[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58481-58491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23750]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 59

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0411; FRL-8725-9]
RIN 2060-AP01


Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV: Control Techniques 
Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Miscellaneous Metal Products 
Coatings, Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly 
Coatings, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and Miscellaneous 
Industrial Adhesives

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; Notice of final determination and availability of 
final control techniques guidelines.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act, EPA has 
determined that control techniques guidelines will be substantially as 
effective as national regulations in reducing emissions of volatile 
organic compounds in ozone national ambient air quality standard 
nonattainment areas from the following five Group IV product 
categories: miscellaneous metal products coatings, plastic parts 
coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings, fiberglass boat 
manufacturing materials, and miscellaneous industrial adhesives. Based 
on this determination, EPA is issuing control techniques guidelines in 
lieu of national regulations for these product categories. These 
control techniques guidelines will provide guidance to the States 
concerning EPA's recommendations for reasonably available control 
technology-level controls for these product categories. EPA further 
takes final action to list the five Group IV consumer and commercial 
product categories addressed in this notice pursuant to CAA Section 
183(e).

DATES: This final action is effective on October 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established the following dockets for these actions: 
Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV--Determination to Issue 
Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations, Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0411; Consumer and Commercial Products--Miscellaneous Metal 
and Plastic Parts Coatings, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0412; Consumer 
and Commercial Products--Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, 
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0413; Consumer and Commercial Products--
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0415; and Consumer and Commercial Products--Miscellaneous Industrial 
Adhesives, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0460. All documents in the docket 
are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential 
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and is publicly available only 
in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available 
either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Public Reading Room 
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) Section 183(e) consumer and commercial products program, 
contact Mr. Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and 
Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone number: (919) 541-5460, fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-mail 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84e9ebebf6e1aae6f6f1e7e1c4e1f4e5aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c5a8aaaab7a0eba7b7b0a6a085a0b5a4eba2aab3">[email protected]</span></a>. For further information on technical 
issues concerning the determination and control techniques guidelines 
(CTG) documents for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, or 
for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, contact: Ms. Kaye 
Whitfield, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce 
Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone number: (919) 541-2509, fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-mail 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a4d52534e5c535f565e14515b435f7a5f4a5b145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dea9b6b7aab8b7bbb2baf0b5bfa7bb9ebbaebff0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>. For further information on technical 
issues concerning the determination and CTG for auto and light-duty 
truck assembly coatings or the revision of the Automobile Topcoat 
Protocol, contact: Mr. Dave Salman, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings 
and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number: (919) 541-0859, fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-
mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2556444948444b0b41445340654055440b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d1e0c01000c0343090c1b082d081d0c430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>. For further information on technical 
issues concerning the determination and CTG for miscellaneous 
industrial adhesives, contact: Ms. Martha Smith, U.S. EPA, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2421, 
fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b6876726f7335767a696f737a5b7e6b7a357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="71021c1805195f1c1003051910311401105f161e07">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 58482]]

    Entities Potentially Affected by this Action. The entities 
potentially affected by this action include industrial facilities that 
use the respective consumer and commercial products covered in this 
action as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                      NAICS code \a\                 Examples of affected entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous metal and plastic      331, 332, 333, 334, 336,     Facilities that manufacture and repair
 parts coatings.                      482, 811.                    fabricated metal, machinery, computer and
                                                                   electronic equipment, transportation
                                                                   equipment, rail transportation equipment.
Auto and light-duty truck assembly   336111, 336112, 336211.....  Automobile and light-duty truck assembly
 coatings.                                                         plants, producers of automobile and light-
                                                                   duty truck bodies.
Fiberglass boat manufacturing        336612.....................  Boat building facilities.
 materials.
Miscellaneous industrial adhesives.  316, 321, 326, 331, 332,     Facilities that manufacture and repair leather
                                      333, 334, 336, 337, 339,     and allied products, wood products, plastic
                                      482, 811.                    and rubber products, fabricated metal,
                                                                   machinery, computer and electronic equipment,
                                                                   transportation equipment, furniture and
                                                                   related products, rail transportation
                                                                   equipment, and facilities involved in
                                                                   miscellaneous manufacturing.
Federal Government.................  ...........................  Not affected.
State/local/Tribal government......  ...........................  State, local and Tribal regulatory agencies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate EPA contact 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the 
Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 
Following signature, a copy of the final action will be posted on the 
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules 
at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control.
    Judicial Review. Under Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of EPA's listing and final determination is available only by 
filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit by December 8, 2008. Under Section 
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the final determination 
that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for 
public comment can be raised during judicial review.

Organization of this Document

    The information presented in this document is organized as follows:

I. Background Information
    A. The Ozone Problem
    B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
    C. Significance of Control Techniques Guidelines Documents 
(CTGs)
II. Significant Changes to the Final CTGs
    A. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings
    B. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings
    C. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials
    D. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives
III. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's Determination
IV. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background Information

A. The Ozone Problem

    Ground-level ozone, a major component of smog, is formed in the 
atmosphere by reactions of volatile organic compounds (VOC)\1\ and 
oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight. The formation of 
ground-level ozone is a complex process that is affected by many 
variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See EPA's definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of 
human health effects, as well as agricultural crop loss, and damage to 
forests and ecosystems. Controlled human exposure studies show that 
acute health effects are induced by short-term (1 to 2 hour) exposures 
(observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)), 
generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion, 
and by prolonged (6 to 8 hour) exposures to ozone (observed at 
concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm and possibly lower), typically while 
individuals are engaged in moderate exertion. Transient effects from 
acute exposures include pulmonary inflammation, respiratory symptoms, 
effects on exercise performance, and increased airway responsiveness. 
Epidemiological studies have shown associations between ambient ozone 
levels and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased 
hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Groups at increased risk 
of experiencing elevated exposures include active children, outdoor 
workers, and others who regularly engage in outdoor activities. Those 
most susceptible to the effects of ozone include those with pre-
existing respiratory disease, children, and older adults. The 
literature suggests the possibility that long-term exposures to ozone 
may cause chronic health effects (e.g., structural damage to lung 
tissue and accelerated decline in baseline lung function).

