44672 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Notices

Existing rates Proposed rates

Transformation Service Transformation Service

69 kV .................................. +$0.12/kW/Mo .................................................................. +$0.27/kW/Mo

Delivery below 69 kV ......... +$0.55/kW/Mo ..................................................................

Note: transformation charge applied on capacity reservation.

No separate charge.

Note: transformation charge applied on usage, not reservation. Weekly and daily rates not applied.

Energy (Firm w/o Capacity) $0.0012/kWh .................................................................... No longer offered.

Capacity (Non-firm with energy): Grid or 138–161

kV.

The lesser of: ...................................................................

$0.0172/kW/day, or ......................................................

$0.0014/kWh ................................................................

No separate capacity charge.

$0.0015/kWh delivered.

Transformation Service Transformation Service

69 kV .................................. The lesser of:.

+$0.0040/kW/day ............................................................. No separate capacity charge.

+$0.0004/kWh .................................................................. Note: transformation charge applied on usage, not reservation. Weekly, daily, and hourly rates not applied.

Transformation Service

Delivery below 69 kV ......... The lesser of:.

+$0.0183/kW/day ......................................................... No separate capacity charge.

+$0.0015/kWh .............................................................. Note: transformation charge applied on usage, not reservation. Weekly, daily, and hourly rates not applied.

Rate Schedule IC–90 ....................................................... Service no longer offered.

Rate Schedule EE–90 (Excess Energy)

Energy ................................ $0.0052/kWh .................................................................... $0.0048/kWh + $0.0018/kWh (transmission) +

$0.00025/kWh (ancillary service) + for delivery in control area: $0.00017/kWh (ancillary service).

Opportunity is presented for

Southwestern customers and other

interested parties to receive copies of

the Integrated System Studies and

proposed rate schedules. If you desire a

copy of the Integrated System Power

Repayment Studies and Rate Design

Study Data Package with proposed Rate

Schedules, submit your request to Mr.

Forrest E. Reeves, Assistant

Administrator, Office of Corporate

Operations, Southwestern Power

Administration, P.O. Box 1619, Tulsa,

OK 74101–1619 (918) 595–6696.

A Public Information Forum is being

held to explain to customers and the

public the proposed rates and

supporting studies. The Forum will be

conducted by a chairman who will be

responsible for orderly procedure.

Questions concerning the rates, studies,

and information presented at the Forum

will be answered, to the extent possible,

at the Forum. Questions not answered at

the Forum will be answered in writing,

except that questions involving

voluminous data contained in

Southwestern’s records may best be

answered by consultation and review of

pertinent records at Southwestern’s

offices.

Persons interested in attending the

Public Information Forum should

indicate in writing by letter or facsimile

transmission (918–595–6656) by August

31, 1997, their intent to appear at such

Forum. If no one so indicates their

intent to attend, no such Forum will be

held.

A Public Comment Forum will be

held at which interested persons may

submit written comments or make oral

presentations of their views and

comments. The Forum will be

conducted by a chairman who will be

responsible for orderly procedure.

Southwestern’s representatives will be

present, and they and the chairman may

ask questions of the speakers. Persons

interested in attending the Public

Comment Forum should indicate in

writing by letter or facsimile

transmission (918–595–6656) by

September 30, 1997, their intent to

appear at such Forum. If no one so

indicates their intent to attend, no such

Forum will be held. Persons interested

in speaking at the Forum should submit

a request to the Administrator,

Southwestern, at least three (3) days

prior to the Forum so that a list of

speakers can be developed. The

chairman may allow others to speak if

time permits.

A transcript of each Forum will be

made. Copies of the transcripts may be

obtained from the transcribing service.

Copies of all documents introduced will

be available from Southwestern upon

request for a fee. Written comments on

the proposed Integrated System Rates

are due on or before November 20, 1997.

Ten copies of the written comment

should be submitted to the

Administrator, Southwestern, at the

above-mentioned address for

Southwestern’s offices.

Following review of the oral and

written comments and the information

gathered in the course of the

proceedings, the Administrator will

submit the amended Integrated System

Rate Proposal, Power Repayment

Studies, and Rate Design Study in

support of the proposed rates to the

Deputy Secretary of Energy for

confirmation and approval on an

interim basis, and to the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) for

confirmation and approval on a final

basis. The FERC will allow the public

an opportunity to provide written

comments on the proposed rate increase

before making a final decision.

Issued in Tulsa, Oklahoma, this 8th day of

August, 1997.

Forrest E. Reeves,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–22334 Filed 8–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5878–9]

Consumer and Commercial Products:

Wood Furniture, Aerospace, and

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair

Coatings: Control Techniques

Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed

determination.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing its

determination that control techniques

guidelines (CTG) are substantially as

effective as national regulations under

section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), as amended in 1990, in reducing

volatile organic compounds (VOC)

emissions in ozone nonattainment areas

from wood furniture manufacturing,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Notices 44673

aerospace, and shipbuilding and ship

repair coatings and that, therefore, the

EPA may issue a CTG in lieu of a

national regulation for each of these

specific categories. The CAA requires

the EPA to control VOC emissions from

certain categories of consumer and

commercial products through either

issuance of national rules or CTG. The

proposed action implements this

requirement by determining that CTG

are substantially as effective as

regulations for wood furniture

manufacturing, aerospace, and

shipbuilding and ship repair coatings

and, therefore, may be issued in lieu of

regulations.

The EPA determined that VOC

emissions from consumer and

commercial products can contribute to

the formation of ozone and ozone levels

that violate the national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone.

Ozone, which is a major component of

smog, causes negative health and

environmental impacts when present in

high concentrations at ground level. As

of April 1996, there were 73 geographic

areas which exceeded the NAAQS for

ozone. These ozone nonattainment areas

have a combined population of 114

million people.

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to provide interested persons

an opportunity for oral presentation of

data, views, or arguments concerning

the EPA’s determination that CTG may

be issued in lieu of national regulations

for wood furniture, aerospace, and

shipbuilding and ship repair coatings.

DATES:

Comments. Comments must be

received on or before October 21, 1997.

Public Hearing. A public hearing will

be held, if requested, to provide

interested persons an opportunity for

oral presentation of data, views, or

arguments concerning the proposed

determination that CTG are

substantially as effective as national

regulations for wood furniture,

aerospace, and shipbuilding and ship

repair coatings and, therefore, CTG may

be issued in lieu of regulations. If

anyone contacts the EPA requesting to

speak at a public hearing by September

8, 1997, a public hearing will be held on

September 25, 1997, beginning at 9:30

a.m. Persons interested in attending the

hearing should contact Ms. Kim Teal at

(919) 541–5580 to verify whether a

hearing will occur and the location of

the hearing.

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons

wishing to present oral testimony must

contact the EPA by September 17, 1997,

by contacting Ms. Kim Teal, Coatings

and Consumer Products Group (MD–

13), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)

541–5580.

ADDRESSES:

Comments. Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6102), Attention:

Docket No. A–96–23, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Docket. Docket No. A–96–23,

containing supporting information for

the proposed determination of the

effectiveness of a CTG for the wood

furniture, aerospace, and shipbuilding

and ship repair coatings under section

183(e), is available for public inspection

and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the

EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Waterside Mall,

Room M–1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460. Telephone

(202) 260–7548, FAX (202) 260–4400. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Daniel Brown, (919) 541–5305, Coatings

and Consumer Products Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: a-and-rdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disk in WordPerfect 6.1 file

format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

A–96–23. No Confidential Business

Information should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic comments on

this proposed determination may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

An electronic version of this proposed

determination is available for download

from the EPA’s Technology Transfer

Network (TTN), a network of electronic

bulletin boards developed and operated

by the Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards. The TTN provides

information and technology exchange in

various areas of air pollution control.

The service is free, except for the cost

of a phone call. Dial (919) 541–5742 for

data transfer of up to 14,400 bits per

second. If more information on TTN is

needed, contact the systems operator at

(919) 541–5384.

Potentially Affected Entities

Entities potentially affected by this

action are those wood furniture

manufacturing operations, aerospace

manufacturing and rework operations,

or shipbuilding and ship repair (surface

coating) operations which are (or have

the potential to become) ‘‘major’’

sources of VOC emissions and are

located in nonattainment areas of ozone.

Potentially affected entities are included

in the following table:

Category Examples of potentially affected entities

Industry ........................... Wood furniture or wood furniture component(s) manufacturing.

Any manufacturing, reworking, or repairing of aircraft such as airplanes, helicopters, missiles, rockets, and space vehicles.

Any building or repairing, repainting, converting, or alteration of ships. The term ship means any marine or freshwater vessel, including self-propelled by other craft (barges), and navigational aids (buoys). Note: Offshore oil and

gas drilling platforms and vessels used by individuals for noncommercial, nonmilitary, and recreational purposes

that are less than 20 meters in length are not considered ships.

