG recommends work 

practice requirements to ensure that all 

cleaning materials are stored in closed 

containers; spills are minimized; 

cleaning materials are conveyed from 

one location to another in closed 

containers or pipes; and emissions of 

VOC are minimized during cleaning of 

equipment. The draft CTG also 

recommends that used shop towels be 

stored in closed containers. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

EPA estimates that there are a total of 

219 facilities located in ozone 

nonattainment areas (based on April 

2006 designations). Based on VOC 

emissions data, EPA estimates that there 

are approximately 100 facilities in 

ozone nonattainment areas that would 

be affected based on the 6.8 kg/day (15 

lb/day) VOC emissions applicability 

threshold. 

Nonattainment area VOC emissions 

(based on April 2006 designations) are 

estimated to range from 8,636 to 16,364 

Mg/yr (9,500 to 18,000 tpy). Many 

facilities located in ozone 

nonattainment areas are already meeting 

the control levels recommended in the 

draft CTG. These facilities may be using 

capture and control systems or low VOC 

content inks, coatings and adhesives. 

The costs for facilities using higher VOC 

materials that are not currently 

controlled and will be subject to RACT 

for the first time will vary depending on 

the flow rate, hourly solvent use rate, 

and operating hours. Although we do 

not have sufficient information for the 

industry as a whole to estimate the costs 

of the recommended control 

approaches, we have information on 

certain sources from which we can 

estimate the likely emissions reductions 

and costs for a typical source subject to 

control for the first time. 

As noted above, on a relatively small 

flexible packaging press exhausting 

approximately 5,800 cubic feet per 

minute, operating 2000 hours per year, 

and achieving 70 percent capture 

efficiency, we estimate the VOC 

emission reduction to range from 30 to 

60 megagrams (Mg) (33 to 66 tons) per 

year and the cost effectiveness to range 

from $1,400/Mg to $3,100/Mg ($1,300/ 

ton to $2,800/ton) depending on the 

average hourly solvent use rate. 

Increasing the hourly solvent use rate, 

annual operating hours, or capture 

efficiency of this size press would 

increase the annual VOC emission 

reduction and improve the cost 

effectiveness. Larger presses with 

proportionately larger hourly solvent 

use rates would also have larger annual 

VOC emission reductions and better 

cost effectiveness than smaller presses. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to do a 

national rule or a CTG for the flexible 

packaging printing materials category, 

we evaluated the factors noted above in 

Section I.D of this notice in light of the 

specific facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category. 

Given the nature of the flexible 

packaging printing process, the sources 

of VOC emissions from this process and 

the available strategies for reducing 

VOC emissions from this process, we 

propose to determine that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a rule in 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

ozone nonattainment areas from the 

flexible packaging printing materials 

product category. 

1. The Most Effective Entity To Target 

for VOC Reductions and Consistency 

With State and Local VOC Strategies 

To evaluate the most effective entity 

to target for VOC reductions, it is 

important to first identify the primary 

sources of VOC emissions. There are 

two main sources of VOC emissions 

from flexible package printing: (1) 

Evaporation of VOC from inks, coatings, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
44534 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

and adhesives; and (2) evaporation of 

VOC from cleaning materials. We 

address each of these sources of VOC 

emissions, in turn, below, as we discuss 

the CTG versus regulation approach. 

a. Inks, Coatings, and Adhesives 

While there is already significant use 

of low-VOC inks, coatings and 

adhesives, not all flexible packaging 

printing can be done with low-VOC 

content materials. In addition, in some 

cases where low-VOC content materials 

could be used for some or all of the 

products produced by a particular 

printer, there can be significant 

equipment costs associated with 

switching to low-VOC content materials. 

For example, in order to switch from 

solvent-borne materials to waterborne 

materials, a rotogravure printer would 

need to re-engrave all of its rotogravure 

cylinders. In other cases significant 

modifications may need to be made to 

dryers. 

A national rule could, in theory, limit 

the as-sold VOC content of inks, 

coatings and adhesives used for specific 

purposes in flexible packaging printing. 

This would in essence be specifying 

which print work must be done with 

waterborne or other low-VOC content 

materials and which print work may be 

done with solvent-borne materials. 

During the development of the national 

emission standard for hazardous air 

pollutants for the printing and 

publishing industry, we identified many 

inks, coatings and adhesives with low 

hazardous air pollutant (HAP) content; 

however, we were unable to identify 

specific print work that could always be 

performed with low HAP content 

materials. Similarly, given the wide 

variety of flexible packaging products; 

the wide variety of combinations of 

substrates, inks, coatings and adhesives 

used to make these products; the wide 

variety of products that may be printed 

on an individual press; and the wide 

variation in the capabilities of 

individual presses, we do not believe 

that we would be able to identify 

specific print work that could always be 

performed with waterborne or other 

low-VOC content materials. As a result, 

we do not believe we could create an 

effective national rule which specified 

which print work must be done with 

waterborne or other low-VOC content 

materials and which print work may be 

done with solvent-borne materials. 

Alternatively, a national rule could 

contain limits for the as-sold VOC 

content of broad categories of flexible 

packaging printing inks, coatings, and 

adhesives, but given the nature of the 

flexible package printing process, this 

would result in little, if any, reduction 

in VOC emissions. For example, a 

national rule could categorize inks by 

their chemistry into waterborne inks, 

other low-VOC content inks, and 

solvent-borne inks and set VOC content 

limits for each category. Such a rule 

would not restrict the type of work that 

could be conducted with each type of 

ink. Structuring a rule in this fashion 

would not result in significant 

reductions in VOC emissions because 

solvent-borne inks, which are the 

primary source of VOC emissions, 

would still be allowed to have high VOC 

content, and a national rule would not 

require printers to use add-on controls 

in conjunction with these high VOC 

content materials. It is more effective to 

address the emissions associated with 

solvent-borne inks at the point of use 

through a CTG. 

Indeed, control devices, such as 

thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, or 

carbon adsorbers, can achieve 

significant reductions in VOC emissions 

from high VOC content inks, coatings 

and adhesives. Existing State and local 

regulations that address flexible 

packaging printing authorize the use of 

high VOC content materials in 

conjunction with control devices or the 

use equivalent low-VOC content 

materials. 

We could not require control devices 

at printers through a national rule, 

because, pursuant to CAA section 

183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the regulated 

entities subject to a national rule would 

be the ink, coating and adhesive 

manufacturers and suppliers, not the 

printers. The draft CTG applies to 

printers, as the end users of the inks, 

coatings and adhesives, and specifically 

recommends limiting emissions by 

requiring printers to install and operate 

control devices or to use equivalent lowVOC content materials. Given the 

significant reductions achievable 

through use of add-on control devices, 

the most effective entity to regulate to 

address VOC emissions associated with 

flexible packaging inks, coatings and 

adhesives is the printer. 

b. Cleaning Materials 

There are two primary means to 

control VOC emissions associated with 

the cleaning materials used in the 

flexible packaging printing process: (1) 

Limiting the composite vapor pressure 

of the cleaning materials and (2) 

implementing work practices governing 

the use of the product. 

A national rule affecting flexible 

packaging printing cleaning material 

manufacturers that limits the composite 

vapor pressure of VOC in the cleaning 

materials sold would suffer from the 

same deficiencies noted above with 

regard lithographic printing fountain 

solutions and lithographic printing and 

letterpress printing cleaning materials. 