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    Under CAA Section 183(e), EPA conducted a study of VOC emissions 
from the use of consumer and commercial products to assess their 
potential to contribute to levels of ozone that violate the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and to establish 
criteria for regulating VOC emissions from these products. Section 
183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to list for regulation those categories 
of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions, 
on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial products 
in areas that

[[Page 58483]]

violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone nonattainment areas), and to 
divide the list of categories to be regulated into four groups. EPA 
published the initial list in the Federal Register on March 23, 1995 
(60 FR 15264). In that notice, EPA stated that it may amend the list of 
products for regulation, and the groups of product categories, in order 
to achieve an effective regulatory program in accordance with the EPA's 
discretion under CAA Section 183(e).
    EPA has revised the list several times. See 70 FR 69759 (November 
17, 2005); 64 FR 13422 (March 18, 1999); and 71 FR 28320 (May 16, 
2006). In the May 2006 revision, EPA added one product category, 
portable fuel containers, and removed one product category, petroleum 
dry cleaning solvents. As a result of these revisions, Group IV of the 
list comprises five product categories: miscellaneous metal products 
coatings, plastic parts coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly 
coatings, fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, and miscellaneous 
industrial adhesives. Pursuant to the court's order in Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 1:01-cv-01597-PLF (D.C. Cir., March 31, 2006), EPA must take final 
action on the product categories in Group IV by September 30, 2008. On 
July 14, 2008, EPA published its proposed determination that a CTG is 
substantially as effective as a regulation for each of these five 
categories and announced availability of four draft CTGs (miscellaneous 
metal products coatings and plastic parts coatings are addressed in one 
CTG referred to as ``miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings''). 
See 73 FR 40230.
    Any regulations issued under CAA Section 183(e) must be based on 
``best available controls (BAC).'' CAA Section 183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC 
as ``the degree of emissions reduction that the Administrator 
determines, on the basis of technological and economic feasibility, 
health, environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the 
application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes, 
methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation, 
product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for use, 
consumption, storage, or disposal.'' CAA Section 183(e) also provides 
EPA with authority to use any system or systems of regulation that EPA 
determines is the most appropriate for the product category. Under 
these provisions, EPA has previously issued ``national'' regulations 
for autobody refinishing coatings, consumer products, architectural 
coatings, portable fuel containers, and aerosol coatings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 63 FR 48806, 48819, and 48848 (September 11, 1998); 72 
FR 8428 (February 26, 2007); and 73 FR 15604 (March 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA Section 183(e)(3)(C) further provides that EPA may issue a CTG 
in lieu of a national regulation for a product category where EPA 
determines that the CTG will be ``substantially as effective as 
regulations'' in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment 
areas. The statute does not specify how EPA is to make this 
determination, but does provide a fundamental distinction between 
national regulations and CTGs.
    Specifically, for national regulations, CAA Section 183(e) defines 
regulated entities as:

    (i) . . . manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or 
importers of consumer or commercial products for sale or 
distribution in interstate commerce in the United States; or (ii) 
manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers that 
supply the entities listed under clause (i) with such products for 
sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States.
    Thus, under CAA Section 183(e), a regulation for consumer or 
commercial products is limited to measures applicable to manufacturers, 
processors, distributors, or importers of consumer and commercial 
products supplied to the consumer or industry. CAA Section 183(e) does 
not authorize EPA to issue national regulations that would directly 
regulate end-users of these products. By contrast, CTGs are guidance 
documents that recommend reasonably available control technology (RACT) 
measures that States can adopt and apply to the end users of products. 
This dichotomy (i.e., that EPA cannot directly regulate end-users under 
CAA Section 183(e), but can address end-users through a CTG) created by 
Congress is relevant to EPA's evaluation of the relative merits of a 
national regulation versus a CTG.

C. Significance of Control Techniques Guidelines Documents (CTGs)

    CAA Section 172(c)(1) provides that State implementation plans 
(SIPs) for nonattainment areas must include ``reasonably available 
control measures (RACM),'' including RACT, for sources of emissions. 
CAA Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, 
States must revise their SIPs to include RACT for each category of VOC 
sources covered by a CTG document issued between November 15, 1990, and 
the date of attainment.
    EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a 
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control 
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and 
economic feasibility, 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979).'' In subsequent 
notices, EPA has addressed how States can meet the RACT requirements of 
the CAA. Significantly, RACT for a particular industry is determined on 
a case-by-case basis, considering issues of technological and economic 
feasibility.
    EPA provides States with guidance concerning what types of controls 
could constitute RACT for a given source category through issuance of a 
CTG. The recommendations in the CTG are based on available data and 
information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the 
circumstances of a specific source. States can follow the CTG and adopt 
State regulations to implement the recommendations contained therein, 
or they can adopt alternative approaches. In either event, States must 
submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the 
SIP process. EPA will evaluate the rules and determine, through notice 
and comment rulemaking in the SIP approval process, whether the 
submitted rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA and EPA's 
regulations. To the extent a State adopts any of the recommendations in 
a CTG into its State RACT rules, interested parties can raise questions 
and objections about the substance of the guidance and the 
appropriateness of the application of the guidance to a particular 
situation during the development of the State rules and EPA's SIP 
approval process.
    We encourage States in developing their RACT rules to consider 
carefully the facts and circumstances of the particular sources in 
their States because, as noted above, RACT is determined on a case-by-
case basis, considering issues of technological and economic 
feasibility. For example, a State may decide not to require 90 percent 
control efficiency at facilities that are already well controlled, if 
the additional emission reductions would not be cost-effective. States 
may also want to consider reactivity-based approaches, as appropriate, 
in developing their RACT regulations.\3\ Finally, if States consider 
requiring more stringent VOC content limits than those recommended in 
the CTGs, States may also wish to consider averaging, as appropriate. 
In general, the RACT requirement is applied on a short-term