Federal Government ....... Federal agencies which undertake aerospace manufacturing or rework operations (see above) such as the Air

Force, Navy, Army, and Coast Guard.

Federal agencies which undertake shipbuilding or ship repair operations (see above) such as the Navy and Coast

Guard.
44674 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Notices

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities which are

the focus of this action. This table lists

the types of entities that the EPA is now

aware could potentially be affected by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be affected.

If you have questions regarding the

focus or applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this

notice.

The information presented in this

notice is organized as follows:

I. Background

II. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Coatings

A. Factors to Consider Regarding the

Effectiveness of CTG Compared to a

National Regulation

B. Overview of Existing Wood Furniture

CTG and Expected Emissions Reductions

C. Estimate of BAC for Wood Furniture

Coatings

D. Comparison of Effectiveness of Wood

Furniture CTG with National Regulation

Based on BAC in Reducing VOC

Emissions

III. Aerospace Coatings

A. Factors to Consider Regarding the

Effectiveness of CTG Compared to a

National Regulation

B. Overview of Recently Proposed

Aerospace CTG and Expected Emissions

Reductions

C. Estimate of BAC for Aerospace Coatings

D. Comparison of Effectiveness of

Aerospace CTG with National Regulation

Based on BAC in Reducing VOC

Emissions

IV. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Coatings

A. Factors to Consider Regarding the

Effectiveness of CTG Compared to a

National Regulation

B. Overview of Shipbuilding and Ship

Repair CTG and Expected Emissions

Reductions

C. Estimate of BAC for Shipbuilding and

Ship Repair Coatings

D. Comparison of Effectiveness of

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair CTG with

National Regulation Based on BAC in

Reducing VOC Emissions

V. Proposed Determination

VI. Cost-Effectiveness

VII. Solicitation of Comments

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

B. Docket

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

E. Regulatory Flexibility

F. Unfunded Mandates Act

I. Background

Exposure to ground-level ozone is

associated with a wide variety of human

health effects, agricultural crop loss, and

damage to forests and ecosystems. The

most thoroughly studied health effects

of exposure to ozone at elevated levels

during periods of moderate to strenuous

exercise are the impairment of normal

functioning of the lungs, symptomatic

effects, and reduction in the ability to

engage in activities that require various

levels of physical exertion. Typical

symptoms associated with acute (one to

three hour) exposure to ozone at levels

of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) or higher

under heavy exercise or 0.16 ppm or

higher under moderate exercise include

cough, chest pain, nausea, shortness of

breath, and throat irritation.

Ground-level ozone, which is a major

component of ‘‘smog,’’ is formed in the

atmosphere by reactions of VOC and

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence

of sunlight. In order to reduce groundlevel ozone concentrations, emissions of

VOC and NOX must be reduced.

Section 183(e) of the CAA addresses

the reduction of VOC emissions from

consumer and commercial products. It

requires the EPA to study VOC

emissions from consumer and

commercial products, to report to

Congress the results of the study, and to

list for regulation products accounting

for at least 80 percent of VOC emissions

resulting from use of such products in

ozone nonattainment areas.

Accordingly, on March 23, 1995 (60 FR

15264), the EPA announced the

availability of the ‘‘Consumer and

Commercial Products Report to

Congress’’ (EPA–453/R–94–066-A), and

published the consumer and

commercial products category list and

schedule for regulation. As stated in that

notice, the list and schedule could be

amended as further information

becomes available. Group I, which

identifies product categories scheduled

for regulation by 1997, includes wood

furniture, aerospace, and shipbuilding

and ship repair coatings. Therefore, the

EPA is required to regulate these three

categories by 1997. In this action, the

EPA seeks comment on the listing and

the schedule for regulation with respect

to these three categories.

Regulations developed under section

183(e) must be based on best available

controls (BAC). Section 183(e)(1)(A)

defines BAC as follows:

The degree of emission 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.

Although section 183(e) requires the

EPA to issue regulations, section

183(e)(3)(C) provides that the EPA may

issue CTG in lieu of a national

regulation where the EPA determines

that the CTG will be ‘‘substantially as

effective as regulations’’ in reducing

emissions of VOC in ozone

nonattainment areas.

Although not specifically defined in

the CAA, a CTG is a guidance document

issued by the EPA which, under section

182(b)(2), triggers a responsibility for

States to submit reasonably available

control technology (RACT) rules for

stationary sources of VOC that are

covered by the CTG as part of their State

implementation plans. The EPA defines

RACT as ‘‘the lowest emission limit that

a particular source is capable of meeting

by the application of control technology

that is reasonably available considering

technological and economic feasibility’’

(44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979).

Each CTG includes a ‘‘presumptive

norm’’ or ‘‘presumptive RACT’’ that the

EPA believes satisfies the definition of

RACT. If a State submits a RACT rule

that is consistent with the presumptive

RACT, the State does not need to submit

additional support to demonstrate that

the rule meets the CAA’s RACT

requirement. However, if the State

determines to submit an alternative

emission limit or level of control for a

source or source category for which

there is a presumptive RACT, the State

must submit independent

documentation as to why the rule meets

the statutory RACT requirement.

Although section 183(e) authorizes

issuance of a CTG in lieu of a regulation

for categories of consumer and

commercial products for which a CTG

would be substantially as effective in

ozone nonattainment areas as a

regulation would be, the statute does

not explicitly identify the appropriate

standard, or level of control, for the

CTG. As discussed above, a CTG

generally triggers the responsibility of a

State to develop regulations based on

RACT. Congress did not provide a

distinct standard to be considered when

determining whether a CTG would be

substantially as effective as a regulation

pursuant to section 183(e), and

legislative history does not address this

issue. Because the only statutory

requirement triggered by a CTG is

establishment of RACT, the EPA

believes that Congress intended the

more generally applied RACT standard

to be the basis for determining whether

a CTG could be issued in lieu of

regulation for consumer and commercial

products.

In some situations, the EPA may

examine an existing CTG, or one that is

under development pursuant to other

requirements of the CAA, to determine
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Notices 44675

if such CTG is substantially as effective

as a regulation under section 183(e). The

EPA believes that such comparisons

would fulfill the requirements of section

183(e) when such CTG are based on

RACT or standards determined to be

equivalent to RACT.

Sections 183(b)(3) and (4) require the

EPA to establish CTG based on ‘‘best

available control measures’’ (BACM) to

reduce emissions from aerospace

coatings and solvents and shipbuilding

and ship repair coating operations. As

discussed later in this notice, the EPA

determined that for the CTG based on

BACM required under sections 183(b)(3)

and (4) for aerospace coatings and

shipbuilding and ship repair coating

operations, RACT would in fact be

equivalent to BACM. Therefore, it is

appropriate for the EPA to consider

whether these CTG, which would meet

both BACM and RACT, would be

substantially as effective as a BAC-based

regulation issued under section 183(e).

In exercising its discretion to consider

a CTG as a regulatory alternative under

section 183(e) of the CAA, the EPA

recognizes that because its specific

purpose is to reduce emissions of VOC

in ozone nonattainment areas, in some

cases a CTG can be substantially as

effective as a national regulation,

particularly for some of the commercial

products scheduled for regulation under

section 183(e). In fact, in some

instances, a CTG may be more effective

because it can be directed at a broader

scope of regulated entities. Section

183(e) defines regulated entities as

follows:

(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.

Based on this definition, a regulation

issued under section 183(e) for

consumer or commercial products

would focus only on the manufacturers

or importers of the solvents and

products supplied to the consumer or

industry, rather than on the consumer or

end-users of the products within an

industry. Focusing on manufacturers

and importers is an effective approach

for reducing emissions from consumer

and commercial products, especially

those which are easily transportable and

widely distributed to consumers and

contractors for use in unlimited

locations. For these types of products, a

CTG may not be as effective as a

national regulation. The transportability

of the products tend to decrease rule

effectiveness due to the likelihood of

unregulated or ‘‘higher VOC’’ products

being bought in attainment areas and

used in nonattainment areas. In

addition, since the end-users include

homeowners and other widely varied

consumers, effective enforcement on

these types of users would be limited.

