[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44672-44684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22363]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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,

[[Page 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 href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82e3afe3ece6aff0afe6ede1e9e7f6c2e7f2e3efe3ebeeace7f2e3ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bedf93dfd0da93cc93dad1ddd5dbcafedbcedfd3dfd7d290dbcedf90d9d1c8">[email protected]</span></a>. 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Examples of potentially affected 
              Category                             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 fresh-water   
                                      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.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 44674]]

    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 ground-level 
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

[[Page 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 as-applied, 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 end-user 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 BAC-based 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 cost-effectiveness. 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.

[[Page 44676]]

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

[[Page 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 BAC-based 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

[[Page 44678]]

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 solvent-borne; 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

[[Page 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 BAC-based 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

[[Page 44680]]

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

[[Page 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 BAC-based regulation 
may differ from the estimates calculated today.
    The EPA believes the use of lower-VOC 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 ``as-
supplied'' 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 
cost-effectiveness 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 RACT-based 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

[[Page 44682]]

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                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Emission 
                                                               limit, kg
                Reference control technology                    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       Keep covered when not in use.       
 mixing equipment.                                                      
Application equipment.............  Discontinue use of conventional air 
                                     spray guns.<SUP>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.                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a Air 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.                      


[[Page 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 deg.F or below.........................         850
        Cured above 250 deg.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.              


[[Page 44684]]


                                    Table 4.--VOC Limits for Marine Coatings                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               VOC limits <SUP>a,b                   
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Grams/liter            Grams/liter solids <SUP>c        
                     Coating category                      coating (minus --------------------------------------
                                                              water and                                         
                                                               exempt      t<gr-thn-eq>4.5 deg.C   t<4.5 deg.C <SUP>d
                                                             compounds)                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a The limits are expressed in two sets of equivalent units. Either set of limits may be used to demonstrate     
  compliance.                                                                                                   
<SUP>b To 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.                                                                            
<SUP>c VOC 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.                                               
<SUP>d These limits apply during cold-weather time periods (i.e., temperatures below 4.5  deg.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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>