Specifically, although flexible packaging 

printers may purchase cleaning 

materials from vendors serving their 

respective industry, nothing in a 

national rule governing manufacturers 

would preclude them from purchasing 

bulk solvents or other multipurpose 

cleaning materials from other vendors. 

The general availability of bulk solvents 

or multipurpose cleaning materials from 

vendors that would not be subject to the 

regulation would directly undermine 

the effectiveness of the regulation. 

A national rule also could, in theory, 

limit the composite vapor pressure of all 

cleaning materials and all solvents sold 

regardless of specified end use, which 

would ensure that only low composite 

vapor pressure materials are available 

for flexible packaging printing. Such an 

approach is unreasonable and 

impractical. Cleaning materials and 

solvents are sold for multiple different 

commercial and industrial purposes. 

Reducing the vapor pressure of all 

cleaning materials and solvents merely 

to achieve VOC emission reduction from 

flexible packaging printing, would 

preclude the use of such materials in 

many important, legitimate contexts. 

The more effective approach for 

obtaining VOC reductions from cleaning 

materials used by flexible packaging 

printers is to control the use of such 

materials by the printers through a CTG. 

The draft CTG recommends limiting the 

composite vapor pressure of flexible 

packaging cleaning materials. With the 

CTG, the composite vapor pressure 

restrictions would apply to the printer 

regardless of the source of the cleaning 

materials and solvents. 

Significantly, we could not impose 

work practices through a CAA section 

183(e) rule. Work practices, by their 

nature, are directed at the end-user of 

the product. The draft CTG recommends 

work practices such as keeping shop 

towels in closed containers. This 

measure alone results in significant 

reductions in VOC cleaning emissions, 

when used in conjunction with low 

composite vapor pressure cleaning 

materials. These reductions would not 

be possible through a CAA section 

183(e) regulation because, by statute, 

such regulations do not apply to the 

end-user. Finally, the approaches 

recommended in the CTG are consistent 

with approaches taken by States and 

localities for cleaning materials, and 

these approaches have proven effective 

in reducing VOC emissions. 

Based on the nature of the flexible 

packaging printing process, the sources 

of significant VOC emissions from this 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44535 

process, and the available strategies for 

reducing such emissions, the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions from this product 

category is through controls at the point 

of use of the products, (i.e., through 

controls on printers), and this can only 

be accomplished through a CTG. The 

approaches described in the draft CTG 

are also consistent with effective state 

and local VOC control strategies. These 

two factors alone demonstrate that a 

CTG will be substantially as effective as 

a national regulation. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination 

only further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for flexible packaging 

printing products. 

First, the products described above 

are used at commercial printing 

facilities in specific, identifiable 

locations. This stands in contrast to 

other consumer products, such as 

architectural coatings, that are widely 

distributed and used by innumerable 

small users (e.g., individual consumers 

in the general public). Because the VOC 

emissions are occurring at commercial 

printing facilities, implementation and 

enforcement of controls concerning the 

use of products are feasible and 

therefore the nature of the product’s 

place of use further counsels in favor of 

the CTG approach. 

Second, as described above, a CTG 

will achieve equal or greater emission 

reductions than a national rule for each 

source of VOC emissions from flexible 

packaging printing. In total, the CTG 

will achieve greater emission reductions 

because, as explained above, there are 

certain control strategies, applicable to 

the end-user of the product, that achieve 

significant VOC reductions. In 

particular, the only mechanism by 

which to achieve the significant VOC 

reductions associated with installing 

add-on controls, which is one of the 

recommended approaches for 

addressing VOC emissions from inks, 

coatings, and adhesives, is through a 

CTG. The VOC reductions associated 

with work practices similarly can only 

be achieved through a CTG as it affects 

the end-user. Although a regulation 

could impose low VOC content 

restrictions for inks, coatings, and 

adhesives, and vapor pressure limits for 

cleaning materials, we believe, for the 

reasons described above, that it is far 

more effective to control these materials 

at the point of use, rather than the point 

of manufacture. 

Furthermore, the number of sources 

affected by a CTG, as compared to the 

number of sources in nonattainment 

areas does not change our conclusion 

that the CTG would, in total, achieve 

greater VOC emission reductions than a 

rule. Based on the April 2006 

designations, we estimate that 

approximately 100 flexible packaging 

printing facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas would meet the 

applicability criteria in the CTG (i.e., 6.8 

kg/day (15 lb/day)) VOC emissions. We 

further estimate that there are 219 

flexible packaging printing facilities 

located in ozone nonattainment areas. 

Although the CTG would apply only to 

about half of the facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas, the facilities that 

are not covered by the CTG are, by 

themselves, low VOC emitters in that 

they emit less than 15 lb VOC per day 

(which is less than 2.5 tpy). 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG for 

flexible packaging printing will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

IV. Flat Wood Paneling Coatings 

A. Industry Characterization 

1. Source Category Description 

Flat wood paneling coatings include, 

but are not limited to, paints, stains, 

sealers, topcoats, basecoats, primers, 

enamels, inks and adhesives used in the 

manufacture of flat wood paneling. The 

coatings provide a protective or 

decorative layer to paneling products 

used in interior and exterior 

construction of residential, commercial 

and institutional buildings. These 

paneling products can be classified into 

three main product types: decorative 

interior panels, exterior siding, and 

tileboard. 

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, 

and Controls 

The primary VOC emissions from flat 

wood paneling surface coating 

operations occur during coating 

application and drying/curing of the 

coatings. The remaining emissions are 

primarily from mixing and/or thinning 

and cleaning operations. In most cases, 

VOC emissions from surface 

preparation, storage, handling, and 

waste/wastewater operations are 

relatively small. 

After being coated by any of the 

conventional wet coating operations 

(such as spray coating, roll coating, or 

dip coating), the flat wood paneling 

products are cured using heated dryers. 

This step removes any remaining 

volatiles from the coating so that the 

surface of the flat wood paneling 

product meets the hardness, durability, 

and appearance requirements of the 

customer. 

The industry currently uses primarily 

waterborne coatings, although some 

products (e.g., tileboard and fireresistant paneling) still require solventborne coatings to provide adequate 

water, weather, and fire resistance. 

Quick drying time is another important 

reason why manufacturers use solventborne coatings, especially when fast line 

speeds are used. Solvent-borne coatings 

contain higher amounts of VOC 

materials so they evaporate more readily 

than water and the products take less 

time to cure in the ovens. Curing time 

is an important variable because the 

applied coating must be dry, hard, and 

cool prior to packaging, otherwise the 

products have the potential to stick 

together when stacked, causing defects 

or rejected material. 

Decorative interior panels require 

multiple coating layers and coating 

steps. Production speeds of 30 to 35 

boards per minute require the use of 

solvents that evaporate without leaving 

cure blisters and without leaving 

residual solvent in the coating film or 

substrate. Exterior siding products must 

have coatings able to withstand extreme 

and long-term weather conditions and 

resist ultra-violet radiation. These 

performance requirements impact the 

amount of VOC emitted from the coating 

of exterior siding. Tileboard is a 

premium interior wall paneling product 

made of hardboard that is used in high 

moisture areas of the home such as 

kitchens and bathrooms. Tileboard has 

more stringent product performance 

requirements compared to standard 

interior wall paneling. 