Therefore, for these types of products,

the main benefit of a CTG may not be

achieved; namely, the ability to ensure

that the product used meets the

requirements after any thinner or other

VOC components are added. In such

instances where the end user is at a

specified manufacturing setting, a CTG

may be as, or more, effective than a

regulation because a CTG can be

reasonably focused on the end-user, and

thus, directly target the coating asapplied, rather than as-supplied, at the

facilities. The ‘‘as-applied’’ coating

would include the VOC in the

manufactured commercial coating itself

plus any VOC solvent added to the

product by the end-user. The

application of a CTG to these industries

may be particularly effective because, in

contrast to consumer products, these

industries have well-defined end-users

which consistently apply large volumes

of coatings at specific and easily

identifiable locations. At the point of

application, a CTG can prohibit an enduser from thinning products beyond

VOC requirements. In addition, a CTG

could achieve added VOC reductions in

industrial settings where these coatings

are applied by requiring particular

application equipment or work

practices. These types of requirements

would not be practical for widely

distributed consumer products since

enforcement personnel would not be

aware of locations where the products

may be used on any given day.

In the case of wood furniture

manufacturing, aerospace, and

shipbuilding and ship repair facilities,

large volumes of coatings may be

applied in a manner where the specific

application process requires the

addition of VOC solvent and other

adjuncts to achieve and maintain ideal

coating properties; these additions by

the end-user may increase emissions of

VOC which may not be adequately

addressed by a regulation aimed at

regulated entities (i.e., the coating

manufacturers). Because a CTG is

directed toward the end-user,

requirements could directly target the

coating as applied at the facility. The

‘‘as-applied’’ coating would include any

VOC solvent added to the commercial

products (i.e., the coatings as supplied

by the coating manufacturers) by the

end-user. In addition, a CTG could

target application equipment and work

practice standards to achieve further

VOC reductions. In these cases, a CTG

may be a more effective means to reduce

VOC emissions than a national

regulation.

Considering these factors, the EPA

estimated and compared the likely VOC

reductions in ozone nonattainment

areas to be achieved by a CTG versus a

national regulation based on BAC for

each of these categories. In conducting

the comparison of whether a CTG based

on RACT would be substantially as

effective as a national regulation based

on BAC, the EPA estimated what RACT

and BAC would be in order to estimate

emission reductions. Although the EPA

considered likely estimates of RACT

and BAC for this comparative purpose,

at this time, specific RACT and BAC

limits are not being proposed and the

EPA only seeks comments on the

proposed case-by-case determination

that a CTG would be as effective as a

national regulation for these three

industries. If the EPA determines, based

on comments received, that a CTG

would not be substantially as effective

as a national regulation, the EPA will

proceed with development of a BACbased national regulation. As today’s

proposal relies only on estimates of

BAC, it is possible that a BAC-based

regulation may differ from the estimates

relied on today.

Based on the comparisons discussed

below, the EPA is proposing that a CTG

for wood furniture, aerospace, and

shipbuilding and ship repair industries

would be substantially as effective as a

national regulation developed under

section 183(e) in reducing VOC

emissions from facilities located in

ozone nonattainment areas. In

determining whether to develop a CTG

or a regulation, the EPA may take into

account a variety of different factors

related to implementation and

enforcement, such as the most effective

entity to target for regulation, the need

for flexibility, the distribution and site

of use for the products, consistency with

other control strategies, and costeffectiveness. As described below on a

case-by-case basis, some of these factors

can affect the effectiveness of a CTG in

controlling VOC emissions from

commercial products. The EPA requests

comment on these determinations.
44676 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Notices

II. Wood Furniture Manufacturing

Coatings

A. Factors To Consider Regarding the

Effectiveness of CTG Compared to a

National Regulation

In evaluating control strategies for

VOC emissions from wood furniture

manufacturing coatings, it is necessary

to know how those coatings are used by

the wood furniture industry. The wood

furniture industry is commonly grouped

into household/residential furniture,

office/business furniture, and kitchen

cabinet furniture. Each group consists of

different grades and styles of wood

furniture products and uses a variety of

raw materials and manufacturing

methods. Differences in the products

would be apparent in finish application

methods, finishing sequences, types of

wood or wood product used, and types

of finish coatings used.

The coatings used in the wood

furniture industry penetrate the wood

and become an integral part of the final

product. The coatings are very complex

in that they react differently with the

various types of wood, fiberboard, and

particleboard used by the industry, as

well as each subsequent coating applied

in the finishing process. Therefore, each

type of coating used for a particular step

in a finishing sequence is unique and

must be formulated as part of a

complimentary finishing system to

ensure compatibility. In addition, the

VOC content and composition of a

coating is sometimes adjusted to

account for changes in the drying time

and the overall ease of application in

relation to ambient temperature and the

humidity. Solvents used to adjust the

coatings are also used for cleaning

application equipment and work spaces

and to strip finished pieces (referred to

as washoff) that do not meet

specifications.

The related VOC emissions from the

wood furniture industry, therefore, are

from the use of the coatings and the use

of solvent in cleaning and washoff

operations. Because VOC emissions in

this industry are due to a variety of

different sources in the manufacturing

process, including the coatings as

applied, a national regulation under

section 183(e) of the CAA may be of

limited effectiveness in reducing VOC

emissions from wood furniture coatings.

This is primarily due to the fact that the

EPA’s authority under section 183(e), as

previously discussed, does not

authorize the regulation of end-users.

Thus, regulations could apply only to

the wood furniture coatings as

‘‘supplied’’ to the wood furniture

industry, not to the users who apply the

coatings. Since the wood furniture

manufacturers often alter a supplied

coating prior to its application by

adding VOC solvents, the ‘‘as-applied’’

VOC content of the coating ends up

being greater than the ‘‘as-supplied’’

VOC content. For this reason, a CTG

could be as effective, if not more

effective, than a national regulation. For

the wood furniture industry, consisting

of facilities which could be inspected

for compliance with State RACT rules,

a CTG could provide limits for the

coatings as applied and also achieve

VOC emission reductions from the

implementation of work practice

standards for the associated cleaning

and washoff operations.

B. Overview of Existing Wood Furniture

CTG and Expected Emissions

Reductions

Under a separate Federal Register

notice, the EPA recently released a final

CTG for the wood furniture

manufacturing industry (61 FR 25223,

May 20, 1996) pursuant to section

183(a) of the CAA. The EPA is not

seeking comment on the content, or

issuance, of that wood furniture CTG as

it was issued independently of any

requirements of section 183(e).

However, for the purpose of

determining whether a CTG would be

substantially as effective as a regulation

as required under section 183(e), the

following discussion refers to that CTG

as an estimate of the potential emission

reductions obtainable with a CTG for

the wood furniture industry. As the CTG

issued pursuant to section 183(a) was

based on RACT, and a CTG to be issued

pursuant to section 183(e) would also be

based on RACT, the already existing

CTG provides an appropriate estimate

for these purposes.

The wood furniture CTG applies to

wood furniture manufacturing facilities

located in ozone nonattainment areas

that emit more than 25 tons per year

(tpy) of VOC (10 tpy for sources located

in extreme ozone nonattainment areas).

The CTG includes emission limits for

the finish coatings used by the wood

furniture industry and work practice

standards that will reduce emissions

from finishing, cleaning, and washoff

operations by reducing finish coating

and solvent usage.

The CTG emission limits were

established through a regulatory

negotiation process consisting of

stakeholders from industry,

environmental and public health

groups, States, and the EPA. For over

two years the stakeholders evaluated

several control technique options in

consideration of advancing technology,

compatibility, and feasibility. At the

conclusion of the evaluation, it was

determined that of the various coatings

used in the finishing process,

conventional topcoats and sealers could

technically and feasibly be replaced

with waterborne and/or high solids

coatings. The waterborne technology,

however, is limited to topcoats since

waterborne sealer technology has been

slower to advance and is limited in

availability to a few segments of the

industry where both waterborne sealers

and topcoats can be used to meet

product quality requirements. The high

solids technology is further advanced

and both high-solids topcoats and

sealers are, or will be, available to the

industry.

The emission limits corresponding to

these two reference control technologies

are presented in table 1. A wood

furniture manufacturing facility may

reformulate all of its topcoats so that it

meets the waterborne reference

technology limit of 0.8 kilogram (kg)

VOC/kg solids, in which case it could

use any sealer with no restriction on its

VOC content; or it may reformulate both

the sealers and topcoats to meet the high

solids reference technology limits of 1.9

and 1.8 kg VOC/kg solids, respectively

(2.3 and 2.0 for vinyl sealers and

conversion varnish topcoats). The 0.8 kg

VOC/kg solids limit for the waterborne

topcoats may also be achieved with

other types of topcoats such as

ultraviolet-cured topcoats which also

meet this limit.

Facilities must also comply with the

work practice standards. These include

a limit on the types of application

equipment that may be used to apply

finishing materials and a requirement

that facilities develop and implement an

operator training program, a cleaning

and washoff solvent accounting system,

and a leak detection and repair program.

Facilities must also keep all containers

used to store finishing materials and

solvents closed when not in use. Table

2 summarizes the work practice

standards included in the CTG.