[[Page 58484]]

basis up to 24 hours.\4\ However, EPA guidance addresses averaging 
times longer than 24 hours under certain conditions.\5\ The EPA's 
``Economic Incentive Policy'' \6\ provides guidance on use of long-term 
averages with regard to RACT and generally provides for averaging times 
of no greater than 30 days. Thus, if the appropriate conditions are 
present, States may wish to consider the use of averaging in 
conjunction with more stringent limits. Because of the nature of 
averaging, however, we would expect that any State RACT rules that 
allow for averaging also include appropriate recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds 
in Ozone State Implementation Plans,'' 70 FR 54046 (September 13, 
2005).
    \4\ See, e.g., 52 FR 45108, col. 2, ``Compliance Periods'' 
(November 24, 1987). ``VOC rules should describe explicitly the 
compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit (e.g., 
instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules are silent on 
compliance time, EPA will interpret it as instantaneous.''
    \5\ Memorandum from John O'Connor, Acting Director of the Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ``Averaging 
Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits--SIP Revision 
Policy.''
    \6\ ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, 
January 2001,'' available at http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/policy/search.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By this action, we are taking final action to list the five Group 
IV consumer and commercial product categories addressed in this notice 
pursuant to CAA Section 183(e). Further, we are issuing final CTGs that 
cover these five product categories in Group IV of the CAA Section 
183(e) list. These CTGs are guidance to the States and provide 
recommendations only. A State can determine what constitutes RACT for 
these product categories, and EPA will review the State's rules 
reflecting RACT in the context of the SIP process and determine whether 
those rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA and its implementing 
regulations.
    Finally, CAA Section 182(b)(2) provides that a CTG issued after 
1990 specify the date by which a State must submit a SIP revision in 
response to the CTG. In the CTGs at issue here, EPA provides that 
States should submit their SIP revisions within one year of the date 
that the CTGs are finalized.

II. Significant Changes to the Final CTGs

    In response to comments, we have made certain changes to the final 
CTGs for the Group IV consumer and commercial product categories. 
Specifically, we have included definitions to clarify the scope of 
certain types of products to which our recommended VOC limits apply. 
Further, for various reasons described below, we have either added 
recommended VOC limits specifically for certain specialty product 
categories that would have otherwise been covered by more generic VOC 
limits recommended in the CTG, or changed our draft recommended VOC 
limits for certain specialty products. We also recommended not applying 
the recommended limits to certain low-volume materials supplied in 
small containers and clarified that the recommended limits do not apply 
to aerosol spray cans. These changes, which are described in more 
detail below, do not affect our proposed determination in the July 14, 
2008 notice that a CTG is substantially as effective as a national rule 
for addressing VOC emissions from the Group IV consumer and commercial 
products in ozone nonattainment areas. None of the comments raised 
issues with any of the rationales we provided in support of our 
proposed determination. Further, because the above-mentioned changes to 
our recommended limits make up only a very small percentage of the 
consumer and commercial products listed under CAA Section 183(e) Group 
IV, we do not believe that these changes alter the VOC emission 
reductions discussed in the July 14, 2008 notice in any material way. 
Thus, the rationales we expressed in the July notice in support of the 
determination are unaffected by these changes. For the reasons 
described in the July 2008 notice and this document, we have determined 
that CTGs are substantially as effective as national rules for these 
Group IV consumer and commercial products.
    Provided below is a summary of the changes made in each of the 
final CTGs addressed in this notice.

A. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

    To further clarify the scope of each category for which we 
recommend specific VOC limits, the final CTG includes a definition for 
each of the coating categories with recommended VOC limits. These 
definitions are adopted from the South Coast Air Quality Management 
District (SCAQMD) and Michigan rules that are the basis for the 
recommended VOC limits.
    In response to public comments, we have added to our 
recommendations in the final CTG specific VOC limits for eight 
categories of pleasure craft (i.e., recreational boats) surface 
coatings based on SCAQMD Rule 1106.1. We learned from the commenters 
that VOC limits for pleasure craft are covered under SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 
(February 12, 1999), and not under SCAQMD Rules 1107 and 1145, on which 
the recommended VOC limits in the draft CTG were based. The commenters 
also noted that pleasure craft surface coatings can not achieve the 
limits in SCAQMD Rules 1107 and 1145 and at the same time meet 
performance requirements for use in marine environments. In response to 
these comments, we reviewed the VOC limits for pleasure craft surface 
coatings in SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 and found that they reflect the RACT 
level of control for these coatings. These limits are the same as those 
in several other California Districts. All but three of these limits 
have been in place since 1994 and the remaining three (extreme high 
gloss coatings, finish primer/surfacer, and non-aluminum antifoulant 
coatings) have been in effect since 2001. There is no indication that 
the SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 VOC limits recommended by the commenters are 
unachievable or unreasonable for sources outside these California 
Districts. We are also not aware of any pleasure craft surface coating 
operation performing under VOC limits lower than those provided in 
SCAQMD Rule 1106.1. For the reasons stated above, we recommend in the 
final CTG the VOC limits in SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 for pleasure craft 
surface coatings to address these coatings' unique performance 
requirements.
    In the draft CTG, we requested comment on whether certain materials 
(sealers, deadeners, transit coatings, and cavity waxes) used at 
automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants that were included in 
the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings category and 
addressed in the draft CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 
coatings should instead be included in the auto and light-duty truck 
assembly coatings category and addressed in the CTG for that category. 
All commenters on the draft CTG responded that recommendations for 
these materials should be in the auto and light-duty truck assembly 
coatings category and addressed in the CTG for that category to 
simplify implementation and compliance and to clarify EPA's 
recommendations for these materials.
    In response to these comments, we have clarified in the final auto 
and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG that it covers the following 
materials: automobile and light-duty truck cavity wax, automobile and 
light-duty truck sealers, automobile and light-duty truck deadeners, 
automobile and light-duty truck gasket/gasket sealing material, 
automobile and light-duty truck