Common techniques to reduce 

emissions include use of low-VOC 

coatings and operation of add-on control 

devices where low-VOC materials 

cannot be used due to performance 

requirements calling for solvent-borne 

coatings. In addition, emissions from 

cleaning operations can be reduced 

through use of work practices such as 

keeping cleaning solvents and shop 

towels in covered containers. 

3. State and Local Regulations 

At least 28 State and local 

jurisdictions have regulations that 

control VOC emissions from surface 

coating operations that include flat 

wood paneling. Most of these 

regulations are general surface coating 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
44536 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

rules; a few are specific to flat wood 

paneling. In addition to the State and 

local requirements, there are two 

previous EPA actions that affect surface 

coating operations for flat wood 

paneling. In 1978, EPA issued a CTG 

document (EPA–450/2–78–032) that 

provided RACT recommendations for 

controlling VOC emissions from this 

industry. In 2003, EPA promulgated 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

covering surface coating of wood 

building products. See 68 FR 31746 

(May 28, 2003). The 1978 CTG and the 

2003 NESHAP are further discussed in 

the current draft CTG document. 

Almost all of the jurisdictions that 

specifically address flat wood paneling 

have based their rules on the old 1978 

CTG. However, there are two 

jurisdictions in California that have 

requirements specific to flat wood 

paneling that are more current than the 

1978 CTG. In the Placer County 

California Air Pollution Control District, 

VOC emissions from flat wood paneling 

operations in a nonattainment area are 

limited to 250 g VOC/l (2.1 lb VOC/gal) 

of coating (excluding water) or the 

overall control device efficiency must be 

at least 90 percent. 

The California South Coast AQMD 

defines flat wood paneling as ‘‘interior 

wood panels and exterior wood siding, 

which include, by way of illustration 

and not limitation, redwood, cedar or 

plywood stocks, plywood panels, 

particle boards, composition hard 

boards, and any other panels or siding 

constructed of solid wood or a woodcontaining product.’’ The emissions 

limit established by the South Coast rule 

is identical to the emission limit 

established by Placer County, California 

and also covers exterior siding, which 

the Placer County rule does not. 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The draft CTG provides flexibility by 

recommending either low-VOC 

materials or, as an option, add-on 

controls as an alternative to low-VOC 

materials. The low-VOC materials 

recommendations include an emissions 

limit of 250 g VOC/l (2.1 lb VOC/gal) of 

material (minus water). An equivalent 

limit, expressed as units of weight of 

VOC per volume of solids in all coatings 

would be 350 grams of VOC per liter 

solids (2.9 lb of VOC per gal of solids). 

Or, alternatively, a facility could choose 

to use add-on control equipment to meet 

an overall control efficiency of 90 

percent. These control options would 

apply to surface coatings, inks, and 

adhesives applied to all types of flat 

wood paneling. 

The draft CTG also recommends work 

practice standards. The work practice 

plan must include steps to ensure that 

VOC emissions are minimized from 

mixing operations, storage tanks and 

other containers, and handling 

operations for coatings, thinners, 

cleaning materials, and waste materials. 

Examples of work practice standards 

include: Storing all VOC coatings, 

thinners, and cleaning materials in 

closed containers, minimizing spills of 

VOC containing coatings, thinners, 

cleaning up spills immediately, 

conveying any coatings, thinners, and 

cleaning materials in closed containers 

or pipes, closing mixing vessels which 

contain VOC coatings and other 

materials except when specifically in 

use, and minimizing emissions of VOC 

during cleaning of storage, mixing, and 

conveying equipment. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

EPA estimates that there are a total of 

24 flat wood paneling facilities located 

in ozone nonattainment areas (based on 

April 2006 designations). Based on VOC 

emissions data, all of the 24 facilities in 

ozone nonattainment areas would be 

affected considering the 6.8 kg/day (15 

lb/day) VOC emissions applicability 

threshold. This level of emissions has 

been the applicability threshold for 

many CTG in the past. For purposes of 

this threshold, aggregate emissions from 

all flat wood paneling coating 

operations and cleaning activities 

associated with flat wood paneling 

coating at a given facility are included. 

These facilities emit about 4,400 Mg 

(4,000 tons) of VOC per year. The cost 

effectiveness estimates vary according to 

the type of flat wood paneling. Based on 

studies conducted as part of 

development of the Placer County and 

South Coast regulations, the cost 

effectiveness is estimated at $4,400 per 

ton of VOC for exterior siding and 

$1,900 per ton of VOC for interior 

paneling and tileboard. Due to the 

higher estimated cost for a given amount 

of emission reductions from exterior 

siding, and because exterior siding is 

not covered by the 1978 CTG and by 

several current State rules based on that 

CTG, EPA solicits comments on whether 

it is appropriate to exclude exterior 

siding from applicability of the draft 

CTG. As discussed above, the draft CTG 

recommends three alternatives, plus 

work practices, for reducing VOC 

emissions from these operations. Two of 

the alternatives focus on use of lowVOC coatings that are readily available. 

For those facilities that choose to use 

high-VOC coatings, they may choose to 

employ the third alternative, the use of 

add-on controls. From information in 

the NEI database, there is no indication 

that any of the 24 facilities currently 

have add-on controls, but may be using 

low-VOC coatings for compliance with 

any existing State or local requirements. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to develop a 

national rule or a CTG for the product 

category of flat wood paneling coatings 

under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), we 

analyzed the four factors identified 

above in Section I.D in light of the 

specific facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category. 

Based on that analysis, we propose to 

determine that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a rule in 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

ozone nonattainment areas from flat 

wood paneling coatings. 

This section is divided into two parts, 

each of which addresses two of the 

factors relevant to the CAA section 

183(e)(1)(C) determination. In the first 

part, we determine that the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions in this category is 

through controls at the point of use of 

the product, (i.e., through controls on 

facilities that apply surface coatings to 

flat wood paneling products), and this 

can only be accomplished through a 

CTG. We further explain that the 

approaches in the draft CTG are 

consistent with existing effective state 

and local VOC strategies. In the second 

part, we discuss how the distribution 

and place of use of the products in this 

category also support the use of a CTG. 

We further explain that there are control 

approaches for this category that result 

in significant VOC emission reductions 

and that such reductions could only be 

obtained by controlling the use of the 

product through a CTG. Such reductions 

could not be obtained through a 

regulation under CAA section 183(e) 

because the controls affect the end-user, 

which is not a regulated entity under 

CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). Accordingly, 

for these reasons and the reasons 

described more fully below, we believe 

that a CTG will achieve much greater 

VOC emission reductions than a rule for 

this category. 

1. The Most Effective Entity To Target 

for VOC Reductions and Consistency 

With State and Local VOC Strategies 

To evaluate the most effective entity 

to target for VOC reductions, it is 

important to first identify the primary 

sources of VOC emissions. There are 

two main sources of VOC emissions 

from flat wood paneling coating: (1) 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44537 

Evaporation of VOC from coatings and 

adhesives; and (2) evaporation of VOC 

from cleaning materials. We address 

each of these sources of VOC emissions, 

in turn, below, as we discuss the CTG 

versus regulation approach. 

a. Coatings and Adhesives 

The industry currently uses primarily 

waterborne coatings, although some 

products (e.g., tileboard and fireresistant paneling) still require solventborne coatings to provide adequate 

water, weather, and fire resistance. 