In the previously issued CTG, the EPA

estimated that more than 950 wood

furniture manufacturing facilities will

be subject to State regulations based on

the CTG. The emission limits and work

practice standards are expected to

reduce VOC emissions from these

facilities by 18,500 megagrams per year

(Mg/yr) (20,400 tpy) in ozone

nonattainment areas.

C. Estimate of BAC for Wood Furniture

Coatings

As discussed in the background

section of this notice, the EPA may

determine that a CTG would be

substantially as effective as a regulation

issued under section 183(e). To make
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Notices 44677

such a determination, the EPA

estimated and compared the likely VOC

reductions in nonattainment areas to be

achieved by a CTG versus a regulation.

Regulations issued pursuant to section

183(e) must be based on BAC. Thus, for

comparative purposes, the EPA

identified potential limits which would

be likely to represent BAC. Although the

EPA conducted such an analysis, the

EPA is not proposing this estimate as a

BAC limit at this time. The BAC

estimate discussed in this proposal

represents a likely limit that could

represent BAC in a national regulation.

However, if the EPA were to proceed

with the development of a national BAC

regulation, it is possible that the BACbased regulation may differ from the

estimates relied on today for

comparison purposes.

In estimating BAC for wood furniture

coatings, the EPA evaluated the

information and data used to establish

the VOC emission controls in the wood

furniture CTG. As previously discussed,

the limits recommended in the CTG

resulted from over two years of

evaluating control options in

consideration of advancing technology

and feasibility. Although that CTG was

based on RACT, as discussed below, the

EPA believes that the standard in the

CTG reflects the most advanced control

technologies available for use by the

industry and is, thus, representative of

BAC.

In evaluating the topcoat and sealer

coatings used by the wood furniture

manufacturing industry, the EPA

considered conventional coatings with

lower VOC content as well as the more

advanced waterborne coatings and high

solids coatings during the CTG

development process. For the purpose

of the following discussion, it is helpful

to think of the different coating types

(e.g., conventional, waterborne, high

solids) as distinct technologies

comprising separate coating systems. To

maintain the diversity of wood furniture

products and the various levels of

product quality that customers demand,

the EPA believes a variety of coating

systems should remain available.

Therefore, in establishing the RACT

limits in the CTG, the EPA included

separate limits for waterborne and high

solids coating technologies. However,

rather than estimating limits for each

coating technology in establishing BAC,

the EPA estimated a single set of coating

limits representing the lowest

achievable VOC content which would

not preclude the manufacture of the

required coatings for each technology.

Again, this is because a regulation under

section 183(e) would not apply to the

end-user of the product (e.g., the wood

furniture manufacturing industry), but

rather the manufacturer or importer of

the product (e.g., the manufacturer of

the wood furniture coating).

In evaluating BAC, waterborne

technology and UV-curable coatings

offered topcoats and sealers with the

lowest VOC contents among all of the

coating technologies considered.

However, as described previously, only

waterborne topcoats were determined to

be RACT with the limit in the CTG set

at 0.8 kg VOC/kg solid. In estimating

BAC, the EPA considered strengthening

the RACT limit for waterborne

technology by establishing a VOC limit

for waterborne sealers (which the CTG

did not include) and lowering the RACT

VOC limit for topcoats. However, if the

EPA established BAC limits for topcoats

and sealers based on waterborne

technology with the lowest VOC

content, it would effectively eliminate

the availability of other coating

technologies (e.g., high solids coatings).

Although a limit representing BAC

would not necessarily need to allow the

manufacture and availability of other

coating technologies, some segments of

the industry maintain that without these

coating technologies they cannot

provide the product quality in demand.

For purposes of this analysis, the EPA

believes that establishing a BAC limit

based on waterborne technology may

have adverse economic impacts on these

industry segments, particularly those

which have already invested time and

resources in converting their facilities to

use the high solids coating technology.

Since this option may present

technological limits and potentially

significant economic impacts, for the

purpose of this analysis, the EPA

believes that BAC would not be based

on the use of waterborne coatings.

The EPA further evaluated potential

BAC limits in consideration of high

solids coating technology. High solids

coating technology is widely available

throughout most segments of the wood

furniture industry and both high solids

topcoats and sealers were determined to

be RACT with a VOC limit of 1.8 kg

VOC/kg solids and 1.9 kg VOC/kg solids

respectively. For high solids conversion

varnish topcoats and vinyl sealers, the

RACT limits are 2.0 and 2.3 kg VOC/kg

solids respectively. In estimating BAC,

the EPA considered lowering the CTG

RACT limits for high solids technology

coatings by adopting lower VOC limits

adopted in a similar State/local agency

rule. However, in evaluating these local

VOC limits, it was discovered that the

sources being regulated typically did

not include the diversity of facilities

and operating conditions that must be

considered in establishing national

limits. Furthermore, since the adopted

limits in the local rule have not gone

into effect, compliance with the limits

has not been demonstrated.

The EPA, therefore, believes that the

limits established as RACT are

representative of BAC with the possible

exception of conversion varnish

topcoats. For high solids conversion

varnish topcoats, the EPA believes the

BAC limit could be 1.8 kg VOC/kg

solids as compared to the RACT limit of

2.0 kg VOC/kg solids.

The EPA believes that setting a BAC

limit for topcoats equal to 1.8 kg VOC/

kg solids is technically feasible.

Although this limit would effectively

eliminate conventional topcoats, both

the waterborne and high solids coatings

could be manufactured to meet this

limit and would allow the wood

furniture manufacturing industry to

produce the diversity and quality of

products demanded. In establishing a

BAC limit for sealers, the EPA believes

that the high solids technology would

not be used as a basis. Setting the BAC

limit for sealers at 1.9 kg VOC/kg solids

would effectively require facilities

which converted to waterborne topcoats

to use high solid sealers since

waterborne sealers are not available for

all applications. This may pose a

problem for the industry because the

waterborne and high solids technologies

are not necessarily compatible and

many segments of the industry may not

be able to meet their product quality

requirements with a combination of

waterborne topcoats and high solids

sealers. The industry maintains that

when using waterborne topcoats, it is

necessary in some applications to use

conventional sealers to maintain

product quality. Therefore, to estimate a

BAC limit for sealers, the EPA relied

upon an analysis of conventional

sealers. Based on this analysis, the EPA

determined that a reasonable estimate of

BAC for sealers is 3.9 kg VOC/kg solids.

In summary, for purposes of this

analysis, the EPA believes that the

following limits would be likely to

represent BAC for wood furniture

coatings:

Sealers—3.9 kg VOC/kg solids; and

Topcoats—1.8 kg VOC/kg solids.

The EPA requests comments on the

determination that these limits are

representative of BAC. At this point, the

EPA is not proposing these limits as

BAC for a national regulation; rather,

the EPA is using these estimated limits

to compare the effectiveness of a wood

furniture CTG to a national regulation

aimed at reducing VOC emissions in

nonattainment areas for the purpose of

determining whether a CTG for this
44678 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Notices

category is substantially as effective as

a national regulation.

D. Comparison of Effectiveness of Wood

Furniture CTG With National

Regulation Based on BAC in Reducing

VOC Emissions

Based on EPA estimates of likely BAC

limits incorporated into a national

regulation compared to the CTG, the

EPA believes that a CTG for wood

furniture manufacturing coatings would

achieve greater VOC emission

reductions in ozone nonattainment

areas than a regulation under section

183(e) of the CAA. As previously

discussed, the EPA estimates that the

wood furniture CTG will reduce VOC

emissions from wood furniture

manufacturing facilities located in

ozone nonattainment areas by 18,500

Mg/yr (20,400 tpy). Of all the wood

furniture facilities located in

nonattainment areas, there are

approximately 950 facilities, emitting on

average 25 or more tons of VOC per

year, which would be affected by the

CTG. Alternatively, a national

regulation would limit the VOC content

of coatings available to all wood

furniture manufacturing facilities,

including those emitting less than 25

tpy VOC. Although a national regulation

would affect the coatings supplied to

approximately 4,500 facilities located in

ozone nonattainment areas, most of

these facilities are very small and do not

use significant quantities of finishing

coatings materials. Based on the

estimated BAC limits and number of

affected facilities, the EPA estimates

that the implementation of a national

regulation would reduce VOC emissions

from wood furniture manufacturing

facilities located in ozone

nonattainment areas by 14,234 Mg/yr

(15,689 tpy).

Although fewer facilities will be

impacted by the CTG than by a national

regulation, the EPA estimates that the

reductions per facility, and, therefore,

overall emission reductions, are greater

with the CTG than they are with a

national regulation due to a variety of

factors. One factor, as discussed

previously, is that the CTG includes

work practice standards which result in

emission reductions that are not

obtainable with a national regulation.