[[Page 58485]]

underbody coatings, and automobile and light-duty truck lubricating 
wax/compound. For further discussion on how we address these materials, 
please see section II.B of this notice and the final auto and light-
duty truck assembly coatings CTG.
    Similar materials are used in the production of vehicles other than 
automobiles or light-duty trucks, or are related to the production of a 
new automobile or new light-duty truck at a facility that is not an 
automobile or light-duty truck assembly coatings facility. These 
materials are included as ``motor vehicle'' materials in the 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings category and addressed 
in the final CTG for this category. The same limits that are 
recommended for ``automobile and light-duty truck'' materials in the 
auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG are recommended for 
``motor vehicle'' materials in this CTG. Please see section II.B of 
this notice for the rationale for these recommended limits.
    The recommended VOC emission limits in the final miscellaneous 
metal and plastic parts coatings CTG for the motor vehicle materials 
described above are as follows (grams VOC per liter of coating, less 
water and exempt compounds,\7\ g/l):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Exempt compounds are those classified by EPA as having 
negligible photochemical reactivity as listed in 40 CFR 51.100(s). 
Exempt compounds are not considered to be VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Motor vehicle cavity wax--650 g/l.
    <bullet> Motor vehicle sealer--650 g/l.
    <bullet> Motor vehicle deadener--650 g/l.
    <bullet> Motor vehicle gasket/gasket sealing material--200 g/l.
    <bullet> Motor vehicle underbody coating--650 g/l.
    <bullet> Motor vehicle lubricating wax/compound--700 g/l.
    <bullet> Motor vehicle trunk interior coating--650 g/l.
    <bullet> Motor vehicle bedliner--200 g/l.
    In the final CTG, we revised the recommended VOC content limit for 
high performance architectural coatings. The limit for this category in 
the draft CTG was 3.5 lb VOC/gallon, less water and exempt compounds. 
We received a comment that there are no liquid high performance 
architectural coatings available today that can meet this limit. The 
commenter suggested a limit of 6.2 lb VOC/gallon. According to the 
commenter, reformulated liquid coatings can meet this limit, and 
further reformulation may not be technically feasible while still 
meeting the requisite performance characteristics for high performance 
architectural coatings. The commenter also referenced the organic HAP 
content limit for these coatings in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. The commenter noted that 
the NESHAP limit is consistent with a VOC content of 6.2 lb VOC/gallon. 
The commenter also noted that converting from a liquid coating to a 
powder coating or installing and operating add-on controls would be 
necessary in order to meet the VOC limit recommended for this coating 
category in the draft CTG, and that each of these approaches would be 
cost prohibitive. The commenter therefore argued that the VOC limit for 
high performance architectural coatings recommended in the draft CTG is 
not reflective of RACT for these coatings.
    We agree with the commenter that liquid high performance 
architectural coatings currently available and in use today contain 
significantly more than 3.5 lb VOC/gallon. We believe that the cost of 
converting to powder coatings or installing and operating add-on 
controls to meet a limit of 3.5 lb VOC/gallon generally would be 
unreasonable compared to the emission reduction that would be achieved. 
We further agree with the commenter that a limit of 6.2 lb VOC/gallon 
can be achieved by the liquid high performance architectural coatings 
currently available and in use today and that further reformulation may 
not be technically feasible. In light of all of the above, we believe 
that the 6.2 lb VOC/gallon limit represents RACT for high performance 
architectural coatings. Accordingly, in the final CTG, we revised our 
recommended VOC limit for high performance architectural coatings to be 
6.2 lb/gal.
    In the draft CTG, we recommended that VOC limits for red and black 
coatings used for automotive/transportation plastic parts could be 15 
percent higher than for other colors. Higher limits were allowed for 
red and black coatings because the organic pigments used for these 
colors absorb oil and require more VOC to maintain proper coating 
viscosity. Commenters requested that the same allowance should also be 
made for yellow coatings since these coatings now use organic pigments 
instead of inorganic pigments, and these organic pigments also absorb 
oil and require more VOC to maintain proper coating viscosity. The 
inorganic pigments formerly used in yellow coatings often contain 
hexavalent chromium. Other environmental and worker health programs 
restrict the use of hexavalent chromium in pigments because it is a 
known human carcinogen, and it is being replaced with organic yellow 
pigments. So as not to create a barrier to the use of organic yellow 
pigments in place of hexavalent chromium, we are recommending in the 
final CTG higher VOC limits for yellow coatings used for automotive/
transportation plastic parts.
    In response to comments on how to determine the VOC content of 
materials, we recommend in the final CTG that the VOC content of 
coatings used at miscellaneous metal and plastic part coating 
facilities be determined using EPA Method 24. In addition, we recommend 
that manufacturer's formulation data be accepted as an alternative to 
EPA Method 24. If there is a disagreement between manufacturer's 
formulation data and the results of a subsequent test, we recommend 
that States use the test method results unless the facility can make a 
demonstration to the States' satisfaction that the manufacturer's 
formulation data are correct.

B. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings

    In the July 2008 notice we requested comment on whether certain 
materials (sealers, deadeners, transit coatings, cavity waxes, glass 
bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives) used at automobile and 
light-duty truck assembly plants that were included in either the 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings categories or the 
miscellaneous industrial adhesives and addressed in the respective 
draft CTG should instead be included in the auto and light-duty truck 
assembly coatings category and addressed in the CTG for this category. 
All commenters on the draft CTG responded that recommendations for 
these materials should be in the auto and light-duty truck assembly 
coatings category and addressed in the CTG for this category to 
simplify implementation and compliance and to clarify EPA's 
recommendations for these materials.
    In response to these comments, we have clarified in the final auto 
and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG that it covers the following 
materials: Automobile and light-duty truck glass bonding primer, 
automobile and light-duty truck adhesive, automobile and light-duty 
truck cavity wax, automobile and light-duty truck sealer, automobile 
and light-duty truck deadener, automobile and light-duty truck gasket/
gasket sealing material, automobile and light-duty truck underbody 
coating, automobile and light-duty truck trunk interior coating, 
automobile and light-duty truck bedliner, automobile and light-duty 
truck weatherstrip adhesive, and automobile and light-duty truck