Quick drying time is another important 

reason why manufacturers use solventborne coatings, especially when fast line 

speeds are used. A national rule could 

contain limits for the as-sold VOC 

content of coatings and adhesives, but 

given the nature of the flat wood 

paneling coating process, this would 

result, in little, if any, reduction in VOC 

emissions. A national rule could, for 

example, set lower VOC content limits 

for waterborne and other low-VOC 

content materials and higher VOC 

content limits for solvent-borne 

materials without specifying which flat 

wood paneling products must be coated 

with each type of material. This rule 

structure would leave facilities free to 

choose which type of material to use. 

Further, many coatings and adhesives 

used in flat wood paneling coating are 

not identified by the supplier 

specifically as flat wood paneling 

coatings and would fall outside of the 

scope of such a national rule. Thus, 

such a rule would not compel anyone to 

use lower VOC content materials and 

would achieve little, if any, VOC 

emission reduction. 

Control devices, such as thermal 

oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, or carbon 

adsorbers, can achieve a significant 

reduction in VOC emissions from high 

VOC content materials. In light of the 

significant reductions in VOC emissions 

obtained with such devices, existing 

State and local regulations that address 

flat wood paneling coating allow the use 

of high VOC content materials in 

conjunction with control devices. These 

regulations require the use of such 

controls or the use of equivalent lowVOC content materials. In addition, the 

2003 NESHAP contains a compliance 

option that allows the facility to lower 

the emission rate by using add-on 

controls. 

We could not require such control 

devices at flat wood paneling facilities 

through a national rule, because, 

pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) 

and (e)(3)(A), the regulated entities 

subject to a national rule would be the 

coating and adhesive manufacturers and 

suppliers, not the flat wood paneling 

facilities. The draft CTG applies to these 

facilities, as the end users of the 

coatings and adhesives, and specifically 

recommends limiting emissions by the 

use of low-VOC coatings or to control 

emissions through the operation of 

control devices. Given the significant 

reductions achievable through available 

use of add-on control devices, the most 

effective entity to regulate to address 

VOC emissions associated with flat 

wood paneling coatings is the facility 

using the coatings. 

b. Cleaning Materials 

There are two primary means to 

control VOC emissions associated with 

the cleaning materials used in the flat 

wood paneling coating process: (1) 

Limiting the VOC content of the 

cleaning materials, and (2) 

implementing work practices governing 

the use of the product. 

A national rule affecting solvent 

manufacturers that supply cleaning 

materials to the flat wood paneling 

industry that limits the VOC content of 

VOC in the cleaning materials sold 

would suffer from the same deficiencies 

noted above with regard to lithographic 

printing fountain solutions, lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing 

cleaning materials, and flexible 

packaging printing cleaning materials. 

Specifically, although flat wood 

paneling coaters may purchase cleaning 

materials from vendors serving their 

respective industry, nothing in a 

national rule governing manufacturers 

would preclude them from purchasing 

bulk solvents or other multipurpose 

cleaning materials from other vendors. 

The general availability of bulk solvents 

or multipurpose cleaning materials from 

vendors that would not be subject to the 

regulation would directly undermine 

the effectiveness of the regulation. 

A national rule also could, in theory, 

limit the VOC content of all cleaning 

materials and all solvents sold 

regardless of specified end use, which 

would ensure that only low-VOC 

materials are available to the flat wood 

paneling coating industry. Such an 

approach is unreasonable and 

impractical. Cleaning materials and 

solvents are sold for multiple different 

commercial and industrial purposes. 

Reducing the vapor pressure of all 

cleaning materials and solvents merely 

to achieve VOC emission reductions 

from the flat wood paneling coating 

industry would preclude the use of such 

materials in many important, legitimate 

contexts. 

The more effective approach for 

obtaining VOC reductions from cleaning 

materials used by flat wood paneling 

coaters is to control the use of such 

materials by the coaters through a CTG. 

Significantly, we could not impose work 

practices through a CAA section 183(e) 

rule. Work practices, by their nature, are 

directed at the end-user of the product. 

The draft CTG recommends work 

practices such as keeping solvents and 

shop towels in closed containers. This 

measure alone results in significant 

reductions in VOC cleaning emissions. 

These reductions would not be possible 

through a CAA section 183(e) regulation 

because, by statute, such regulations do 

not apply to the end-user. Finally, the 

approaches recommended in the CTG 

are consistent with approaches taken by 

States and localities for cleaning 

materials, and these approaches have 

proven effective in reducing VOC 

emissions. 

Based on the nature of the flat wood 

paneling coating process, the sources of 

significant VOC emissions from this 

process, and the available strategies for 

reducing such emissions, the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions from this product 

category is through controls at the point 

of use of the products, (i.e., through 

controls on flat wood paneling coaters), 

and this can only be accomplished 

through a CTG. The approaches 

described in the draft CTG are also 

consistent with effective state and local 

VOC control strategies. These two 

factors alone demonstrate that a CTG 

will be substantially as effective as a 

national regulation. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination 

only further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for flat wood paneling 

coatings. 

First, the products described above 

are used at commercial facilities in 

specific, identifiable locations. This 

stands in contrast to other consumer 

products, such as architectural coatings, 

that are widely distributed and used by 

innumerable small users (e.g., 

individual consumers in the general 

public). Because the VOC emissions are 

occurring at commercial manufacturing 

facilities, implementation and 

enforcement of controls concerning the 

use of products are feasible and 

therefore the nature of the product’s 

place of use further counsels in favor of 

the CTG approach. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
44538 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Second, as described above, a CTG 

will achieve equal or greater emission 

reduction than a national rule for each 

source of VOC emissions from flat wood 

paneling coating. In total, a CTG will 

achieve significantly more emission 

reduction than a national rule for this 

category. A CTG will achieve a 

significant greater emission reductions 

because, as explained above, there are 

certain control strategies, applicable to 

the end-user of the product, that achieve 

significant emission reductions. In 

particular, a CTG will achieve a 

significant reduction of VOC emissions 

from coatings and adhesives through the 

use of control devices. A CTG provides 

for work practices associated with 

cleaning materials. The VOC reductions 

associated with these measures could 

not be obtained through a national 

regulation, because they require the 

implementation of measures by the enduser. 

In addition, there are certain strategies 

that arguably could be implemented 

through rulemaking, but are far more 

effective if implemented directly at the 

point of use of the product. For the 

reasons stated above it is more effective 

to control the VOC content of coatings 

and adhesives through a CTG than 

through a regulation 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG for 

flat wood paneling coatings will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG for 

flat wood paneling coatings will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

V. Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

A. Industry Characterization 

1. Source Category Description 

This category of consumer and 

commercial products includes the 

industrial cleaning solvents used by 

many industries. This category includes 

a variety of products used to remove 

contaminants such as adhesives, inks, 

paint, dirt, soil, oil, and grease from 

parts, products, tools, machinery, 

equipment, vessels, floors, walls, and 

other production related work areas. 