Another factor is that in estimating the

emission reductions from a national

regulation, the EPA assumed that all

facilities would use topcoats and sealers

with the estimated BAC limits of 1.8 kg

VOC/kg solids and 3.9 kg VOC/kg

solids, respectively. As discussed

previously, the BAC limits represent the

lowest VOC limits that would be

enforceable in a national regulation for

all of the coating technologies used in

wood furniture manufacturing.

Arguably, the estimated BAC limits

could be subcategorized, as in the CTG,

to specify particular coating limits for

the coatings supplied within the distinct

coating technologies. However, the EPA

believes that this approach would not

lead to further VOC reductions from

wood furniture coatings since, as

previously discussed, the supplied

coatings are often altered prior to use.

However, individual facilities that can

use waterborne technology will, in

practice, use waterborne topcoats below

the BAC limits for all coating

technology topcoats. Likewise, facilities

that can use high solids technology will

use high solid sealers below the BAC

limit for all coating technology sealers.

Since the CTG RACT limits can be

enforced at individual facilities,

emission reductions from the CTG could

account for the lowest limits in each

distinct coating technology used by

specific sectors of the industry.

This demonstrates the advantage of

controlling emissions from the coatings

as applied with a CTG, versus the

coating as supplied by the manufacturer

with a national BAC regulation. As

discussed previously, the estimated

BAC limits are applicable to all the

various topcoat and sealer coating

technologies supplied to the industry

and, therefore, reflect the lowest VOC

limits achievable by all the coating

technologies. The CTG, however, can

establish coating limits for particular

application processes that can use a

single coating technology and still

produce quality products. Since the

limits in a CTG are applicable to the

coatings as applied, and regulators can

inspect wood furniture manufacturing

facilities for compliance, the EPA

believes that a CTG is the most effective

way to control emissions from the wood

furniture coatings. Therefore, based on

the emission reduction estimates, and

the limited applicability of a national

BAC regulation versus a CTG, the EPA

believes that a CTG will be more

effective in reducing VOC emissions

from wood furniture manufacturing

coatings in ozone nonattainment areas,

and that a CTG may be issued in lieu of

a national regulation under section

183(e)(3)(C).

III. Aerospace Coatings

A. Factors to Consider Regarding the

Effectiveness of CTG Compared to

National Regulation

In evaluating control strategies for

VOC emissions from aerospace coatings,

the EPA identified how these coatings

are used by the aerospace industry and

sources of significant VOC emissions.

The aerospace industry includes all

manufacturing facilities that produce

aerospace vehicles and/or components

thereof and all facilities that rework or

repair aerospace vehicles. Aerospace

facilities can be divided into four

market segments: Commercial original

equipment manufacturers (OEM),

commercial rework facilities, military

OEM, and military rework facilities. The

commercial OEM segment of the market

includes the manufacture of commercial

aircraft as well as the production of

business and private aircraft. The

military OEM segment of the market

includes military installations and

defense contractors that manufacture

aircraft, missiles, rockets, satellites, and

spacecraft. Rework facilities, both

commercial and military, may rework

many of the above end-products. The

most significant VOC emissions from

the aerospace manufacturing and

rework operations are the coatings

themselves as well as cleaning

operations.

Most aerospace coatings are solventborne; the most common VOC solvents

are toluene, xylene, methyl ethyl

ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone. The

VOC content varies for the various

coating categories and specific coating

requirements. Coatings are applied to

the surface of a part to form a decorative

or functional solid film. The most

widely used coatings fit into the broad

categories of nonspecialized primers

and topcoats. However, in addition to

these two general categories, there are

numerous specialty coatings that

provide additional performance

characteristics such as temperature,

fluid, or fire resistance; flexibility;

substrate compatibility; antireflection;

temporary protection or marking;

sealing; adhesively joining substrates;

enhanced corrosion protection; or

compatibility with a space environment.

Each coating is unique due to individual

performance standards particular to a

specific design. The quality of the

coatings is critical to the airworthiness

and safety of the final product.

Therefore, aerospace coating

specifications are dictated by the

Federal Aviation Administration, the

Department of Defense, and specific

customer requirements.

A wide variety of solvents, including

some of those listed above, are also used

for cleaning operations in the aerospace

industry. Aerospace components are

cleaned frequently during

manufacturing to remove contaminants

such as dirt, grease, and oil, and to

prepare the components for the next

operation. Application equipment and

work spaces are also cleaned with
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Notices 44679

solvents resulting in potentially

significant emissions.

The related VOC emissions from the

aerospace industry are, therefore, from

the use of the coatings and from the use

of solvent in cleaning operations.

Because VOC emissions in this industry

are due to a variety of different sources

in the manufacturing process, including

the coatings as applied, a national

regulation may be of limited

effectiveness in reducing VOC

emissions from aerospace coatings. This

is primarily due to the limit of the EPA’s

authority under section 183(e), as

previously discussed, to regulate only

the aerospace coatings as supplied to

the industry. Since, in practice, the

supplied aerospace coatings are often

altered prior to application by adding

VOC solvents, the ‘‘as-applied’’ VOC

content of the coating ends up being

greater than the ‘‘as-supplied’’ VOC

content. For this reason, a CTG could be

as effective, if not more effective, than

a national regulation. For the aerospace

industry, consisting of facilities which

could be inspected for compliance with

State RACT rules, a CTG could provide

limits for the coatings as applied and

also achieve VOC emission reductions

from the implementation of work

practice standards for the associated

cleaning operations.

B. Overview of Recently Proposed

Aerospace CTG and Expected Emissions

Reductions

On October 29, 1996 (61 FR 55842),

a draft CTG for aerospace manufacturing

and rework facilities was issued

pursuant to section 183(b)(3) for public

review along with a supplemental

notice to the national emission standard

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP).

The EPA is not seeking comment on the

content or issuance of that draft

aerospace CTG with this notice.

However, the following discussion

refers to that CTG as an estimate of the

potential emission reductions

obtainable with a CTG for the aerospace

industry. This discussion serves as the

basis for the determination required

under section 183(e) as to whether a

CTG would be substantially as effective

as a regulation.

The draft aerospace CTG applies to

aerospace manufacturing and rework

facilities which are considered major

VOC sources located in ozone

nonattainment areas that emit more than

25 tpy of VOC (10 tpy for sources

located in extreme ozone nonattainment

areas). The type and level of VOC

control identified in the draft CTG is

based on BACM. The draft CTG

emission limits were established in

conjunction with the development of

maximum achievable control

technology for the NESHAP. This

involved extensive data gathering and

evaluation to identify the best controls

for the industry in consideration of

advanced technology and feasibility.

The VOC content limits of 350 grams

per liter (g/l) (2.9 pounds per gallon (lb/

gal)) (less water and exempt solvents)

and 420 g/l (3.5 lb/gal) (less water and

exempt solvents) were established for

primers and topcoats respectively. The

VOC content limits of 622 g/l (5.2 lb/gal)

(less water and exempt solvents) and

160 g/l (1.3 lb/gal) (less water and

exempt solvents) were established for

Type I and Type II chemical milling

maskants respectively. Additional VOC

limits, as presented in table 3, were

established for various specialty coating

categories. The draft CTG also includes

a requirement that facilities use specific

types of application equipment (or

techniques) for applying primers and

topcoats and follow work practice

guidelines for solvent cleaning

operations, housekeeping measures,

hand-wipe cleaning, flush cleaning, and

spray gun cleaning.

The EPA estimates that approximately

64 percent of aerospace facilities, or

1,836 facilities, are located in ozone

nonattainment areas and are expected to

be subject to the aerospace CTG

resulting in VOC emission reductions of

3,889 Mg/yr (4,288 tpy). Of the 3,889

Mg/yr (4,288 tpy), 2,721 Mg/yr (3,000

tpy) are expected to result from the VOC

content limits of the applied coatings

with the remaining reductions from the

equipment and work practice standards.

As mentioned earlier, a CTG issued

pursuant to section 183(e) would be

based on RACT. The EPA believes that

for aerospace coatings, RACT and

BACM are identical. While typically

BACM (‘‘best’’) implies more stringent

control than RACT (‘‘reasonable’’), the

EPA recognizes that there may be

instances when there is such a limited

range of controls for a specified industry

or industry process that these two levels

of control may be identical. The

aerospace coating industry is such an

instance. Thus, the EPA believes that it

is appropriate to rely on these estimated

emission reductions, which reflect both

BACM and RACT, for the purpose of

comparing the effectiveness of a CTG to

a regulation under section 183(e).