[[Page 58486]]

lubricating wax/compound. To clarify the scope of these materials, the 
final CTG includes definitions for these materials. It also includes 
the following recommended VOC emission limits for the application of 
these materials:
    <bullet> Automobile and light-duty truck glass bonding primer--900 
g/l.
    <bullet> Automobile and light-duty truck adhesive--250 g/l.
    <bullet> Automobile and light-duty truck cavity wax--650 g/l.
    <bullet> Automobile and light-duty truck sealer--650 g/l.
    <bullet> Automobile and light-duty truck deadener--650 g/l.
    <bullet> Automobile and light-duty truck gasket/gasket sealing 
material--200 g/l.
    <bullet> Automobile and light-duty truck underbody coating--650 g/
l.
    <bullet> Automobile and light-duty truck trunk interior coating--
650 g/l.
    <bullet> Automobile and light-duty truck bedliner--200 g/l.
    <bullet> Automobile and light-duty truck weatherstrip adhesive--750 
g/l.
    <bullet> Automobile and light-duty truck lubricating wax/compound--
700 g/l.
    We have provided below a brief summary of our rationale for each of 
these limits. As discussed in sections II.A and II.D of this notice, 
similar materials are used in the production of vehicles other than 
automobiles or light-duty trucks, or are related to the production of a 
new automobile or new light-duty truck at a facility that is not an 
automobile or light-duty truck assembly coatings facility. These 
materials are included as ``motor vehicle'' materials in the 
miscellaneous metal products, plastic parts coatings, or miscellaneous 
industrial adhesives categories and addressed in the CTGs for those 
categories. The same limits that are recommended for ``automobile and 
light-duty truck'' materials in the auto and light-duty truck assembly 
coatings CTG are recommended for ``motor vehicle'' materials in those 
CTGs, and the following rationale applies both to ``automobile and 
light-duty truck'' materials and ``motor vehicle'' materials.
    The draft miscellaneous industrial adhesives CTG recommended a 
material specific limit of 700 grams of VOC per liter for glass bonding 
primer (referred to as ``automotive glass adhesive primer'' in that 
document). Commenters indicated that currently used materials contain 
up to 900 grams of VOC per liter. Eliminating the use of the materials 
in the 700 to 900 grams of VOC per liter range may not be technically 
feasible. The cost of the testing required to confirm material 
performance and compliance with Federal crash safety standards and 
windshield integrity requirements would be unreasonable compared to the 
small emission reduction that would be achieved. As a result, we 
conclude that the 900 grams of VOC per liter limit recommended in the 
final CTG is representative of RACT for automobile and light-duty truck 
glass bonding primer.
    The draft CTGs for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings 
and for miscellaneous industrial adhesives did not have product 
specific recommendations for automobile and light-duty truck adhesive, 
automobile and light-duty truck cavity wax, automobile and light-duty 
truck sealer, automobile and light-duty truck deadener, automobile and 
light-duty truck gasket/gasket sealing material, automobile and light-
duty truck underbody coating, automobile and light-duty truck trunk 
interior coating, automobile and light-duty truck weatherstrip 
adhesive, or automobile and light-duty truck lubricating wax/compound. 
Rather, these materials fell under general product categories in these 
draft CTGs. For each of these types of materials, commenters provided 
information on the VOC content of the materials currently in use and 
asserted that the cost of the testing required to confirm the 
performance of lower VOC content materials would be unreasonable 
compared to the small emission reduction that would be achieved. We 
agree with the commenter's assertion and conclude that the limits 
recommended for these materials in the final CTG are representative of 
RACT.
    Bedliner is an air dried multi-component coating typically applied 
by vehicle dealers or aftermarket applicators. In the draft CTG for 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, bedliner would have 
fallen under the general multi-component coating category which had a 
recommended limit of 340 grams of VOC per liter. One commenter 
indicated that bedliner is applied at some of its automobile and light-
duty truck assembly plants. We are not aware of any other automobile 
and light-duty truck assembly plants that apply bedliner. The bedliner 
applied at the commenter's plants contains less than 200 grams of VOC 
per liter. This is similar to the VOC content of aftermarket bedliner 
in the miscellaneous metal products, or plastic parts coatings 
categories and addressed in the CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic 
parts coatings. As a result, we conclude that the 200 grams of VOC per 
liter limit recommended in the final CTG for auto and light-duty truck 
assembly coatings is representative of RACT for automobile and light-
duty truck bedliner.
    We also revised the final auto and light-duty truck assembly 
coatings CTG to recommend not applying the recommended limits to 
materials that are supplied to the automobile and light-duty truck 
assembly plants in containers with a net volume of 16 ounces or less, 
or a net weight of one pound or less. We made this change in response 
to comments that these low volume materials have small VOC emissions 
and the cost of controlling them outweighs the emission reductions that 
could be achieved. We agree with this assessment.
    In response to comments on how to determine the VOC content of 
materials, we recommend in the final CTG that the VOC content of 
coatings, other than reactive adhesives, used at automobile and light-
duty truck assembly plants be determined using EPA Method 24. We 
recommend that the procedure for reactive adhesives in Appendix A of 
the NESHAP for surface coating of plastic parts (40 CFR Part 63, 
subpart PPPP) be used to determine the VOC content of reactive 
adhesives. In addition, we recommend that manufacturer's formulation 
data be accepted as an alternative to these methods. If there is a 
disagreement between manufacturer's formulation data and the results of 
a subsequent test, we recommend that States use the test method results 
unless the facility can make a demonstration to the States' 
satisfaction that the manufacturer's formulation data are correct.
    Finally, in conjunction with the draft CTG we prepared a draft 
revision of the Automobile Topcoat Protocol. Commenters supported the 
revision of the protocol. We are issuing the final revised protocol 
concurrent with the final CTG.

C. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials

    In response to public comments, several changes were made to the 
final CTG to clarify the recommended control measures. We clarified 
that certain non-atomizing resin application technologies, such as 
fluid impingement technology, meet the recommended resin application 
equipment specifications under certain recommended compliance options. 
We also revised the description of ``hand application'' to include non-
spray and non-atomizing application methods similar to hand- or 
mechanically-powered caulking guns (e.g., similar to those used to 
apply bonding putty), brush, and direct hand application.