Cleaning operations are performed for a 

variety of reasons including safety, 

operability, and to avoid contamination 

of the products being manufactured or 

repaired at the facility. The cleaning 

solvents used in these operations are, in 

many cases, generally available bulk 

solvents that are used for a multitude of 

applications not limited to cleaning. For 

example, naphtha may be used as a 

cleaning solvent, as a paint thinner, or 

as an ingredient used in the 

manufacture of paint. 

2. Sources of VOC Emissions and 

Controls 

In general, VOC emissions occur from 

industrial cleaning solvents through 

evaporation during cleaning activities 

such as wiping, flushing, and brushing, 

as well as from storage and disposal of 

used shop towels and solvent. Because 

a portion of all solvents evaporate 

during use, such solvent-based cleaning 

materials can result in large amounts of 

emissions of VOC. 

In 1994, EPA completed a study of 

industrial cleaning solvents that 

characterized cleaning operations 

carried out within six focus industries 

(automotive, electrical equipment, 

magnetic tape, furniture, packaging, and 

photographic supplies) to evaluate 

sources of evaporative emissions from 

VOC solvents used as cleaning 

materials. We believe that the range of 

cleaning activities performed in these 

industries provided a good variety of 

cleaning operations for the study, and 

that the information obtained relevant to 

VOC emission sources and possible 

control techniques can be applied to 

virtually any industry. During the study, 

EPA collected information on emissions 

from industrial cleaning solvents used 

in approximately 300 individual 

cleaning operations across the six focus 

industries. EPA classified these 

operations into nine ‘‘unit operations’’

(UO). We believe that any given 

industrial cleaning activity would fall 

into one or more of these UO: (1) Spray 

gun cleaning; (2) spray booth cleaning; 

(3) large manufactured components 

cleaning; (4) small manufactured 

components cleaning; (5) parts cleaning; 

(6) equipment cleaning; (7) floor 

cleaning; (8) line cleaning; and (9) tank 

cleaning. The purpose of identifying 

these UO is to assist State and local 

agencies in identifying the sources of 

VOC emissions from cleaning activities 

and to provide a structure for 

developing and applying control 

techniques to mitigate VOC emissions 

from industrial cleaning solvents used 

in these UO. 

In February 1994, EPA published an 

Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) 

document (EPA–453/R–94–015) to 

provide information to State and local 

agencies on sources and various means 

of controlling VOC emissions from 

industrial cleaning operations. The ACT 

document identified the cleaning UO 

listed above and presented techniques 

available to reduce solvent losses, 

including the anticipated costs of 

control and potential for emissions 

reductions for these options. The ACT 

document also provided a quantitative 

overview of cleaning solvents used and 

a model solvent management system for 

accounting and tracking solvent usage. 

The model solvent management system 

was provided as a tool for facilities to 

use in tracking their solvent usage. The 

ACT document also provided a 

methodology for calculating emissions 

in a consistent way. 

Although the industrial cleaning 

solvent product category includes a 

variety of different products with 

differing VOC contents, and although 

these products are used in different 

ways by a wide range of industries, we 

believe that there are two basic 

approaches to achieve VOC emission 

reductions. First, the users of the 

products can control emissions through 

work practices targeted at the activities 

and sources of emissions specific to the 

user’s industry (e.g., keeping solvent 

containers covered, properly storing and 

disposing of used shop towels and 

solvent, etc.). Second, users can also 

reduce overall VOC emissions through 

solvent substitution (e.g., use of lowVOC, no-VOC, or low-vapor pressure 

solvents). Theoretically, solvent 

substitution could be achieved at the 

point of manufacture or at the point of 

use, but in practice it is usually the user 

who selects the solvent or mixture of 

solvents to use in the various industrial 

cleaning operations throughout a 

facility. Either individually or in 

tandem, these two general approaches 

are effective strategies to achieve 

significant emission reductions from 

this product category, notwithstanding 

the variation in the products, their 

users, and their specific uses. 

3. State and Local Regulations 

Many State and local agencies, 

including a number of the California Air 

Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), 

have developed strategies for reducing 

VOC emissions from industrial cleaning 

solvents. Typically, these strategies 

include both work practices governing 

the use of the products and VOC limits 

governing the VOC content of the 

products. A table identifying and 

summarizing some of these existing 

State and local measures is included in 

the draft CTG document for this product 

category. 

To identify potential control 

recommendations for the draft CTG, 

EPA reviewed the existing State and 

local regulations governing VOC 

emissions from this product category. 

The review indicated that the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44539 

regulations in three of the California 

AQMDs (South Coast, Bay Area, and 

Sacramento) are good models to 

evaluate, because these rules are 

consistent with each other in format and 

approach, the technical information 

developed to support these regulations 

is readily available, and these 

regulations are more current than those 

of other jurisdictions. Additionally, 

several case studies were available from 

the California AQMDs pertaining to 

their rules that help illustrate how 

specific facilities achieved VOC 

reductions and at what cost. Moreover, 

many other State and local agencies 

either have, or are considering, using 

the current regulations from the 

California AQMDs as models for the 

format and content their own control 

strategies. If the California AQMD 

strategies are effective, EPA believes 

that there can be a benefit to extending 

these measures to other nonattainment 

areas and maintaining nationwide 

consistency, as appropriate. 

The regulations adopted in the 

California AQMDs all have 

requirements for both work practices 

and VOC content limits for solvent 

cleaning materials. A comparison of the 

various AQMD regulations governing 

VOC emissions from industrial cleaning 

solvents indicates that the work practice 

provisions are similar and require 

product users to implement generally 

accepted practices that have been 

shown to be effective in mitigating 

evaporative losses from solvent storage, 

handling, and disposal activities. These 

work practices are further discussed in 

the draft CTG and in section B below. 

Although the work practice 

requirements are similar among the 

AQMDs, the VOC content limits and 

rule applicability differ somewhat from 

District to District. For example, South 

Coast AQMD Rule 1171 (2005) has a 

‘‘general use’’ VOC limit of 25 grams 

VOC per liter of cleaning material that 

applies to most industries. In cases 

where water based cleaners or low-VOC 

solvent cleaners cannot be used, 

however, South Coast AQMD allows 

higher limits for a number of specific 

industries as provided for in section 

1171(c) of their rule. 

By comparison, Bay Area AQMD 

Regulation 8, Rule 4, provides for a 

‘‘general use’’ limit of 50 grams VOC per 

liter of cleaning material, unless 

emissions are controlled by an emission 

control system with an overall 

abatement efficiency of at least 85 

percent. The Bay Area rule exempts 

relatively few specific operations (e.g., 

electrical apparatus components, 

electronic components, precision optics, 

research and development laboratories, 

etc.) from the ‘‘general use’’ limit (see 

Bay Area AQMD’s section 8–4–116). In 

addition, the Bay Area rule exempts 

cleaning operations subject to other 

specific Bay Area AQMD rules. There 

are 18 such exemptions listed in Bay 

Area AQMD’s section 8–4–117 (e.g., 

architectural coating, light and medium 

duty motor vehicle assembly plants, 

plastic parts and products, etc.). 

EPA’s review of existing and State 

and local approaches to reduce VOC 

emissions from this product category 

indicates that strategies that include 

both work practices and VOC content 

limits can be effective and should be the 

basis for a CTG under CAA section 

183(e). 