C. Estimate of BAC for Aerospace

Coatings

As discussed previously, the EPA

must determine whether a CTG would

be substantially as effective as a

regulation based on BAC. In making this

determination, the EPA has prepared a

likely estimate of the emission

reductions that could be achieved with

a BAC-based regulation. Although the

EPA prepared such an estimate, it is

important to note that this is only an

estimate of what emission reductions

might be achieved with a BAC-based

regulation. If the EPA were to proceed

with the development of a national BAC

regulation, it is possible that the level of

VOC reductions resulting from a BACbased regulation may differ from the

estimates calculated today.

In estimating BAC for aerospace

coatings, the EPA evaluated the data

and information used to establish the

VOC emission controls in the aerospace

CTG issued pursuant to section 183(b)

which is based on BACM. Although

section 183(b) does not specifically

define BACM, the VOC limits

established under this section for

primers and topcoats represent the best

performing sources in the industry.

Because there is no distinct definition of

BACM, the EPA believes that limits

based on BACM are similar, if not

equivalent, to limits that would be

established under BAC as required in

section 183(e). Thus, the EPA believes it

is reasonable to rely on the limits

established under BACM as

representative of BAC limits for the

purpose of comparing the effectiveness

of an aerospace CTG to a national

regulation in reducing VOC emissions

in ozone nonattainment areas. In this

notice, the EPA is not proposing these

limits as BAC for the purpose of issuing

a national regulation. Rather, the EPA is

using these estimated limits to compare

the effectiveness of an aerospace CTG to

a national regulation aimed at reducing

VOC emissions in nonattainment areas

for the purpose of determining whether

a CTG for this category is substantially

as effective as a regulation.

D. Comparison of Effectiveness of

Aerospace CTG With National

Regulation Based on BAC in Reducing

VOC Emissions

As discussed previously, the EPA

estimated that the aerospace CTG will

reduce VOC emissions from aerospace

manufacturing and rework facilities

located in ozone nonattainment areas by

3,889 Mg/yr (4,288 tpy). Alternatively,

the EPA estimates that the

implementation of a national regulation,

based on the likely BAC limits and the

number of affected facilities, would

reduce VOC emissions from aerospace

manufacturing and rework facilities

located in ozone nonattainment areas by

2,721 Mg/yr (3,000 tpy). The number of

facilities in ozone nonattainment areas

affected by a national regulation is equal

to the number of facilities affected by a

CTG. However, the emission reductions
44680 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Notices

from a CTG are greater due to the

inclusion of equipment and work

practice standards related to the coating

operations, which a regulation under

section 183(e) would not include.

In addition, the EPA believes that a

CTG would be more effective because it

is applicable to aerospace coatings as

applied, whereas a national regulation is

limited to coatings as supplied. The

EPA believes that for aerospace

coatings, supplied coatings are often

altered by thinning prior to use. Because

the EPA does not have authority under

section 183(e) to regulate end-users, a

national regulation would not be able to

prohibit such activities and the actual

emission reductions from a regulation

may be considerably less if data were

available to adjust for thinning

emissions. For the foregoing reasons, the

EPA believes that a CTG would be more

effective in reducing VOC emissions

from aerospace coatings in ozone

nonattainment areas, and that a CTG

may be issued in lieu of a national

regulation under section 183(e)(3)(C).

IV. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair

Coatings

A. Factors To Consider Regarding the

Effectiveness of CTG Compared to a

National Regulation

In evaluating control strategies for

VOC emissions from shipbuilding and

ship repair coatings, the EPA identified

the coatings used by the shipbuilding

and ship repair industry and the

significant sources of VOC emissions in

that industry. The shipbuilding and

ship repair industry consists of

establishments that build and repair

ships, and includes operations such as

repainting, conversions, and alterations

of ships.

Marine coatings are vital for

protecting the ship from corrosive and

biotic attacks from the ship’s

environment. A typical coating system

consists of (1) a thin primer coat that

provides initial corrosion (oxidation)

protection and promotes adhesion of the

subsequent coating, (2) one or more

intermediate coats that physically

protect(s) the primer and may provide

additional or special properties, and (3)

a topcoat that provides long-term

protection for both the substrate and the

underlying coatings.

Marine coatings are very complex and

serve specific functions such as

corrosion protection, heat/fire

resistance, and antifouling (used to

prevent the settlement and growth of

marine organisms on the ship’s

underwater hull). Specific coating

selections are based on the intended use

of the ship, ship activity, travel routes,

desired time between paintings (service

life), the aesthetic desires of the ship

owner or commanding officer, and fuel

costs. Different coatings are used for

these purposes, and each may use one

or more solvents (or solvent blends) in

different concentrations. Ship owners

and paint formulators specify the paints

and coating thicknesses to be applied at

shipyards.

Solvents are frequently added to

coatings by the applicator just prior to

application to adjust viscosity. Thinning

of coatings is done at most shipyards

(regardless of size) even though the

paint manufacturers typically state it is

usually unnecessary. Weather

conditions play a big part in thinning,

as do application processes and desired

drying times. Solvents are also widely

used for equipment cleaning which

results in significant VOC emissions.

Because VOC emissions in this industry

are due to a variety of different sources

in the manufacturing process, including

the coatings as applied, a national

regulation may be of limited

effectiveness in reducing VOC

emissions from shipbuilding and ship

repair coatings. This is primarily due to

the limit of the EPA’s authority under

section 183(e), as previously discussed,

to regulate only the shipbuilding and

ship repair coatings as supplied to the

industry. Because, in practice, the

supplied coatings are often thinned

prior to application by adding VOC

solvents, the ‘‘as-applied’’ VOC content

of the coating ends up being greater than

the ‘‘as-supplied’’ VOC content. For this

reason a CTG could be as effective, if

not more effective, than a national

regulation. For the shipbuilding and

ship repair industry, consisting of

facilities which could be inspected for

compliance with State RACT rules, a

CTG could provide limits for the

coatings as applied and also achieve

VOC emission reductions from the

implementation of work practice

standards for the associated cleaning

operations.

B. Overview of Shipbuilding and Ship

Repair CTG and Expected Emissions

Reductions

Under a separate Federal Register

notice, the EPA recently released a final

CTG for shipbuilding and ship repair

operations (surface coating) (61 FR

44050, August 27, 1996) pursuant to

section 183(b)(4) of the CAA. The EPA

is not seeking comment on the content,

or issuance, of that shipbuilding and

ship repair CTG as it was issued

independently of any requirements of

section 183(e). However, for the purpose

of determining whether a CTG would be

substantially as effective as a

rulemaking as required under section

183(e), the following discussion refers to

that CTG as an estimate of the potential

emission reductions obtainable with a

CTG for the shipbuilding and ship

repair industry.

The shipbuilding and ship repair CTG

applies to shipbuilding and ship repair

facilities (i.e., shipyards) which are, or

have the potential to become, major

VOC sources in ozone nonattainment

areas. The CTG for shipbuilding and

repair operations (surface coating) was

developed in parallel with the NESHAP

for this same industry. In establishing

the level of control for surface coating

operations in the shipbuilding and ship

repair industry, the EPA relied on

BACM as proposed in the Federal

Register on December 6, 1994 (59 FR

62681). The type and level of VOC

control identified as BACM is based on

the marine coating VOC limits being

used in California (with some

exceptions and modifications). Table 4

presents the various coating categories

with the maximum ‘‘as-applied’’ VOC

content allowed for each. The CTG also

includes additional work practice

guidelines that apply to solvent cleaning

operations and housekeeping measures.

The EPA estimates that approximately

100 shipyards will be subject to State

regulations based on the CTG. The

emission limits and work practice

standards are expected to reduce VOC

emissions from these shipyards by 1,239

Mg/yr (1,366 tpy). As mentioned earlier,

a CTG issued pursuant to section 183(e)

would be based on RACT. The EPA

believes that for shipbuilding and ship

repair coatings RACT and BACM are

identical. While typically BACM

(‘‘best’’) implies more stringent control

than RACT (‘‘reasonable’’), the

shipbuilding industry, as in the case of

the aerospace industry, presents such a

limited range of controls for a specified

industry process that these two levels of

control may be identical. Thus, the EPA

believes that it is appropriate to rely on

these already existing estimated

emission reductions, which reflect both

BACM and RACT, for the purpose of

comparing the effectiveness of a CTG to

a regulation under section 183(e).

C. Estimate of BAC for Shipbuilding and

Ship Repair Coatings

As discussed previously, the EPA

must determine whether a CTG would

be substantially as effective as a

regulation based on BAC. In making this

determination, the EPA has prepared a

likely estimate of the emission

reductions that could be achieved with

a BAC-based regulation. Although the

EPA prepared such an estimate, it is

important to note that this is only an
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Notices 44681

estimate of what emission reductions

might be achieved with a BAC-based

regulation. If the EPA were to proceed

with the development of a national BAC

regulation, it is possible that the BACbased regulation may differ from the

estimates calculated today.

The EPA believes the use of lowerVOC coatings is the only technologically

and economically feasible level of

control for shipbuilding and ship repair

coatings that the EPA can establish on

a category-wide basis. In estimating

BAC for shipbuilding and ship repair

coatings, the EPA evaluated the work

completed to establish the emission

controls in the shipbuilding and ship

repair CTG issued pursuant to section

183(b) which is based on BACM.

Although section 183(b) does not

specifically define BACM, the VOC

limits for shipbuilding and ship repair

coatings established in the CTG and

presented in table 4 represent the best

performing sources in the industry.

Because there is no distinct definition,

the EPA believes that limits based on

BACM are similar, if not equivalent, to

limits that would be established under

BAC as required in section 183(e). Thus,

the EPA believes it is reasonable to rely

on the limits established under BACM

as representative of BAC limits for the

purpose of comparing the effectiveness

of a shipbuilding and ship repair CTG

to a national regulation in reducing VOC

emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.

In this notice, the EPA is not proposing

these limits as BAC for the purpose of

issuing a national regulation.

D. Comparison of Effectiveness of

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair CTG With

National Regulation Based on BAC in

Reducing VOC Emissions

Based on the CTG issued pursuant to

section 183(b), the EPA estimated that

the shipbuilding and ship repair CTG

will reduce VOC emissions from

shipyards located in ozone

nonattainment areas by 1,239 Mg/yr

(1,366 tpy). Of the approximately 187

shipyards located in ozone

nonattainment areas, there are

approximately 100 facilities which emit

25 tpy or more of VOC (10 tpy for

facilities in extreme nonattainment

areas) and will, therefore, be subject to

State regulations based on the CTG.

Alternatively, a national regulation

would limit the VOC content of coatings

available to all 187 shipyards located in

ozone nonattainment areas. However,

most of these facilities are very small,

such as barge yards with less than 15

employees, and do not use significant

quantities of marine coatings which

result in significant VOC emissions. The

EPA estimates that the implementation

of a national regulation, based on the

estimated BAC limits and the estimated

number of affected facilities, would

reduce VOC emissions from shipyards

located in ozone nonattainment areas by

1,605 Mg/yr (1,770 tpy).

Although the estimated emission

reductions from a national regulation

(1,605 Mg/yr (1,770 tpy)) are greater

than the estimated emission reductions

from a CTG (1,239 Mg/yr (1,366 tpy)),

the EPA believes that a CTG would be

more effective because it is applicable to

shipbuilding and ship repair coatings as

applied, whereas a national regulation is

limited to coatings as supplied. The

EPA believes that many shipyard

coaters routinely add thinning solvent

to coatings prior to application,

increasing the VOC content of the

coatings as applied. Because the EPA

does not have authority under section

183(e) to regulate end-users, a national

regulation would not be able to prohibit

such activities and the actual emission

reductions estimates from a regulation

may be considerably less if data were

available to adjust for thinning

emissions. A CTG could effectively limit

emissions from ‘‘as-applied’’ coatings

which take into account any thinning

solvents added to the supplied coating

prior to application. For the foregoing

reasons, the EPA believes that a CTG

would be substantially as effective in

reducing VOC emissions from

shipbuilding and ship repair coatings in

ozone nonattainment areas, and that a

CTG may be issued in lieu of a national

regulation under section 183(e)(3)(C).

V. Proposed Determination

Based on the above analyses, the EPA

has determined that the recently

finalized wood furniture CTG and the

draft aerospace CTG being developed

will reduce VOC emissions in ozone

nonattainment areas by 18,500 Mg/yr

(20,400 tpy) and 3,889 Mg/yr (4,288

tpy), respectively. These estimated

reductions from the CTG are greater

than the estimated reductions in ozone

nonattainment areas from a national

regulation for wood furniture coatings

and aerospace coatings, 14,234 Mg/yr

(15,689 tpy) and 2,721 Mg/yr (3,000

tpy), respectively. Because the CTG for

the wood furniture and aerospace

industries are likely to be more effective

in reducing VOC emissions than

national regulations developed under

section 183(e), the EPA has determined

that a CTG is substantially as effective

as a national regulation in reducing

VOC emissions and, therefore, may

issue CTG in lieu of national regulations

for wood furniture and aerospace

coatings under section 183(e).

In the case of shipbuilding and ship

repair coatings, the EPA believes that

the emission reductions obtainable

through a CTG, recommending limits on

‘‘as-applied’’ coatings, would be as

much as reductions achieved by a

national regulation setting limits for ‘‘assupplied’’ coatings. Therefore, the EPA

has determined that a CTG is

substantially as effective as a national

regulation and may issue a CTG in lieu

of a national regulation for shipbuilding

and ship repair coatings under section

183(e).

VI. Cost-Effectiveness

The following information may be of

interest to readers of todays notice, and

is presented here solely for

informational purposes. The costeffectiveness estimates for the wood

furniture, aerospace, and shipbuilding

and ship repair CTG were calculated

under separate actions during the

development of the CTG. The

previously issued wood furniture CTG

has a cost-effectiveness of $1089/Mg.

The cost-effectiveness of the aerospace

and shipbuilding and ship repair CTG

cannot be precisely calculated because

of the interrelationship of costs and

emission reductions with the

concomitant NESHAP for these

standards. The final shipbuilding and

ship repair CTG estimated a cost

effectiveness of $846/Mg; and the draft

aerospace CTG did not quantify the

additional costs resulting from the CTG,

but concluded that they are negligible.

VII. Solicitation of Comments

The Administrator welcomes

comments from interested persons on

the proposed determination that RACTbased CTG would be substantially as

effective as BAC-based national

regulations for the wood furniture

manufacturing, aerospace, and

shipbuilding and ship repair (coatings)

industries. The Administrator is

specifically requesting factual

information that may support either the

approach taken or an alternative

approach. To receive proper

consideration, documentation or data

should be provided to support the

comments.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to provide opportunity for

interested persons to make oral

presentations regarding the proposed

determinations in accordance with

section 307(d)(5) of the CAA. Persons

wishing to make an oral presentation on

the EPA’s proposed determinations that
44682 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Notices

CTG’s may be issued in lieu of

regulations for wood furniture,

aerospace, and shipbuilding and ship

repair coatings should contact the EPA

at the address given in the ADDRESSES

section of this preamble. Oral

presentations will be limited to 15

minutes each. Any member of the

public may file a written statement

before, during, or within 30 days after

the hearing. Written statements should

be addressed to the Air and Radiation

Docket address given in the ADDRESSES

section of this preamble, and should

refer to Docket No. A–96–23.

A verbatim transcript of the hearing

and any written statements will be

available for public inspection and

copying during normal working hours at

the EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket in

Washington, DC (see ADDRESSES section

of this preamble).

B. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to or otherwise considered by

the EPA in the development of this

proposed determination. The principal

purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow

interested parties to readily identify and

locate documents so that they can

intelligently and effectively participate

in the decision making process, and (2)

to serve as the record in case of judicial

review (section 307(d)(7)(A) of the

CAA).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

D. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine whether the 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 regulation

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.

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

Presidents’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive

Order, OMB has notified the EPA that

it considers this a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of the executive order. The EPA has

submitted this action to OMB for

review. Changes made in response to

OMB suggestions or recommendations

are documented in the docket (see

ADDRESSES).

E. Regulatory Flexibility

Because today’s notice is not a

rulemaking, the EPA has not prepared a

regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant

to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Public

Law 96–354, September 19, 1980).

F. Unfunded Mandates Act

Because today’s notice is not a

rulemaking, the requirements of the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4) do not apply to this

action.

TABLE 1.—CTG EMISSION LIMITS

Reference control technology

Emission

limit, kg

VOC/kg

solids

Waterborne:

—Topcoats .............................. 0.8

—Sealer .................................. No limit.

High solids:

—Sealer .................................. 1.9

—Topcoat ................................ 1.8

—Vinyl sealers ........................ 2.3

—Conversion varnish topcoats 2.0

TABLE 2.—CTG WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS

Emission source Work practice

Finishing operations

Transfer equipment leaks ....................................................... Develop written inspection and maintenance plan to address and prevent leaks.

Minimum inspection frequency of 1/month.

Storage containers, including mixing equipment ................... Keep covered when not in use.

Application equipment ............................................................ Discontinue use of conventional air spray guns.a

Cleaning Operations

Gun/line cleaning .................................................................... Collect cleaning solvent into a closed container; cover all containers when not in

use.

Spray booth cleaning ............................................................. Limit use of organic solvents.