[[Page 58487]]

These are low-emission application methods used by many boat builders.
    In the final CTG, we clarified that polyester bonding putties are 
included in the fiberglass boat manufacturing materials category and 
addressed in the final CTG for this category. We explained that these 
putties, which are made from a mixture of resin and filler, are not 
considered adhesives since they are part of the composite structure. 
However, no VOC content limits are recommended for polyester bonding 
putties in the final fiberglass boat manufacturing CTG, but we do 
recommend covers for mixing containers used to prepare these putties. 
Because these putties are encapsulated between the parts or surfaces 
they are bonding, minimal area is exposed to the air and most of the 
styrene is incorporated into the cured resin matrix. Therefore, VOC 
emissions from these putties are inherently low. For this reason, 
polyester bonding putties are not subject to HAP limits, which are 
based on styrene and methyl methacrylate (MMA) emissions in the Boat 
Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV. Similarly, no VOC 
content limits are recommended for these materials in the final CTG, 
but covers are recommended for the putty mixing containers.
    The final CTG also does not include recommended VOC limits for 
resin and gel coat used for mold and part touch up and repair. No VOC 
limits are recommended because these materials are used in small 
volumes (e.g., just an ounce or two at a time); therefore, VOC 
emissions from these materials are quite low. Further, these materials 
need to have higher VOC contents so that the repairs will bond to the 
existing mold or part. For these reasons, resin and gel coat used for 
mold and part touch up and repair are not subject to HAP content limits 
in the boat manufacturing NESHAP; however, under the NESHAP, they are 
subject to a usage limit and must not account for more than 1 percent 
of the total resin and gel coat used at a facility. Similarly, no VOC 
limits are recommended for these materials in the final CTG, but we are 
also recommending that resin and gel coat used for mold and part touch 
up and repair not exceed 1 percent by weight of all resin and gel coat 
used at a facility on a 12-month rolling-average basis.
    In response to public comments, we are revising the VOC content 
limits for resins and gel coats such that they now consist of a monomer 
VOC content limit and a limit on the non-monomer VOC content. We 
received comments that compliance with our recommended VOC limits, 
which were equal to the HAP content limits in the NESHAP, may not be 
feasible because the VOC content in resins and gel coats may be greater 
than the HAP content. As previously explained in the draft CTG, the 
NESHAP HAP content limits were based on styrene and MMA contents in 
resins and gel coats. Because nearly all VOC in resins and gel coats 
used in fiberglass boat manufacturing are styrene and MMA, we 
recommended the NESHAP HAP content limits as the VOC limits in the 
draft CTG. However, commenters noted that the VOC content of resins and 
gel coats may exceed the HAP content since these materials may include 
a small percent of non-HAP VOC, about 0.5 to 5 percent of the total 
weight of the resin or gel coat. Therefore, it may not be feasible for 
some materials to achieve the recommended VOC limits in the draft CTG, 
which only accounted for styrene and MMA.
    To resolve this issue, the final CTG recommends a control option to 
address all VOC in these materials based on monomer VOC and non-monomer 
VOC. Monomer VOCs react in a chemical cross linking reaction to convert 
these materials from liquids to solids. The only monomer VOCs in these 
materials that we have identified are styrene and MMA. According to the 
commenters, other VOC that are not monomers may be present in these 
materials at 0.5 to 5 percent by weight of the resin and gel coat. In 
light of the above information, we recommend in the final CTG that 
States adopt the HAP content limits in the NESHAP as monomer VOC 
content limits. In addition, we recommend that the States limit the 
non-monomer VOC content of resins and gel coats to 5 percent by weight 
of the resin or gel coat. If the non-monomer VOC content exceeds 5 
percent, we recommend that the amount over 5 percent be counted toward 
the monomer VOC content of the material. For example, if a resin 
contained 34 percent monomer VOC, but 6 percent non-monomer VOC, then 
the resin would be treated in each recommended compliance option as if 
it had a monomer VOC content of 35 percent because of the 1 percent 
non-monomer VOC that was over the 5 percent recommended limit for non-
monomer VOC.
    In response to comments on how to determine the VOC content of 
materials, we recommend in the final CTG that the monomer VOC content 
of resin and gel coat materials be determined using SCAQMD Method 312-
91, Determination of Percent Monomer in Polyester Resins. In addition, 
we recommend that manufacturer's formulation data be accepted as an 
alternative to this method. If there is a disagreement between 
manufacturer's formulation data and the results of a subsequent test, 
we recommend that States use the test method results unless the 
facility can make a demonstration to the States' satisfaction that the 
manufacturer's formulation data are correct.

D. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

    We revised the final CTG to recommend not applying the recommended 
limits to materials that are supplied to the facilities operating 
miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes in containers 
with a net volume of 16 ounces or less, or a net weight of one pound or 
less. We made this change in response to comments that these low volume 
materials have small VOC emissions and the cost of controlling them 
outweighs the emission reductions that could be achieved. We agree with 
this assessment. This is also consistent with the small container 
exemption in the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rule.
    In response to comments on how to determine the VOC content of 
materials, we recommend in the final CTG that the VOC content of 
adhesives, other than reactive adhesives, used at facilities operating 
miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes be determined 
using EPA Method 24. We recommend that the procedure for reactive 
adhesives in Appendix A of the NESHAP for surface coating of plastic 
parts (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) be used to determine the VOC 
content of reactive adhesives. In addition, we recommend that 
manufacturer's formulation data be accepted as an alternative to these 
methods. If there is a disagreement between manufacturer's formulation 
data and the results of a subsequent test, we recommend that States use 
the test method results unless the facility can make a demonstration to 
the States' satisfaction that the manufacturer's formulation data are 
correct.
    We also clarified in the final CTG that polyester bonding putties 
used to assemble fiberglass parts at fiberglass boat manufacturing 
facilities and at other reinforced plastic composite manufacturing 
facilities are not included in the miscellaneous industrial adhesives 
category and are not addressed in the CTG for this category. These 
bonding putties are part of the composite structure and are not 
adhesives. For further discussions on these putties, please see section 
II.C of

[[Page 58488]]