B. Recommended Control Techniques 

The following sections describe 

recommendations EPA is providing in 

the draft CTG document for industrial 

cleaning solvents, including a 

discussion of the recommended control 

measures and a description of industries 

to which these recommendations apply. 

These recommendations are discussed 

in more detail in the draft CTG 

document, which also incorporates the 

entire 1994 ACT document. 

1. Control Measures 

Based on our analysis of State and 

local requirements, primarily the 

California AQMD measures, the draft 

CTG recommends both work practices 

and a generally applicable VOC content 

limit for most operations modeled after 

the Bay Area AQMD rule. 

a. Work Practices 

The draft CTG recommends practices 

similar to those required by the 

California AQMDs. Specifically, these 

are: (1) Covering open containers and 

used applicators; (2) minimizing air 

circulation around cleaning operations; 

(3) properly disposing of used solvent 

and shop towels; and (4) implementing 

equipment practices that minimize 

emissions (e.g., keeping parts cleaners 

covered, maintenance of cleaning 

equipment to repair solvent leaks, etc.). 

b. VOC Content Limit 

The draft CTG recommends a 

generally applicable VOC content limit 

of 50 grams VOC per liter (0.42 1b/gal) 

of cleaning material, unless emissions 

are controlled by an emission control 

system with an overall abatement 

efficiency of at least 85 percent. This 

limit is modeled on the ‘‘general use’’

category of the Bay Area AQMD solvent 

cleaning regulations, taking into account 

the specific exclusions provided for in 

the Bay Area AQMD rule and described 

earlier. In addition to the Bay Area 

exclusions, and as discussed earlier, the 

more stringent South Coast AQMD 

‘‘general use’’ limit is accompanied by 

higher limits for several individual 

operations (e.g., cleaning of ultraviolet 

ink application equipment, screen 

printing, cleaning of coating application 

equipment, etc.). When developing 

RACT measures for industrial cleaning 

operations, we suggest that State and 

local agencies consider the specific 

industries and operations in their 

jurisdictions and the individual 

requirements of those operations and 

tailor their rules to those specific 

scenarios accordingly. Furthermore, in 

considering existing cleaning 

requirements as bases for specific 

exemptions from their general industrial 

cleaning solvents rules, State and local 

agencies should take into account how 

current those measures are. EPA 

believes that more recent rules are likely 

to be more effective than older, possibly 

outdated, rules. We remind the States 

that the ultimate determination of 

whether any specific State or local 

measures meet any applicable RACT 

requirement will occur during the 

notice and comment rulemaking process 

associated with EPA action on SIP 

submissions. 

c. Alternative Vapor Pressure Limit 

In addition to the VOC content limit 

recommended here, EPA solicits 

comment on possible use of a composite 

vapor pressure limit, for example, 8 

millimeters of mercury (mmHg) at 20 

degrees Celsius, as (1) a replacement for 

the 50 g/l VOC content limit entirely; or 

(2) an alternative limit that may be used 

in lieu of the 50 g/l VOC content limit 

for specific operations as determined by 

the State or local agency. 

EPA is considering this option 

because, historically, some State and 

local agencies have specified composite 

vapor pressure limits in their cleaning 

requirements. For example some States 

(e.g., Illinois, Connecticut, New York, 

etc.) limit solvents used in cold cleaning 

to 1.0 mmHg. California’s Ventura 

County Air Pollution Control District 

allows a composite vapor pressure of 33 

mmHg for solvents used for cleaning of 

coating application equipment and 

other cleanup of uncured coatings, 

adhesives, inks, and resins and for 

cleaning of electronic and electrical 

components, medical devices, and 

aerospace components. 

2. Applicability 

In the draft CTG, EPA recommends 

that, in general, these measures should 

have broad applicability to any 

industrial cleaning operations that have 

VOC emissions of at least 6.8 kg/day (15 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
44540 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

11EPA may amend the list and exercise its 

discretion in scheduling its actions under CAA 

section 183(e) in order to achieve an effective 

regulatory program. Should EPA revise the list in 

the future, these categories could change. 

12From a purely economic perspective, the CTG 

does not produce a cost savings, because the 

recommendations contained in the document 

represent control methods that are currently 

available to facilities. Facilities can implement the 

recommended approach of using low-VOC 

materials today and recognize a cost savings. 

lb/day), before controls. This level of 

emissions has been the applicability 

threshold for many CTG in the past. 

Furthermore, it is consistent with the 

intent of CAA section 183(e) to address 

individually small uses of consumer 

and commercial products that, in the 

aggregate, are significant sources of VOC 

emissions. We recommend that, for 

purposes of determining this threshold, 

aggregate emissions from all solvent 

cleaning activities associated with 

covered operations at a given facility are 

included. As described above, we also 

recommend that specific industry 

category exclusions, similar to the ones 

provided for in the Bay Area and South 

Coast rules but tailored to the States’’

individual situations, accompany the 

applicability threshold. 

In addition to the exclusions a State 

or local agency may specify as a result 

of the existence of effective measures 

that address cleaning operations 

associated with specific source 

categories within its jurisdiction, we 

recommend that the States exclude from 

applicability those cleaning operations 

in the following categories listed for 

regulation under CAA section 183(e): 

Aerospace coatings, wood furniture 

coatings, shipbuilding and repair 

coatings, flexible packaging printing 

materials, lithographic printing 

materials, letterpress printing materials, 

flat wood paneling coatings, large 

appliance coatings, metal furniture 

coatings, paper film and foil coating, 

plastic parts coatings, miscellaneous 

metals parts coatings, fiberglass boat 

manufacturing materials, miscellaneous 

industrial adhesives, and auto and lightduty truck assembly coatings.11 For 

three of these product categories (i.e., 

aerospace coatings, wood furniture 

coatings, and shipbuilding and repair 

coatings), EPA has already issued CTGs 

that address cleaning operations. For the 

remaining categories, EPA intends to 

include control measures for cleaning 

associated with these categories if the 

Agency determines that a CTG is 

appropriate for the respective categories. 

C. Impacts of Recommended Control 

Techniques 

EPA estimates that there are 

approximately 2,550 facilities in ozone 

nonattainment areas that would be 

affected by the draft CTG. These 

facilities had emissions that exceed the 

emission threshold of 6.8 kg (15 1b) of 

VOC per day. Total aggregate VOC 

emissions from solvent cleaning 

operations from these sources are 

approximately 64,000 Mg/yr (71,000 

tpy). EPA used studies published by the 

Bay Area AQMD to estimate the cost of 

compliance for the measures 

recommended in the draft CTG. 

According to these estimates, EPA 

believes that affected sources may either 

incur minimal additional costs or 

realize a savings on a case-by-case basis, 

depending primarily on facts such as 

how much they currently spend to 

operate high-VOC content solvent-based 

parts cleaners, and the cost of organic 

solvent disposal. 

The Bay Area AQMD studies indicate 

that replacing high-VOC cleaning 

materials with low-VOC, water-based 

cleaning materials, for applications in 

which these materials are similar in 

effectiveness to high-VOC materials, 

results in a cost savings. The CTG for 

industrial cleaning solvents is guidance 

for the States. Although States can adopt 

the recommendations in the CTG, they 

may choose not to follow those 

recommendations and instead adopt 

other technically-sound approaches that 

meet the requirements of RACT in the 

CAA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations. Accordingly, there is 

necessarily some uncertainty in any 

prediction of costs and emission 

impacts associated with the 

recommendations in the CTG. 