Washoff/general cleaning ....................................................... Keep washoff tank covered when not in use;

Minimize dripping by tilting and/or rotating the part to drain as much solvent as

possible and allowing sufficient dry time;

Maintain a log of the quantity and type of solvent used for washoff and cleaning;

Maintain a log of the number of pieces washed off and the reason for the washoff.

Miscellaneous

Operator training .................................................................... Train all operators in proper application, cleanup, and equipment use.

Implementation plan ............................................................... Develop a plan to implement work practice standards and maintain onsite.

aAir guns will be allowed only in the following instances:

—When they are used in conjunction with coatings that emit less than 1.0 kg VOC per kg of solids used;

—Touch up and repair under limited conditions;

—When spray is automated;

—When add-on controls are employed;

—If the cumulative application is less than five.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Notices 44683

TABLE 3.—AEROSPACE SPECIALTY COATINGS VOC CONTENT LIMITS (g/l)*

Coating type Limit

Ablative Coating ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 600

Adhesion Promoter .................................................................................................................................................................................... 890

Adhesive Bonding Primer:

Cured at 250°F or below ............................................................................................................................................................. 850

Cured above 250°F ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,030

Adhesives:

Commercial Interior Adhesive ..................................................................................................................................................... 760

Cyanoacrylate Adhesive .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,020

Fuel Tank Adhesive ..................................................................................................................................................................... 620

Nonstructural Adhesive ............................................................................................................................................................... 360

Rocket Motor Bonding Adhesive ................................................................................................................................................. 890

Rubber-based Adhesive .............................................................................................................................................................. 850

Structural Autoclavable Adhesive ................................................................................................................................................ 60

Structural Nonautoclavable Adhesive ......................................................................................................................................... 850

Antichafe Coating ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 660

Chemical Agent-Resistant Coating ............................................................................................................................................................ 550

Clear Coating ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 720

Commercial Exterior Aerodynamic Structure Primer ................................................................................................................................. 650

Compatible Substrate Primer ..................................................................................................................................................................... 780

Corrosion Prevention Compound .............................................................................................................................................................. 710

Cryogenic Flexible Primer .......................................................................................................................................................................... 645

Cryoprotective Coating .............................................................................................................................................................................. 600

Electric or Radiation-Effect Coating ........................................................................................................................................................... 800

Electrostatic Discharge and Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Coating ................................................................................................ 800

Elevated Temperature Skydrol Resistant Commercial Primer .................................................................................................................. 740

Epoxy Polyamide Topcoat ......................................................................................................................................................................... 660

Fire-Resistant (interior) Coating ................................................................................................................................................................. 800

Flexible Primer ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 640

Flight-Test Coating:

Missile or Single Use Aircraft ...................................................................................................................................................... 420

All Other ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 840

Fuel-Tank Coating ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 720

High-Temperature Coating ........................................................................................................................................................................ 850

Insulation Covering .................................................................................................................................................................................... 740

Intermediate Release Coating ................................................................................................................................................................... 750

Lacquer ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 830

Maskants:

Bonding Maskant ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,230

Critical Use and Line Sealer Maskant ......................................................................................................................................... 1,020

Seal Coat Maskant .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,230

Metallized Epoxy Coating .......................................................................................................................................................................... 740

Mold Release ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 780

Optical Anti-Reflective Coating .................................................................................................................................................................. 750

Part Marking Coating ................................................................................................................................................................................. 850

Pretreatment Coating ................................................................................................................................................................................. 780

Rain Erosion-Resistant Coating ................................................................................................................................................................. 850

Rocket Motor Nozzle Coating .................................................................................................................................................................... 660

Scale Inhibitor ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 880

Screen Print Ink ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 840

Sealant

Extrudable/Rollable/Brushable Sealants ..................................................................................................................................... 240

Sprayable Sealants ..................................................................................................................................................................... 600

Self-priming Topcoat .................................................................................................................................................................................. 420

Silicone Insulation Material ........................................................................................................................................................................ 850

Solid Film Lubricant ................................................................................................................................................................................... 880

Specialized Function Coating .................................................................................................................................................................... 890

Temporary Protective Coating ................................................................................................................................................................... 320

Thermal Control Coating ............................................................................................................................................................................ 800

Wet Fastener Installation Coating ............................................................................................................................................................. 675

Wing Coating ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 850

* Grams per liter VOC (g/l) means a weight of VOC per combined volume of VOC and coating solids, less water and exempt compounds.
44684 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 1997 / Notices

TABLE 4.—VOC LIMITS FOR MARINE COATINGS

Coating category

VOC limits a,b

Grams/liter

coating (minus

water and exempt compounds)

Grams/liter solids c

t≥4.5°C t<4.5°C d

General use .................................................................................................................................. 340 571 728

Specialty:

Air flask .......................................................................................................................... 340 571 728

Antenna .......................................................................................................................... 530 1,439

Antifoulant ...................................................................................................................... 400 765 971

Heat resistant ................................................................................................................. 420 841 1,069

High-gloss ...................................................................................................................... 420 841 1,069

High-temperature ........................................................................................................... 500 1,237 1,597

Inorganic zinc high-build ................................................................................................ 340 571 728

Military exterior ............................................................................................................... 340 571 728

Mist ................................................................................................................................. 610 2,235

Navigational aids ............................................................................................................ 550 1,597

Nonskid .......................................................................................................................... 340 571 728

Nuclear ........................................................................................................................... 420 841 1,069

Organic zinc ................................................................................................................... 360 630 802

Pretreatment wash primer ............................................................................................. 780 11,095

Repair and maint. of thermoplastics .............................................................................. 550 1,597

Rubber camouflage ........................................................................................................ 340 571 728

Sealant for thermal spray aluminum .............................................................................. 610 2,235

Special marking ............................................................................................................. 490 1,178

Specialty interior ............................................................................................................ 340 571 728

Tack coat ....................................................................................................................... 610 2,235

Undersea weapons systems .......................................................................................... 340 571 728

Weld-through precon. primer ......................................................................................... 650 2,885

aThe limits are expressed in two sets of equivalent units. Either set of limits may be used to demonstrate compliance.

bTo convert from g/l to lb/gal, multiply by (3.785 l/gal.)(1/453.6 lb/g) or 1/120. For compliance purposes, metric units define the standards.

cVOC limits expressed in units of mass of VOC per volume of solids were derived from the VOC limits expressed in units of mass of VOC per

volume of coating assuming the coatings contain no water or exempt compounds and that the volumes of all components with a coating are additive. dThese limits apply during cold-weather time periods (i.e., temperatures below 4.5 °C). Cold-weather allowances are not given to coatings in

categories that permit less than 40 percent solids (nonvolatiles) content by volume. Such coatings are subject to the same limits regardless of

weather.

Dated: August 15, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–22363 Filed 8–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5879–9]

Notice of Issuance of PSD Permit to

Port Townsend Paper Corporation,

Port Townsend, Washington

Notice is hereby given that on June

18, 1997, the Environmental Protection

Agency and Washington Department of

Ecology issued a prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD) permit to

the Port Townsend Paper Corporation to

construct a 245 mmBTU/hour package

boiler in Port Townsend, Washington.

The PSD permit has been issued

under 40 CFR 52.21 subject to certain

conditions specified in the permit. The

final permit decision shall become

effective 30 days after September 22,

1997 unless review is requested under

40 CFR 124.19. Petition for review of

this final PSD permit decision must be

filed on or before September 22, 1997 in

accordance with 40 CFR 124.19.

Copies of the PSD permit and

administrative record are available for

public inspection upon request at the

following location: Washington

Department of Ecology, 300 Desmond

Drive, Lacy, Washington 98504.

Dated: August 11, 1997.

Anita Frankel,

Director, Office of Air Quality.

[FR Doc. 97–22362 Filed 8–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5880–2]

Interpretation of New Drinking Water

Requirements Relating to Lead Free

Plumbing Fittings and Fixtures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Section 1417(a)(3) of the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as

amended makes it unlawful for any

person to introduce into commerce after

August 6, 1998 any pipe, or any pipe or

plumbing fitting or fixture that is not

lead free. In section 1417(e) as added by

the 1996 SDWA Amendments, Congress

directed EPA to provide assistance for

the development of voluntary standards

and testing protocols for the leaching of

lead from new plumbing fittings and

fixtures relating to drinking water. This

notice confirms EPA’s position that

performance standards for the leaching

of lead from new plumbing fittings and

fixtures have been established, as

directed by the SDWA.

The SDWA requires that, if a

voluntary standard for the leaching of

lead from new plumbing fittings and

fixtures is not established by August

1997, then EPA must promulgate

regulations setting a performance based

standard for lead leaching from such

components. The National Sanitation

Foundation (NSF) established a

voluntary standard, NSF Standard 61,

section 9, governing the leaching of lead