this notice and the final fiberglass boat manufacturing materials CTG.
    In the final miscellaneous industrial adhesives CTG, we also 
revised the definition of porous material to exclude wood. In the draft 
CTG, we recommended separate emission limits for wood application 
processes and for porous material (except wood) application processes. 
However, we inadvertently included wood in the definition of porous 
material in the draft CTG. This was an oversight, and wood has been 
excluded from the definition of porous material in the final CTG.
    We also replaced the term ``tire retreading'' in the CTG with 
``tire repair''. This change was made in response to a comment that the 
OTC model rule, on which the CTG definition was based, uses the term 
``tire repair'' for the same definition. We made this change to be 
consistent with the OTC model rule and to more accurately describe the 
specific process being defined.
    In the draft CTG we requested comment on whether certain materials 
(glass bonding primers and glass bonding adhesives) used at automobile 
and light-duty truck assembly plants that were included in the 
miscellaneous industrial adhesives category and addressed in the draft 
CTG for miscellaneous industrial adhesives should instead be included 
in the auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings category and 
addressed in the CTG for that category. All commenters on the draft CTG 
responded that recommendations for these materials should be in the 
auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings category and addressed in 
the CTG for that category to simplify implementation and compliance and 
to clarify EPA's recommendations for these materials.
    In response to these comments, we have clarified in the final auto 
and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG that it covers the following 
materials: automobile and light-duty truck glass bonding primer, 
automobile and light-duty truck adhesive, and automobile and light-duty 
truck weatherstrip adhesive. For further discussion on how we address 
these materials, please see section II.B of this notice and the final 
auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG.
    Similar materials are used in the production of vehicles other than 
automobiles or light-duty trucks, or are related to the production of a 
new automobile or new light-duty truck at a facility that is not an 
automobile or light-duty truck assembly coatings facility. These 
materials are included as ``motor vehicle'' materials in the 
miscellaneous industrial adhesives category and addressed in the final 
CTG for this category. The same limits that are recommended for 
``automobile and light-duty truck'' materials in the auto and light-
duty truck assembly coatings CTG are recommended for ``motor vehicle'' 
materials in this CTG. Please see section II.B of this notice for the 
rationale for these recommended limits.
    The recommended VOC emission limits in the final miscellaneous 
industrial adhesives CTG for the motor vehicle materials described 
above are as follows:
    <bullet> Motor vehicle glass bonding primer--900 g/l.
    <bullet> Motor vehicle adhesive--250 g/l.
    <bullet> Motor vehicle weatherstrip adhesive--750 g/l.
    Please note that, in the final CTG, the term ``motor vehicle glass 
bonding primer'' replaces the term ``automotive glass adhesive primer'' 
provided in the draft CTG. The terms have the same definition, but 
``glass bonding primer'' is the term more commonly used in the 
automotive and motor vehicle industry.

III. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's Determination

    All commenters that addressed EPA's proposed CAA Section 
183(e)(3)(C) determination that CTGs will be substantially as effective 
as national regulations in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone 
nonattainment areas from the miscellaneous metal products coatings, 
plastic parts coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings, 
and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials product categories agreed 
with the proposed determination.
    In support of EPA's proposed determination and issuance of draft 
CTGs for these product categories, commenters remarked that the CTG 
approach would afford industry flexibility to achieve VOC emission 
reductions while not compromising their ability to meet customer needs. 
We received comments noting that the CTG approach allows States greater 
flexibility to tailor regulatory requirements to their specific 
circumstances. The commenter stated that site-specific factors 
necessitate the need for flexible controls. According to the 
commenters, because there can be great variation in the operations of 
facilities and the environmental conditions in which they operate, 
State regulators should be granted some latitude to fashion control 
strategies to address the variables that are inherent to the formation 
of ground-level ozone in their States. The commenters concluded that 
the CTG approach affords this flexibility by allowing the use of a 
variety of mechanisms to achieve emission reductions.
    With respect to the miscellaneous industrial adhesives category, we 
similarly received comments agreeing with EPA's determination that a 
CTG is substantially as effective as a rule. However, we also received 
comments supporting the issuance of a national rule rather than a CTG 
for this product category. These commenters raised no concerns or 
issues with EPA's rationales for its proposed determination that a CTG 
is substantially as effective as a rule in reducing VOC emissions from 
miscellaneous industrial adhesives in ozone nonattainment areas. 
Rather, the commenters explained that regulation of manufacturers of 
industrial adhesives would cover a wider variety of materials, and thus 
achieve greater VOC emissions reductions, than measures limiting 
emissions from the products at the point of use. The commenters further 
argued that manufacturers have greater control over the VOC content and 
associated emissions of industrial adhesives than do users, given that 
individual industrial adhesives are formulated to perform specific 
functions and, unlike other coating materials, are not ordinarily 
thinned or otherwise altered prior to use by the user. The commenters 
stated that, among the categories of adhesive materials covered in the 
proposed CTG, a number of them are more likely to be used ``in the 
field'' or at construction sites rather than in manufacturing 
facilities. One commenter added that any uncertainty regarding the 
industry sectors that are covered by the miscellaneous industrial 
adhesives source category would be resolved by regulating industrial 
adhesives at the point of manufacture rather than the point of use. The 
commenter expressed concern that a CTG for adhesives would require 
enforcement at innumerable manufacturing facilities nationwide, 
resulting in significant costs. The commenter added that in contrast, a 
national rule applicable to manufacturers of industrial adhesives would 
greatly reduce the number of regulated entities and simplify 
enforcement, and reduce costs.
    EPA appreciates the commenters' concerns and suggestions. However, 
for the following reasons, EPA rejects the commenters' suggestion that 
EPA should issue a national rule for the Section 183(e) miscellaneous 
industrial adhesives category. As an initial matter, the scope of 
adhesives that the commenters suggest that EPA cover under a national 
rule is broader than the Section 183(e) miscellaneous industrial 
adhesives category. In EPA's Report to

[[Page 58489]]

Congress, Study of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer 
and Commercial Products--Comprehensive Emissions Inventory (EPA-453/R-
94-066-B, March 1995), supporting the Section 183(e) consumer and 
commercial product category list that EPA compiled in 1995 and the 
schedule for taking action on the listed product categories,\8\ the 
``miscellaneous industrial adhesives'' product category was clearly 
described as comprising adhesives used in industrial manufacturing 
operations. Accordingly, this product category does not include field-
applied adhesives (e.g., plastic solvent welding cements used by 
plumbers to join plumbing pipes on construction jobs in the field).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``Consumer and Commercial Products: Schedule for 
Regulation'' (60 FR 15264, March 23, 1995)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the July 2008 notice, EPA proposed to finalize the miscellaneous 
industrial adhesives product category, as that category was listed in 
1995. EPA did not propose to broaden that product category, as EPA had 
determined that the category properly reflected the scope of sources 
needed, in conjunction with the other product categories, to meet the 
requirements of Section 183(e)(3)(A). Petitioners have not alleged or 
demonstrated that EPA's proposed listing is contrary to the 
requirements of Section 183(e)(3)(A). EPA therefore takes final action 
to list the miscellaneous industrial adhesives product category, which 
again includes those adhesives used in industrial manufacturing 
operations.
    Further, as discussed in the July 14, 2008 notice, the effect of a 
national rule that sets VOC limits only for miscellaneous industrial 
adhesives (i.e., adhesives used in industrial manufacturing operations) 
could be easily subverted because such a rule could not require that a 
manufacturing facility use only those low-VOC content adhesives 
materials that are specifically marketed for miscellaneous industrial 
adhesive application operations. By contrast, the miscellaneous 
industrial adhesives CTG applies specifically to the products in the 
Section 183(e) miscellaneous industrial adhesives category, i.e., 
adhesives used at industrial manufacturing operations.
    Moreover, as discussed above and in the July 14, 2008 notice, EPA 
has identified in the CTG flexible and effective options for 
controlling VOC emissions from the miscellaneous industrial adhesives 
category, and these recommended control options are consistent with 
existing State and local VOC control strategies. The recommended 
control options, which are directed at the use of these adhesives, can 
only be implemented through the CTG approach because the regulated 
entities subject to a national rule would be adhesives manufacturers 
and suppliers, not the users. The commenters have raised no concerns or 
issues with EPA's rationales, including those reiterated above, 
supporting its proposed Section 183(e)(3)(C) determination that a CTG 
is substantially as effective as a regulation in reducing VOC emissions 
from miscellaneous industrial adhesives in ozone nonattainment areas. 
For the foregoing reasons, EPA is finalizing its 183(e)(3)(C) 
determination for miscellaneous industrial adhesives in this notice.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 
``significant regulatory action,'' since it is deemed to raise novel 
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866, and 
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 
documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action does not contain any 
information collection requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. EPA is taking 
final action to list the five Group IV consumer and commercial product 
categories addressed in this notice for purposes of CAA Section 183(e). 
The listing action alone does not impose any regulatory requirements. 
EPA has also determined that, for each of the five product categories 
at issue, a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national 
regulation in achieving VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment 
areas. This final determination means that EPA has concluded that it is 
not appropriate to issue Federal regulations under CAA Section 183(e) 
to regulate VOC emissions from these five product categories. Instead, 
EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to issue guidance in the form 
of CTGs that provide recommendations to States concerning potential 
methods to achieve needed VOC emission reductions from these product 
categories. In addition to the final determination, EPA is also 
announcing availability of the final CTGs for these five product 
categories. These CTGs are guidance documents. EPA does not directly 
regulate any small entities through the issuance of a CTG. Instead, EPA 
issues CTGs to provide States with guidance on developing appropriate 
State regulations to obtain VOC emission reductions from the affected 
sources within certain nonattainment areas. EPA's issuance of a CTG 
does trigger an obligation on the part of certain States to issue State 
regulations, but States are not obligated to issue regulations 
identical to the EPA's CTG. States may follow the recommendations in 
the CTG or deviate from them, and the ultimate determination of whether 
a State regulation meets the RACT requirements of the CAA would be 
determined through notice and comment rulemaking in the EPA's action on 
each State's SIP. Thus, States retain discretion in determining to what 
degree to follow the CTGs.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-

[[Page 58490]]

1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector 
because it imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal 
governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. In 
addition, we have determined that this rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. As stated in section IV.C. this action serves to list five 
product categories, finalize a determination that a CTG will be 
substantially as effective as a national regulation in achieving VOC 
emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas for the five 
categories, and announce the availability of the final CTGs (i.e., 
guidance documents) for these five product categories. These actions do 
not impose any regulatory requirements; therefore, EPA is not directly 
regulating any small entities. Please refer to section IV.C. for 
additional details.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EO 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ``Policies that 
have federalism implications'' is defined in the EO to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in EO 13132. The CAA establishes the relationship between 
the Federal Government and the States, and this action does not impact 
that relationship. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this rule. However, 
in the spirit of EO 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA 
solicited comments (see 73 FR 40230, July 14, 2008) from State and 
local officials. EPA received no adverse comments from State or local 
governments on these issues.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO 
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It does not have a substantial 
direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, in that the listing action 
and the final determination impose no regulatory burdens on tribes. 
Furthermore, the listing action and the final determination do not 
affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the 
Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) establish the relationship of the Federal 
government and Tribes in implementing the CAA. Thus, EO 13175 does not 
apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that are based on health and safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO 
has the potential to influence the regulations. This rule is not 
subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology 
performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in EO 
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy. These actions impose no regulatory requirements and are 
therefore not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when the Agency 
does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive 
policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal 
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to 
make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any populations, including any minority or 
low-income populations. The purpose of CAA Section 183(e) is to obtain 
VOC emission reductions to assist in the attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 
The health and environmental risks associated with ozone were 
considered in the establishment of the ozone NAAQS. The level is 
designed to be protective of the public with an adequate margin of 
safety. EPA's listing of the products and its determination that CTGs 
are substantially as effective as regulations are actions intended to 
help States achieve the NAAQS in the most appropriate fashion.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this notice and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United

[[Page 58491]]

States prior to publication of the notice in the Federal Register. A 
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective October 7, 2008.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59

    Air pollution control, Consumer and commercial products, 
Confidential business information, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 30, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 59--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 59 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7511b(e).

Subpart A--General


0
2. Section 59.1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  59.1  Final determinations under Section 183(e)(3)(C) of the CAA.

    This section identifies the consumer and commercial product 
categories for which EPA has determined that CTGs will be substantially 
as effective as regulations in reducing VOC emissions in ozone 
nonattainment areas:
    (a) Wood furniture coatings;
    (b) Aerospace coatings;
    (c) Shipbuilding and repair coatings;
    (d) Lithographic printing materials;
    (e) Letterpress printing materials;
    (f) Flexible packaging printing materials;
    (g) Flat wood paneling coatings;
    (h) Industrial cleaning solvents;
    (i) Paper, film, and foil coatings;
    (j) Metal furniture coatings;
    (k) Large appliance coatings;
    (l) Miscellaneous metal products coatings;
    (m) Plastic parts coatings;
    (n) Auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings;
    (o) Fiberglass boat manufacturing materials; and
    (p) Miscellaneous industrial adhesives.

[FR Doc. E8-23750 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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