Nevertheless, assuming that States 

address the VOC emissions from this 

product category in accordance with the 

recommendations in the CTG or 

comparable approaches, EPA anticipates 

a net cost savings.12 We based this 

prediction on an assumption that 

substitution of low-VOC materials for 

high-VOC materials is possible for all 

uses. Because this assumption is not 

true for some applications, this 

prediction may not be valid in all cases. 

D. Considerations in Determining 

Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 

Effective as a Regulation 

In determining whether to develop a 

national rule or a CTG for the product 

category of industrial cleaning solvents 

under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), we 

analyzed the four factors identified 

above in Section I.D in light of the 

specific facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category. 

Based on that analysis, we propose to 

determine that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a rule in 

achieving VOC emission reductions in 

ozone nonattainment areas from 

industrial cleaning solvents. 

This section is divided into two parts, 

each of which addresses two of the 

factors relevant to the CAA section 

183(e)(1)(C) determination. In the first 

part, we determine that the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions in this category is 

through controls at the point of use of 

the product, (i.e., through controls on 

facilities that conduct solvent cleaning), 

and this can only be accomplished 

through a CTG. We further explain that 

the approaches in the draft CTG are 

consistent with existing effective state 

and local VOC strategies. In the second 

part, we discuss how the distribution 

and place of use of the products in this 

category also support the use of a CTG. 

We further explain that there are control 

approaches for this category that result 

in significant VOC emission reductions 

and that such reductions could only be 

obtained by controlling the use of the 

product through a CTG. Such reductions 

could not be obtained through a 

regulation under CAA section 183(e) 

because the controls affect the end-user, 

which is not a regulated entity under 

CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). Accordingly, 

for these reasons and the reasons 

described more fully below, we believe 

that a CTG will achieve much greater 

VOC emission reductions than a rule for 

this category. 

1. The Most Effective Entity To Target 

for VOC Reductions and Consistency 

With State and Local VOC Strategies 

There are two primary means to 

control VOC emissions associated with 

the industrial cleaning solvents product 

category: (1) Limiting the VOC content 

of the cleaning materials, and (2) 

implementing work practices governing 

the use of the products. 

A national rule affecting industrial 

cleaning solvent manufacturers that 

limits the VOC content of the cleaning 

materials sold suffers from the same 

deficiencies noted above with regard to 

lithographic printing, letterpress 

printing, flexible packaging printing, 

and flat wood paneling coating. 

Specifically, although facilities 

performing cleaning operations 

generally purchase cleaning materials 

from vendors serving their respective 

industry, nothing in a national rule 

governing manufacturers would 

preclude them from purchasing bulk 

solvents or other multipurpose cleaning 

materials from other vendors. The 

general availability of bulk solvents or 

multipurpose cleaning materials from 

vendors that would not be subject to the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44541 

regulation would directly undermine 

the effectiveness of the regulation. 

A national rule also could, in theory, 

limit the VOC content of all cleaning 

materials and all solvents sold 

regardless of specified end use, which 

would ensure that only low-VOC 

materials are available for any use. Such 

an approach is unreasonable and 

impractical. Cleaning materials and 

solvents are sold for multiple different 

commercial and industrial purposes. 

Reducing the VOC content of all 

materials merely to achieve VOC 

emission reduction from two limited 

product categories, could preclude the 

use of such materials in many 

important, legitimate contexts. 

Furthermore, many general-purpose 

solvents used for cleaning are single 

compounds (e.g., toluene) or are 

mixtures (e.g., mineral spirits) that are 

by nature 100 percent VOC. 

Consequently, they cannot be 

reformulated to low-VOC content. 

The more effective approach for 

obtaining VOC reductions from 

industrial cleaning solvents is to control 

the use of such materials through a CTG. 

The draft CTG recommends limiting the 

VOC content of cleaning materials. With 

the CTG, the VOC content restrictions 

would apply to the facility performing 

cleaning operations regardless of the 

source of the cleaning materials. 

Significantly, we could not impose 

work practices through a CAA section 

183(e) rule. Work practices, by their 

nature, are directed at the end-user of 

the product. The draft CTG recommends 

work practices such as keeping solvents 

and shop towels in closed containers. 

This measure alone results in significant 

reductions in VOC cleaning emissions, 

when used in conjunction with lowVOC cleaning materials. These 

reductions would not be possible 

through a CAA section 183(e) regulation 

because, by statute, such regulations do 

not apply to the end-user. Finally, the 

approaches recommended in the CTG 

are consistent with approaches taken by 

States and localities for industrial 

cleaning operations, and these 

approaches have proven effective in 

reducing VOC emissions. 

Based on the sources of significant 

VOC emissions from industrial cleaning 

solvents and the available strategies for 

reducing such emissions, the most 

effective means of achieving VOC 

emission reductions from this product 

category is through controls at the point 

of use of the product (i.e., through 

controls on facilities performing solvent 

cleaning activities), and this can only be 

accomplished through a CTG. The 

approaches described in the draft CTG 

are also consistent with effective state 

and local VOC control strategies. These 

two factors alone demonstrate that a 

CTG will be substantially as effective as 

a national regulation. 

2. The Product’s Distribution and Place 

of Use and Likely VOC Emission 

Reductions Associated With a CTG 

Versus a Regulation 

The factors described in the above 

section, taken by themselves, weigh 

heavily in favor of the CTG approach. 

The other two factors relevant to the 

CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination 

only further confirm that a CTG will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation for industrial cleaning 

solvents. 

First, the products described above 

are used at manufacturing, repair, 

service, and other facilities in specific, 

identifiable locations. This stands in 

contrast to other consumer products, 

such as architectural coatings, that are 

widely distributed and used by 

innumerable small users (e.g. individual 

consumers in the general public). 

Because the VOC emissions are 

occurring at commercial facilities, 

implementation and enforcement of 

controls concerning the use of products 

are feasible and therefore the nature of 

the product’s place of use further 

counsels in favor of the CTG approach. 

Second, a CTG will achieve equal or 

greater emission reduction than a 

national rule for each source of VOC 

emissions from industrial cleaning 

solvents, and, in total, a CTG will 

achieve significantly more emission 

reduction than a national rule for this 

category. A CTG will achieve a 

significant VOC emission reduction 

from cleaning materials through the 

combined use of low-VOC cleaning 

materials and work practices. A national 

rule could not effectively regulate the 

VOC content of cleaning materials, and 

a national rule cannot require work 

practices. In summary, a CTG will 

achieve a significant reduction in VOC 

emissions from the industrial cleaning 

solvents category while a national rule 

would achieve little, if any, emission 

reduction. 

Upon considering the above factors in 

light of the facts and circumstances 

associated with this product category, 

we propose to determine that a CTG for 

industrial cleaning solvents will be 

substantially as effective as a national 

regulation. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

1. Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

2. Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

3. Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, EPA has determined that 

this action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ within the meaning 

of the Executive Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not contain any 

information collection requirements and 

therefore is not subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
44542 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed determination, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because it imposes no regulatory 

requirements. EPA is proposing take 

final action to list the five Group II 

consumer and commercial product 

categories addressed in this notice for 

purposes of CAA section 183(e) of the 

Act. The listing action alone does not 

impose any regulatory requirements. 

EPA’s proposed determination that a 

CTG will be substantially as effective as 

a national regulation in achieving VOC 

emission reductions in ozone 

nonattainment areas means that EPA 

has concluded that it is not appropriate 

to issue federal regulations under CAA 

section 183(e) to regulate VOC 

emissions from these five product 

categories. Instead, EPA has concluded 

that it is appropriate to issue guidance 

in the form of CTG that provide 

recommendations to States concerning 

potential methods to achieve needed 

VOC emission reductions from these 

product categories. In addition to the 

proposed determination, EPA is also 

taking comment on draft CTG for these 

five product categories. When finalized, 

these CTG will be guidance documents. 

EPA does not directly regulate any small 

entities through the issuance of a CTG. 

Instead, EPA issues CTG to provide 

States with guidance on appropriate 

regulations to obtain VOC emission 

reductions from the affected sources 

within certain nonattainment areas. 

EPA’s issuance of a CTG does trigger an 

obligation on the part of the States to 

issue State regulations, but States are 

not obligated to issue regulations 

identical to the Agency’s CTG. States 

may follow the guidance or deviate from 

it, and the ultimate determination of 

whether a State regulation meets the 

RACT requirements of the CAA would 

be determined through notice and 

comment rulemaking in the Agency’s 

action on each State’s State 

Implementation Plan. Thus, States 

retain discretion in determining what 

degree to follow the CTGs. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

(UMRA), establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under UMRA section 202, 2 

U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must 

prepare a written statement, including a 

cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed 

or final rule that ‘‘includes any Federal 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

* * * in any one year.’’ A ‘‘Federal 

mandate’’ is defined under section 

421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’

and a ‘‘Federal private sector mandate.’’

A ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ in turn, is defined to include 

a regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments,’’ section 

421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i), 

except for, among other things, a duty 

that is ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance,’’ section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A 

‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’

includes a regulation that ‘‘would 

impose an enforceable duty upon the 

private sector,’’ with certain exceptions, 

section 421(7)(A), 2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A). 

EPA has determined that the listing 

action, the proposed determination that 

a CTG would be substantially as 

effective as a regulation for these 

product categories, and the proposed 

draft CTGs for these categories, do not 

contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. Thus, 

this action is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. In addition, we have 

determined that the listing action, the 

proposed determination and the 

proposed draft CTGs contain no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because they contain no 

regulatory requirements that apply to 

such governments or impose obligations 

upon them. Therefore, this action is not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the EO to include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’

The listing action, the proposed 

determination that CTGs are 

substantially as effective as regulations 

for these product categories, and the 

proposed draft CTGs do not have 

federalism implications. They do not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in EO 

13132. The CAA establishes the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, and this 

action does not impact that relationship. 

Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to the 

proposed determination and proposed 

draft CTGs. However, in the spirit of EO 

13132, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

EPA and State and local governments, 

EPA is soliciting comment on the listing 

action, the proposed determination, and 

the proposed draft CTGs from State and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

EO 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by Tribal 

officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Tribal 

implications.’’

The listing action, the proposed 

determination that CTGs would be 

substantially as effective as regulations 

to achieve VOC emission reductions 

from these product categories, and the 

proposed draft CTGs do not have Tribal 

implications as defined by EO 13175. 

They do not have a substantial direct 

effect on one or more Indian Tribes, in 

that the listing action, the proposed 

determination, and the proposed draft 

CTGs impose no regulatory burdens on 

tribes. Furthermore, the listing action, 

the proposed determination, and the 

proposed draft CTGs do not affect the 

relationship or distribution of power 

and responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes. The 

CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule 

(TAR) establish the relationship of the 

Federal government and Tribes in 

implementing the Clean Air Act. 

Because listing action, the proposed 

determination, and the proposed draft 

CTGs do not have Tribal implications, 

EO 13175 does not apply. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules 44543 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 

23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under EO 12866, 

and (2) concerns an environmental 

health or safety risk that EPA has reason 

to believe may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. If the regulatory 

action meets both criteria, Section 

5B501 of the EO directs the Agency to 

evaluate the environmental health or 

safety effects of the planned rule on 

children, and explain why the planned 

regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. 

The listing action, the proposed 

determination, and the proposed draft 

CTGs are not subject to Executive Order 

13045 because they are not 

economically significant regulatory 

actions as defined by Executive Order 

12866. In addition, EPA interprets 

Executive Order 13045 as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that are 

based on health and safety risks, such 

that the analysis required under section 

5–501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulations. 

The listing action, the proposed 

determination, and the proposed draft 

CTGs are not subject to Executive Order 

13045 because they do not include 

regulatory requirements based on health 

or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) provides that agencies 

shall prepare and submit to the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, a Statement of 

Energy Effects for certain actions 

identified as ‘‘significant energy 

actions.’’ Section 4(b) of EO 13211 

defines ‘‘significant energy actions’’ as 

‘‘any action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of final rulemaking, and 

notices of final rulemaking: (1)(i) That is 

a significant regulatory action under EO 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

‘‘significant energy action.’’ EPA has 

determined that listing action, the 

proposed determination, and the 

proposed draft CTGs are a not 

significant regulatory action under EO 

12866, and that they are not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113; 

Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in their regulatory and 

procurement activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, 

business practices) developed or 

adopted by one or more voluntary 

consensus bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through annual 

reports to OMB, with explanations 

when an agency does not use available 

and applicable VCS. 

The listing action, the proposed 

determination that CTGS will be 

substantially as effective as regulations 

to achieve VOC emission reductions, 

and the proposed draft CTGs do not 

involve technical standards and 

therefore the NTTAA does not apply. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations,’’ provides for 

Federal agencies to consider the impact 

of programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income 

populations, including tribes. 

EPA believes that the listing action, 

the proposed determination, and the 

proposed draft CTGs should not raise 

any environmental justice issues. The 

purpose of section 183(e) is to obtain 

VOC emission reductions to assist in the 

attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The 

health and environmental risks 

associated with ozone were considered 

in the establishment of the ozone 

NAAQS. The level is designed to be 

protective of the public with an 

adequate margin of safety. EPA’s listing 

of the products, determination that 

CTGs are substantially as effective as 

regulations, and proposed draft CTGs, 

are actions intended to help States 

achieve the NAAQS in the most 

appropriate fashion. 

Dated: July 27, 2006. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, part 59, Subpart A is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 59—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 59 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Subpart A is added to read as 

follows: 

Subpart A—General 

§ 59.1 Final Determinations Under Section 

183(e)(3)(C). 

This section identifies the consumer 

and commercial product categories for 

which EPA has determined that CTGs 

will be substantially as effective as 

regulations in reducing VOC emissions 

in ozone nonattainment areas: 

(a) Wood furniture coatings; 

(b) Aerospace coatings; 

(c) Shipbuilding and repair coatings; 

(d) Lithographic printing materials; 

(e) Letterpress printing materials; 

(f) Flexible packaging printing 

materials; 

(g) Flat wood paneling coatings; and 

(h) Industrial cleaning solvents. 

[FR Doc. 06–6640 Filed 8–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS4