Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0672-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Lithographic Printing Materials, Letterpress Printing Materials, Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, and Industrial Cleaning Solvents
Posted Date: 2006-08-04T12:44:06Z

[Federal Register: August 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 150)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 44521-44543]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04au06-31]                         

[[Page 44521]]

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

Part VI

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 59

Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu 
of Regulations for Lithographic Printing Materials, Letterpress 
Printing Materials, Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Flat Wood 
Paneling Coatings, and Industrial Cleaning Solvents; Proposed Rule

[[Page 44522]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 59

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0672; FRL-8204-9]

 
Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines 
in Lieu of Regulations for Lithographic Printing Materials, Letterpress 
Printing Materials, Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Flat Wood 
Paneling Coatings, and Industrial Cleaning Solvents

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed determination and availability of draft 
control techniques guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
the Act), EPA proposes to determine that control techniques guidelines 
documents (CTGs) will be substantially as effective as national 
regulations in reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) 
in ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) nonattainment 
areas from the following five product categories: Lithographic printing 
materials, letterpress printing materials, flexible packaging printing 
materials, flat wood paneling coatings, and industrial cleaning 
solvents. Based on this determination, EPA may issue CTGs in lieu of 
national regulations for these product categories. EPA has prepared 
draft CTGs for the control of VOC emissions from each of the product 
categories covered by this proposed determination. Once finalized, 
these CTGs will provide guidance to the States concerning EPA's 
recommendations for reasonably available control technology (RACT)-
level controls for these product categories. EPA further proposes to 
take final action to list the five Group II consumer and commercial 
product categories addressed in this notice pursuant to CAA section 
183(e).

DATES: Comments: Written comments on the proposed determination must be 
received by September 5, 2006, unless a public hearing is requested by 
August 11, 2006. If a hearing is requested on the proposed 
determination, written comments must be received by September 13, 2006. 
We are also soliciting written comments on the draft CTGs and those 
comments must be submitted within the comment period for the proposed 
determination.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing concerning the proposed determination by August 11, 
2006, we will hold a public hearing on August 14, 2006. The substance 
of any such hearing will be limited solely to EPA's proposed 
determination under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) that the CTGs for the five 
Group II product categories will be substantially as effective as 
regulations in reducing VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. 
Accordingly, if a commenter has no objection to EPA's proposed 
determination under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), but has comments on the 
substance of a draft CTG, the commenter should submit those comments in 
writing.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by applicable docket ID 
number, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-1741.
     Mail: Comments concerning the Proposed Determination 
should be sent to: Consumer and Commercial Products, Group II--
Determination to Issue Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of 
Regulations, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0672.
    Comments concerning any draft CTG should be sent to the applicable 
docket, as noted below: Consumer and Commercial Products--Lithographic 
Printing Materials and Letterpress Printing Materials, Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2006-0536; Consumer and Commercial Products--Flexible Packaging 
Printing Materials, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0537; Consumer and 
Commercial Products--Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0535; or Consumer and Commercial Products--Flat Wood Paneling 
Coatings, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0538, Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA Docket Center, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the applicable docket. EPA's 
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public 
docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential 
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available 
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends 
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of 
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 
a.m. at Building C on the EPA campus in Research Triangle Park, NC, or 
at an alternate site nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral 
testimony must contact Ms. Dorothy Apple, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-4487, fax number 
(919) 541-3470, e-mail address: apple.dorothy@epa.gov, no later than 
August 11, 2006. Persons interested in attending the public hearing 
must also call Ms. Apple to verify the time, date, and location of the 
hearing. If no one contacts Ms. Apple by August 11, 2006 with a request 
to present oral testimony at the hearing, we will cancel the hearing.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

[[Page 44523]]

the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding 
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing 
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary 
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of 
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the 
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal 
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at 
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on 

docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket 
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for 
submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected 

by the flooding and will remain the same.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the CAA 
section 183(e) consumer and commercial products program, contact Mr. 
Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce 
Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone number: (919) 541-5460, fax number (919) 541-3470, e-mail 
address: moore.bruce@epa.gov. For further information on technical 
issues concerning the proposed determinations and draft CTG for 
lithographic printing materials and letterpress printing materials, 
contact: Mr. Dave Salman, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and 
Chemicals Group (E143-01), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number: (919) 541-0859, e-mail address: 
salman.dave@epa.gov. For further information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determination and draft CTG for flexible 
packaging printing materials, contact: Ms. Paula Hirtz, U.S. EPA, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2618, 
e-mail address: hirtz.paula@epa.gov. For further information on 
technical issues concerning the proposed determination and draft CTG 
for flat wood paneling coatings, contact: Mr. Lynn Dail, U.S. EPA, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 
541-2363, e-mail address: dail.lynn@epa.gov. For further information on 
technical issues concerning the proposed determination and draft CTG 
for industrial cleaning solvents, contact: Dr. Mohamed Serageldin, U.S. 
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 
541-2379, e-mail address: serageldin.mohamed@epa.gov.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of affected
           Category             NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flexible packaging printing    322221, 326112,  Facilities that use
 materials.                     322223,          rotogravure or
                                3265111,         flexographic processes
                                322224,          to print materials such
                                322225, 332999.  as bags, pouches,
                                                 labels, liners, and
                                                 wraps using paper,
                                                 plastic film, aluminum
                                                 foil, metalized or
                                                 coated paper or film,
                                                 or any combination of
                                                 these materials.
Lithographic printing          323110.........  Facilities engaged in
 materials.                                      lithographic printing
                                                 on individual sheets or
                                                 continuous rolls of
                                                 substrate material.
Letterpress printing           323119.........  Facilities engaged in
 materials.                                      letterpress printing on
                                                 individual sheets or
                                                 continuous rolls of
                                                 substrate material.
Industrial cleaning solvents.  various \2\....  Facilities engaged in
                                                 cleaning activities
                                                 associated with
                                                 manufacturing, repair,
                                                 and service operations
                                                 across a wide variety
                                                 of industry sectors.
Flat wood paneling coatings..  321211, 321212,  Facilities that apply
                                321219, 321999.  protective, decorative,
                                                 or functional material
                                                 to any interior,
                                                 exterior, or hardboard
                                                 panel product.
Federal Government...........  ...............  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government  ...............  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be affected by this 
action, you should examine the applicable industry description in 
sections II.A, III.A, IV.A, and V.A of this notice. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the appropriate EPA contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ North American Industry Classification System.
    \2\ Industrial cleaning solvents are used in various 
manufacturing, repair, and service operations that span many 
industry sectors. A detailed list of affected industries and their 
respective NAICS codes are presented in the draft CTG for industrial 
cleaning solvents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preparation of Comments. Do not submit information containing CBI 
to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr. 
Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, Attention: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0672, 0535, 
0536, 0537, or 0538 (as applicable). Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk 
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on 
the Worldwide

[[Page 44524]]

Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following 
signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on the TTN's 
policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the 
following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides 

information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control.
    Organization of This Document. The information presented in this 
notice is organized as follows:

I. Background Information and Proposed Determination
    A. The Ozone Problem
    B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
    C. Significance of a CTG
    D. General Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
    E. Proposed Determination
    F. Availability of Documents
II. Lithographic Printing Materials and Letterpress Printing 
Materials
    A. Industry Characterization
    B. Recommended Control Techniques
    C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
    D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
III. Flexible Packaging Printing Materials
    A. Industry Characterization
    B. Recommended Control Techniques
    C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
    D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
IV. Flat Wood Paneling Coatings
    A. Industry Characterization
    B. Recommended Control Techniques
    C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
    D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
V. Industrial Cleaning Solvents
    A. Industry Characterization
    B. Recommended Control Techniques
    C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
    D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
VI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. Background Information and Proposed Determination

A. The Ozone Problem

    Ground-level ozone, a major component of smog, is formed in the 
atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen in the presence 
of sunlight. The formation of ground-level ozone is a complex process 
that is affected by many variables.
    Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of 
human health effects, agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and 
ecosystems. Acute health effects are induced by short-term exposures 
(observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)), 
generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion, 
and by prolonged exposures to ozone (observed at concentrations as low 
as 0.08 ppm), typically while individuals are engaged in moderate 
exertion. Moderate exertion levels are more frequently experienced by 
individuals than heavy exertion levels. The acute health effects 
include respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise performance, 
increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to 
respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency room 
visits, and pulmonary inflammation. Groups at increased risk of 
experiencing such effects include active children, outdoor workers, and 
others who regularly engage in outdoor activities, as well as those 
with preexisting respiratory disease. Currently available information 
also suggests that long-term exposures to ozone may cause chronic 
health effects (e.g., structural damage to lung tissue and accelerated 
decline in baseline lung function).

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    Under section 183(e) of the CAA, EPA conducted a study of VOC 
emissions from the use of consumer and commercial products to assess 
their potential to contribute to levels of ozone that violate the 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and to 
establish criteria for regulating VOC emissions from these products. 
Section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to list for regulation those 
categories of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC 
emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial 
products in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone 
nonattainment areas), and to divide the list of categories to be 
regulated into four groups. EPA published the initial list in the 
Federal Register on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15264). In that notice, EPA 
stated that it may amend the list of products for regulation, and the 
groups of product categories, in order to achieve an effective 
regulatory program in accordance with the Agency's discretion under CAA 
section 183(e).
    EPA has revised the list several times. See 70 FR 69759 (Nov. 17, 
2005); 64 FR 13422 (Mar. 18, 1999). Most recently, in May 2006, EPA 
revised the list to add one product category, portable fuel containers, 
and to remove one product category, petroleum dry cleaning solvents. 
See 71 FR 28320 (May 16, 2006). As a result of these revisions, Group 
II of the list now comprises the five product categories that are the 
subject of this action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to the court's order in Sierra Club v. EPA, 1:01-
cv-01597-PLF (D.C. Cir., March 31, 2006), EPA must take final action 
on the product categories in Group II by September 30, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any regulations issued under section CAA 183(e) must be based on 
``best available controls'' (BAC). CAA section 183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC 
as ``the degree of emissions reduction that the Administrator 
determines, on the basis of technological and economic feasibility, 
health, environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the 
application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes, 
methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation, 
product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for use, 
consumption, storage, or disposal.'' CAA section 183(e) also provides 
EPA with authority to use any system or systems of regulation that EPA 
determines is the most appropriate for the product category. Under 
these provisions, EPA has previously issued ``national'' regulations 
for architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, autobody 
refinishing coatings and consumer products.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 44525]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 183(e) defines regulated entities as:

    (i) * * * manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or 
importers of consumer or commercial products for sale or 
distribution in interstate commerce in the United States; or (ii) 
manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers that 
supply the entities listed under clause (i) with such products for 
sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States.

    Thus, under CAA section 183(e), a regulation for consumer or 
commercial products is limited to the measures applicable to 
manufacturers, processors, distributors, or importers of the solvents, 
materials, or products supplied to the consumer or industry. CAA 
section 183(e) does not authorize EPA to issue regulations that would 
directly regulate end-users of these products. By contrast, CTG are 
guidance documents that recommend RACT measures that States can adopt 
and apply to the end users of products. This dichotomy (i.e., that EPA 
cannot directly regulate end-users under CAA section 183(e), but can 
address 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 CTG

    CAA section 172(c)(1) provides that state implementation plans 
(SIPs) for nonattainment areas must include ``reasonably available 
control measures'' (RACM), including ``reasonably available control 
technology'' (RACT), for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2) 
provides that States must revise their ozone SIPs to include RACT for 
VOC sources covered by any CTG document issued after November 15, 1990, 
and prior to the date of attainment. Those ozone nonattainment areas 
that are subject to CAA section 172(c)(1) and submit an attainment 
demonstration seeking more than five years from the date of designation 
to attain must also meet the requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2) and 
revise their ozone SIPs in response to any CTG issued after November 
15, 1990, and prior to the date of attainment. Other ozone 
nonattainment areas subject to CAA section 172(c)(1) may take action in 
response to this guidance, as necessary to attain.
    EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a 
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control 
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and 
economic feasibility, 44 FR 53761 (Sept. 17, 1979).'' In subsequent 
Federal Register notices, EPA has addressed how states can meet the 
RACT requirements of the Act. Significantly, RACT for a particular 
industry is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering issues of 
technological and economic feasibility.
    EPA provides states with guidance concerning what types of controls 
could constitute RACT for a given source category through issuance of a 
CTG. The recommendations in the CTG are based on available data and 
information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the 
circumstances. States can follow the CTG and adopt State regulations to 
implement the recommendations contained therein, or they can adopt 
alternative approaches. In either event, States must submit their RACT 
rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process. EPA 
will evaluate the rules and determine, through notice and comment 
rulemaking in the SIP process, whether they meet the RACT requirements 
of the Act and EPA's regulations. To the extent a State adopts any of 
the recommendations in a CTG into its State RACT rules, interested 
parties can raise questions and objections about the substance of the 
guidance and the appropriateness of the application of the guidance to 
a particular situation during the development of the State rules and 
EPA's SIP approval process.
    We encourage States in developing their RACT rules to consider 
carefully the facts and circumstances of the particular sources in 
their States because, as noted above, RACT is determined on a case-by-
case basis, considering issues of technological and economic 
feasibility. For example, a state may decide not to require 90 percent 
control efficiency at facilities that are already well controlled, if 
the additional emission reductions would not be cost-effective. States 
may also want to consider reactivity-based approaches, as appropriate, 
in developing their RACT regulations.\5\ Finally, if States consider 
requiring more stringent VOC content limits than those recommended in 
the draft CTGs, states may also wish to consider averaging, as 
appropriate. In general, the RACT requirement is applied on a short-
term basis up to 24 hours.\6\ However, EPA guidance permits averaging 
times longer than 24 hours under certain conditions.\7\ The EPA's 
Economic Incentive Policy'' \8\ provides guidance on use of long-term 
averages with regard to RACT and generally provides for averaging times 
of no greater than 30 days. Thus, if the appropriate conditions are 
present, States may consider the use of averaging in conjunction with 
more stringent limits. Because of the nature of averaging, however, we 
would expect that any State RACT Rules that allow for averaging also 
include appropriate recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds 
in Ozone State Implementation Plans,'' 70 FR 54046 (September 13, 
2005).
    \6\ See, e.g., 52 FR at 45108, col. 2, ``Compliance Periods'' 
(November 24, 1987). ``VOC rules should describe explicitly the 
compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit (e.g., 
instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules are silent on 
compliance time, EPA will interpret it as instantaneous.''
    \7\ Memorandum from John O'Connor, Acting Director of the Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ``Averaging 
Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits-SIP Revision Policy.''
    \8\ ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, 
January 2001,'' available at http://www.epa.gov /region07/programs /

artd/air/policy /search.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By this action, we are making available four draft CTGs that cover 
the five product categories in Group II of the CAA section 183(e) list. 
We are consolidating lithographic printing materials and letterpress 
printing materials into one CTG document. These CTGs are guidance to 
the States and provide recommendations only. A State can develop its 
own strategy for what constitutes RACT for the Group II product 
categories, and EPA will review that strategy in the context of the SIP 
process and determine whether it meets the RACT requirements of the Act 
and its implementing regulations.
    Finally, CAA section 182(b)(2) provides that a CTG issued after 
1990 specify the date by which a State must submit a SIP revision in 
response to the CTG. In the draft CTGs at issue here, EPA provides that 
States should submit their SIP revisions within one year of the date 
that the CTGs are finalized.

D. General Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation

    CAA Section 183(e)(3)(C) authorizes EPA to issue a CTG in lieu of a 
regulation for a category of consumer and commercial products if a CTG 
``will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing [VOC] 
emissions'' in ozone nonattainment areas. The statute does not specify 
how EPA is to make this determination.
    On July 13, 1999 (64 FR 37773), EPA issued a final determination 
pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), concluding that CTGs for wood 
furniture coatings, aerospace coatings, and shipbuilding and repair 
coatings were substantially as

[[Page 44526]]

effective as national regulations in reducing emissions of VOC from 
these products in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone. Recognizing 
that the statute does not specify any criteria for making a 
determination under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), EPA, in 1999 considered 
several relevant factors, including: (1) The product's distribution and 
place of use; (2) the most effective entity to target to control 
emissions--in other words, whether it is more effective to achieve VOC 
reductions at the point of manufacture of the product or at the point 
of use of the product; (3) consistency with other VOC control 
strategies; and (4) estimates of likely VOC emission reductions in 
ozone nonattainment areas which would result from the regulation or 
CTG. EPA believes that these factors are useful for evaluating whether 
the rule or CTG approach would be best from the perspective of 
implementation and enforcement of an effective strategy to achieve the 
intended VOC emission reductions. As we consider other product 
categories in the current and future phases of regulation under CAA 
section 183(e), there may be other factors that are relevant to the CAA 
section 183(e)(3)(C) determination for given product categories. EPA 
believes that in making these determinations, no single factor is 
dispositive. On the contrary, for each product category, we must weigh 
the factors and make our determination based on the unique set of facts 
and circumstances associated with each product category. For purposes 
of making the determination, EPA analyzed the components of the draft 
CTGs for the product categories at issue and compared the CTGs to the 
types of controls and emission strategies possible through a 
regulation. As we explained in 1999, it would be unreasonable for EPA, 
in effect, to have to complete both the full rulemaking and full CTG 
development processes before being able to make a determination under 
CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) validly. EPA believes that for most product 
categories, it is possible for the Agency to make a determination 
between what a rule might reasonably be expected to achieve versus what 
a CTG might reasonably be expected to achieve, without having to 
complete the entire rulemaking and CTG processes. To conclude otherwise 
would result in unnecessary wasting of limited time and resources by 
the Agency and the stakeholders participating in the processes. 
Moreover, such an approach would be directly contrary to CAA section 
183(e)(3)(C), which authorizes EPA to issue a CTG in lieu of a 
regulation if it determines that the CTG ``will be substantially as 
effective as'' a regulation in reducing VOC emissions in ozone 
nonattainment areas.
    With regard to the five product categories at issue here, EPA notes 
that it does not have reliable quantitative data that would enable it 
to conduct a ton-by-ton comparison of the likely emission reductions 
associated with a national regulation versus a CTG. Although we 
conducted such a comparative analysis in 1999 for the product 
categories of wood furniture coatings, aerospace coatings and 
shipbuilding and repair coatings, (64 FR 37773, July 13, 1999), such 
analysis is not necessary for evaluating likely VOC emission 
reductions, particularly, where, as here, a CTG can achieve significant 
emission reductions from end-users, which cannot be achieved through 
regulation under CAA section 183(e).

E. Proposed Determination

    Based on the factors identified above and the facts and 
circumstances associated with each of the Group II product categories, 
EPA proposes to determine that CTGs for lithographic printing 
materials, letterpress printing materials, flexible packaging printing 
materials, flat wood paneling coatings and industrial cleaning solvents 
will be substantially as effective as national regulations in reducing 
VOC emissions from facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas.
    The following four sections address the five product categories 
that comprise Group II of the CAA section 183(e) list. We address 
lithographic printing materials and letterpress printing materials in 
one section below. Although these are two distinct product categories 
in the CAA section 183(e) list, offset lithographic printing and 
letterpress printing have many similarities in terms of the types of 
inks and cleaning materials used, the sources of VOC emissions and the 
controls available to address those emissions. Based on these 
similarities, EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to address the 
categories together and to issue a single CTG that covers both product 
categories.
    In each of the product-category sections below, we provide a 
general description of the industry, identify the sources of VOC 
emissions associated with the industry, summarize the recommended 
control techniques in the draft CTG and describe the impacts of those 
techniques, and discuss the considerations supporting our proposed 
determination under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) that a CTG will be 
substantially as effective as a regulation in reducing VOC emissions in 
ozone nonattainment areas from the product category at issue.
    The specific subsections below that address our proposed 
determination for each product category are organized into two parts, 
each of which addresses two of the factors relevant to the CAA section 
183(e)(1)(C) determination. The first part addresses whether it is more 
effective to target the point of manufacture of the product or the 
point of use for purposes of reducing VOC emissions and discusses 
whether our proposed approach is consistent with state and local VOC 
reduction strategies. The second part addresses the product's 
distribution and place of use and discusses the likely VOC emission 
reductions associated with a CTG, as compared to a regulation.
    Finally, we propose to find that these five product categories are 
appropriate for inclusion on the CAA section 183(e) list in accordance 
with the factors and criteria that EPA used to develop the original 
list. See Consumer and Commercial Products: Schedule for Regulation, 60 
FR 15264 (Mar. 23, 1995).

F. Availability of Documents

    EPA has prepared four draft CTG documents covering the five 
consumer and commercial products source categories addressed in this 
action. Lithographic printing materials and letterpress printing 
materials are included in one draft CTG document. Each of the draft 
CTGs addresses, among other things, RACT recommendations, cost impacts, 
and State and local regulations. These draft CTGs are available for 
public comment and are contained in the respective dockets listed in 
the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

II. Lithographic Printing Materials and Letterpress Printing Materials

A. Industry Characterization

    Lithographic printing materials and letterpress printing materials 
are two of the product categories in Group II of the section 183(e) 
list. Not only are these distinct product categories, they are distinct 
printing processes. Nevertheless, offset lithographic printing and 
letterpress printing have many similarities in terms of the types of 
inks and cleaning materials used, the sources of VOC emissions and the 
controls available to address these emissions. Accordingly, for 
purposes of simplifying the discussion in this notice, we have combined 
the

[[Page 44527]]

discussion of offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing.
1. Source Category Description
    These categories of consumer and commercial products include the 
inks and other associated materials used by offset lithographic 
printers and letterpress printers.
    Offset lithography is a planographic method of printing. The term 
``planographic'' denotes that the printing and non-printing areas are 
in the same plane on the surface of a thin metal lithographic plate. To 
maintain the distinction between the areas on the lithographic plate, 
the image area is rendered oil receptive, and the non-image area is 
rendered water receptive.
    Offset lithography is an indirect printing method; that is, ink is 
not transferred directly to a substrate. Rather, ink is transferred 
from the lithographic plate to a rubber-covered, intermediate 
``blanket'' cylinder and then transferred from the blanket cylinder to 
the substrate. The offset lithographic process is used for a broad 
range of printing applications, including books, magazines, 
periodicals, labels and wrappers, catalogs and directories, financial 
and legal documents, business forms, advertising brochures, newspapers, 
newspaper inserts, charts and maps, calendars, tickets and coupons, 
greeting cards, and stamps.
    Letterpress printing is a printing process in which the image area 
is raised relative to the nonimage area and the paste ink is 
transferred to the substrate directly from the image surface. 
Letterpress printing is no longer an economically significant segment 
of the printing market. Some newspapers, corrugated boxes and kraft 
paper are still printed by letterpress.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
a. Offset Lithographic Printing
    There are two types of offset lithography characterized by the 
method in which the substrate is fed to the press. In sheet-fed 
printing, individual sheets of paper or other substrate are fed to the 
press. In web printing, continuous rolls of substrate material are fed 
to the press and rewound or cut to size after printing. VOC emissions 
from offset lithographic printing result from evaporation of components 
of the inks, fountain solutions, and cleaning materials.
    The inks used in offset lithographic printing are a source of VOC 
emissions. The amount of VOC emitted varies depending on the type of 
offset lithographic printing process.
    Heatset web offset lithographic inks require heat to set the ink. 
Heatset web inks may contain up to 45 weight percent VOC (ink oils). In 
heatset web offset lithographic printing, 20 percent of the petroleum 
ink oils and essentially all of the vegetable ink oils are retained in 
the substrate and dry ink film. The remaining 80 percent of the 
petroleum ink oil is volatilized in and then exhausted from the dryer. 
Consequently, volatilized ink oils can be a significant source of VOC 
emissions from heatset web offset lithographic printing operations. 
Most heatset web offset lithographic printing dryers, however, are 
equipped with control devices such as a thermal oxidizer, catalytic 
oxidizer, or chiller condenser. These control devices significantly 
reduce VOC emissions from heatset web offset lithographic printing.
    Coldset web and sheet-fed offset lithographic inks dry by 
absorption into the substrate or by oxidation. The petroleum ink oils 
in sheet-fed and coldset web inks have higher boiling points than the 
petroleum ink oils in heatset inks. Coldset web inks usually contain 
below 35 percent weight VOC (ink oils). Most sheet-fed inks contain 
below 25 weight percent VOC (ink oils). In sheet-fed and coldset web 
offset lithographic printing, 95 percent of the petroleum ink oils and 
essentially all of the vegetable oils are retained in the substrate and 
dry ink film. As a result, VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset web 
offset lithographic inks are very low.
    Some radiation (ultra-violet and electron beam) cured offset 
lithographic materials are also used. These materials do not contain 
ink oils. Their VOC content and emissions are usually extremely low.
    The second source of VOC emissions from offset lithographic 
printing is the fountain solution used in conjunction with the inks. 
Fountain solution is unique to lithography and is not used in other 
printing processes.
    Fountain solution is applied to the lithographic plate to render 
the non-image areas unreceptive to ink. The on-press fountain solution 
is typically a mixture of water and fountain solution concentrate. The 
concentrate contains additives such as gum arabic or synthetic resins, 
acids, and buffer salts to maintain the pH of the solution, and a 
wetting agent or ``dampening aid'' to enhance the spreadability of the 
fountain solution across the plate. The dampening aid reduces the 
surface tension of the water as well as increases viscosity.
    Fountain solutions can be the source of a significant portion of 
the VOC emitted by offset lithographic printing operations. 
Historically, alcohols such as isopropyl alcohol, n-propyl alcohol and 
ethanol were used as the dampening aid. Over the past 20 years, many 
printers have reduced their emissions from fountain solution by 
reducing the alcohol content of the fountain solution or refrigerating 
the fountain solution. In addition, many printers have further reduced 
VOC emissions by switching to alcohol substitutes, most commonly 
certain glycol ethers.
    The third source of VOC emissions from offset lithographic printing 
is cleaning materials. Cleaning materials are used to wash the 
blankets, rollers, and outside of presses, and to remove residues of 
excess ink between color changes. These materials are typically 
mixtures of organic (often petroleum-based) solvents. Cleaning 
materials can be the source of a significant portion of the VOC emitted 
by lithographic printing operations. The keys to reducing VOC emissions 
from offset lithographic printing cleaning materials are reducing the 
composite vapor pressure of the material used and work practices. Low-
VOC content waterborne cleaning materials have been tested but have not 
proven to be a satisfactory alternative.
b. Letterpress Printing
    The VOC emissions from letterpress printing result from the 
evaporation of components of the inks and cleaning materials. Fountain 
solution is not used in letterpress printing. Letterpress inks are 
similar to offset lithographic inks. They are paste inks containing 
petroleum oils or vegetable oils. Both sheet-fed and web presses are 
used for letterpress printing.
    Sheet-fed letterpress presses use coldset inks. Most web 
letterpress equipment use coldset inks. These letterpress inks are 
similar in composition and behavior to sheet-fed and coldset web 
lithographic inks. In sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress printing, 
95 percent of the petroleum ink oils and essentially all of the 
vegetable oils are retained in the substrate and dry ink film. As a 
result, VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress inks 
are very low.
    There are also some heatset web letterpress printers. Heatset 
letterpress ink is similar to heatset lithographic ink with 20 percent 
of the petroleum ink oils and essentially all of the vegetable ink oils 
retained in the substrate and dry ink film. The remaining ink oil is 
volatilized in and then exhausted from the dryer. Heatset web 
letterpress

[[Page 44528]]

printing dryers may be equipped with control devices such as a thermal 
oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, or chiller condenser. These control 
devices would significantly reduce VOC emissions from heatset 
letterpress printing.
    The most significant source of VOC emissions in the letterpress 
process is cleaning materials. Cleaning materials are used to wash the 
rollers, plates and outside of presses. The cleaning materials used for 
letterpress printing are similar to those used in lithographic 
printing. These materials are typically mixtures of organic (often 
petroleum-based) solvents. The keys to reducing VOC emissions from 
letterpress printing cleaning materials are reducing the composite 
vapor pressure of the material used and work practices.
3. State and Local Regulations
    Seventeen States or local areas have VOC emission regulations for 
offset lithographic printing operations. Five states or local areas 
have regulations for letterpress printing operations. These rules 
generally limit the alcohol or alcohol substitute content of fountain 
solutions and the composite vapor pressure of cleaning materials, and 
require control of heatset dryer exhaust. More detail on these rules is 
provided in the draft CTG.

B. Recommended Control Techniques

    The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for heatset 
dryers, fountain solution and cleaning. The recommendations in the 
draft CTG apply to offset lithographic printing operations or 
letterpress printing operations that emit at least 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/
day) of VOC before consideration of control. The 15 lb/day level of 
emissions has been the applicability threshold for many CTGs in the 
past.\9\ For purposes of determining whether this applicability 
threshold is met, emissions from all offset lithographic printing, 
letterpress printing, and cleaning activities associated with offset 
lithographic printing or letterpress printing at a given facility are 
included. The only exception to this threshold relates to the add-on 
control recommendations provided below for heatset web offset 
lithographic printing operations and heatset web letterpress printing 
operations, and that exception is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See. e.g., Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for 
Reasonably Available Control Technology: Planning for Ozone 
Nonattainment Pursuant to Title I of the Clean Air Act, dated June 
1992 (establishing the 15 lb of VOC per day applicability threshold 
for coating applications for eleven industries, including automobile 
and light duty truck coating operations and coating of cans, coil, 
paper, fabric, vinyl, metal furniture, large appliances, magnet 
wire, miscellaneous metal parts, and flatwood paneling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Offset Lithographic Printing
    In the draft CTG, the recommended level of control for VOC 
emissions from exhaust from heatset web offset lithographic dryers is a 
90 percent reduction in VOC for control equipment installed before 
March 14, 1995. The draft CTG further recommends that control equipment 
installed on or after March 14, 1995, achieve 95 percent efficiency. 
These levels of control can be achieved by thermal oxidizers, catalytic 
oxidizers and chiller condensers. In light of technological 
improvements, add-on controls installed on or after March 14, 1995 can 
achieve 95 percent VOC reduction. To accommodate situations where the 
inlet VOC concentration is so low that a 90 or 95 percent reduction may 
not be achievable, an outlet concentration alternative is also 
recommended.
    The above recommended levels of control apply only to heatset web 
offset lithographic printing operations with potential to emit from the 
dryers of at least 25 tpy of VOC combined from heatset inks and 
carryover of alcohol substitutes (fountain solution) and low vapor 
pressure automatic blanket wash materials, before consideration of 
controls. We are recommending the 25 tpy threshold for add-on controls 
for heatset ink printers because the limited information currently 
available to us suggests that controls for small printers may be more 
costly for a given amount of emission reduction. In the 1993 draft CTG, 
EPA examined the cost of controlling heatset dryer emissions from four 
different size model plants. Annual ink oil emissions, before control, 
from the dryers at these facilities were approximately 25, 50, 100 and 
200 tons per year (tpy). The cost-effectiveness of controlling these 
ink oil emissions was estimated to range from $1,300 per ton at the 
largest model facility to $2,300 per ton at the smallest model facility 
(1990 dollars). In 2005 dollars, this equates to $1,800 per ton at the 
largest model facility and $3,100 per ton at the smallest model 
facility. More recently, EPA learned of a heatset web offset 
lithographic book printing facility with potential to emit 26 tpy of 
VOC from ink and alcohol substitute (fountain solution) carryover, 
before control, from the dryers on five heatset web offset lithographic 
presses. Book printing tends to have much lighter coverage and lower 
dryer exhaust VOC concentration than other types of heatset printing 
(e.g., magazine printing). In this case the VOC concentration of the 
dryer exhaust was very low. A 2004 state BACT analysis for this 
facility did not require the installation of control equipment. The 
cost per ton of controlling heatset dryer emissions was estimated by 
the facility to be $15,500 per ton which is significantly higher than 
that estimated for the smallest model facility in the 1993 draft CTG.
    We recognize that we have limited information on small heatset web 
facilities and the costs of controlling VOCs emitted from the dryers at 
these smaller sources. To allow us to assess the cost of controlling 
dryer emissions at small heatset web facilities and the appropriateness 
of the 25 tpy threshold for controlling dryer exhaust from heatset web 
printers, we request information on the mass of ink oil emissions and 
mass of alcohol substitute and automatic blanket wash carryover before 
control, dryer exhaust rates, and other relevant operating parameters 
for facilities with potential to emit from heatset dryers up to 100 
tpy. We would also welcome information on the experience of smaller 
facilities in controlling their dryer emissions, including any 
alternative control approaches, and the cost of such controls.
    No limits or controls are recommended for VOC emissions from sheet-
fed and coldset web offset lithographic inks. In sheet-fed and coldset 
web offset lithographic printing, 95 percent of the petroleum ink oils 
and essentially all of the vegetable oils are retained in the substrate 
and dry ink film. As a result, VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset 
web offset lithographic inks are already very low.
    The recommended level of control for VOC emissions from fountain 
solution for heatset web printing is 1.6 percent alcohol (by weight) in 
the fountain or equivalent. The draft CTG recommends three different 
approaches for achieving this recommended level of control. The first 
approach involves reducing the alcohol content to 1.6 percent alcohol 
or less (by weight). The second approach involves using 3 percent 
alcohol or less (by weight) in the fountain solution provided the 
fountain solution is refrigerated to below 60 [deg]F (15.5 [deg]C). The 
third approach involves using 5 percent alcohol substitute or less (by 
weight) and no alcohol in the fountain solution.
    The recommended level of control for VOC emissions from fountain 
solution for sheet-fed printing is equivalent to 5 percent alcohol (by 
weight) in the fountain or equivalent The draft CTG recommends three 
different approaches for achieving this recommended level of control. 
The first approach involves reducing the alcohol content to 5.0

[[Page 44529]]

percent alcohol or less (by weight). The second approach involves using 
8.5 percent alcohol or less (by weight) in the fountain solution 
provided the fountain solution is refrigerated to below 60[deg]F 
(15.5[deg] C). The third approach involves using 5 percent alcohol 
substitute or less (by weight) and no alcohol in the fountain solution.
    The recommended level of control for VOC emissions from fountain 
solution for coldset web is 5 percent alcohol substitute or less (by 
weight) and no alcohol in the fountain solution.
    For all types of offset lithographic printing, the draft CTG 
recommends the use of cleaning materials with a VOC composite partial 
pressure less than 10 mm Hg at 20 [deg]C, and that cleaning materials 
and used shop towels be kept in closed containers. The draft CTG also 
recommends an allowance for limited, 209 or 418 liters (55 or 110 
gallons) per year, use of higher vapor pressure cleaning materials. We 
request comments on the appropriate size for this allowance and 
additional information on the specific cleaning activities which 
require the use of higher vapor pressure cleaning materials.
2. Letterpress Printing
    The recommended level of control for VOC emissions from exhaust 
from heatset letterpress dryers is a 90 percent reduction in VOC for 
control equipment installed before March 14, 1995. The draft CTG 
further recommends that new control equipment installed on or after 
March 14, 1995, be required to achieve 95 percent efficiency. These 
levels of control can be achieved by thermal oxidizers, catalytic 
oxidizers, and chiller condensers. In light of technological 
improvements, add-on controls installed after March 14, 1995 can 
achieve 95 percent VOC reduction. To accommodate situations where the 
inlet VOC concentration is low, an outlet concentration alternative is 
also recommended.
    The above recommended levels of control apply only to heatset web 
letterpress printing operations with potential to emit from the dryers 
of at least 25 tpy of VOC combined from heatset inks and carryover of 
automatically applied low vapor pressure cleaning materials, before 
consideration of controls. For the reasons explained above, we are 
recommending the 25 tpy threshold for add-on controls for heatset ink 
letterpress printers because the limited information currently 
available to us suggests that controls for small heatset printers may 
be more costly for a given amount of emission reduction. Because we 
have limited information on small heatset web letterpress facilities 
and the costs of controlling VOCs emitted from the dryers at these 
smaller sources, we request additional information on these facilities. 
The type of information we are requesting is specified above in the 
discussion concerning add-on controls for heatset web offset 
lithographic printers.
    No limits are recommended for VOC emissions from sheet-fed and 
coldset letterpress inks. In sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress 
printing, 95 percent of the petroleum ink oils and essentially all of 
the vegetable oils are retained in the substrate and dry ink film. As a 
result, VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress inks 
are already very low.
    The draft CTG recommends the use of letterpress cleaning materials 
with a VOC composite partial pressure less than 10 mm Hg at 20 [deg]C, 
and that cleaning materials and shop used towels be kept in closed 
containers. The document also recommends an allowance for limited, 209 
or 418 liters (55 or 110 gallons) per year, use of higher vapor 
pressure cleaning materials. We request comments on the appropriate 
size for this allowance and additional information on the specific 
cleaning activities which require the use of higher vapor pressure 
cleaning materials.

C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques

    In the 1993 draft CTG, EPA estimated baseline emissions from the 
offset lithographic printing industry in ozone nonattainment areas, 
based on 1990 data, to be 820,000 tons per year (with 62,000 tpy coming 
from ink, 631,000 tpy from fountain solution and 126,000 tpy from 
cleaning.) Commenters on the 1993 draft CTG asserted that the alcohol 
content (17 percent) used to generate this estimate was too high and 
that the assumed ratio of fountain solution usage to ink usage was also 
too high. Baseline emissions from fountain solution may have been 
overestimated in 1993 by a factor of 2 to 3. This would reduce industry 
wide baseline emissions to between 400,000 to 500,000 tpy. As for 
letterpress printers, we have limited emissions data information for 
this industry. Based on available information, we estimate that VOC 
emissions from the letterpress printing industry as of 1990 were about 
28,000 tons per year.
    Based on VOC emissions data and April 2006 ozone nonattainment 
designations, EPA estimates that 6,700 offset lithographic printing 
facilities and 2,200 letterpress printing facilities would be affected 
by the draft CTG. We estimate the cost effectiveness of the recommended 
control techniques for offset lithographic printing to be $2,000/ton of 
VOC removed for heatset web dryers and $850/ton of VOC removed for 
cleaning materials. A cost savings is estimated for fountain solution. 
We estimate the cost effectiveness of the recommended control 
techniques for letterpress heatset web dryers and letterpress printing 
cleaning materials to be similar to the cost effectiveness for offset 
lithographic heatset dryers and offset lithographic printing cleaning 
materials.

D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 
Effective as a Regulation

    In determining whether to issue a national rule or a CTG for the 
product categories of lithographic printing materials and letterpress 
printing materials under section 183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four 
factors identified above in Section I.D in light of the specific facts 
and circumstances associated with these product categories. Based on 
that analysis, we propose to determine that a CTG will be substantially 
as effective as a rule in achieving VOC emission reductions in ozone 
nonattainment areas from lithographic printing materials and 
letterpress printing materials.
    As noted above, this section is divided into two parts. In the 
first part, we discuss our belief that the most effective means of 
achieving VOC emission reductions in these two categories is through 
controls at the point of use of the product (i.e., through controls on 
printers), and this can only be accomplished through a CTG. We further 
explain that the approaches in the draft CTG are consistent with 
existing effective state and local VOC strategies. In the second part, 
we discuss how the distribution and place of use of the products in 
each of these categories also support the use of a CTG. We further 
explain that there are control approaches for these two categories that 
result in significant VOC emission reductions and that such reductions 
could only be obtained by controlling the use of the product through a 
CTG. Such reductions could not be obtained through a regulation under 
section 183(e) because the controls affect the end-user, which cannot 
be a regulated entity under section 183(e)(1)(C). Accordingly, for 
these reasons and the reasons described more fully below, we believe 
that a CTG will achieve greater VOC emission reductions than a rule for 
these two categories.

[[Page 44530]]

1. The Most Effective Entity To Target for VOC Reductions and 
Consistency With State and Local VOC Strategies
    To evaluate the most effective entity to target for VOC reductions, 
it is important to first identify the primary sources of VOC emissions. 
There are three main sources of VOC emissions from offset lithography: 
(1) Evaporation of VOC from the inks; (2) evaporation of VOC from the 
fountain solution; and (3) evaporation of VOC from the cleaning 
materials. VOC emissions associated with letterpress printing stem from 
inks and cleaning materials only; fountain solutions are not used in 
letterpress printing. We address each of these sources of VOC 
emissions, in turn, below, as we discuss the CTG versus regulation 
approach.
a. Inks
    A national rule could contain limits for the as-sold VOC content of 
offset lithographic inks and letterpress inks, but given the nature of 
the offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing processes, 
this would result, in little, if any, reduction in VOC emissions.
    Inks are a significant source of VOC emissions from heatset web 
offset lithographic printing and heatset web letterpress printing. In 
these processes, heat is applied in a dryer to set the inks. As a 
result of the heating process, about 80 percent of the petroleum ink 
oil (VOC) is volatilized in the dryer. The remaining 20 percent of 
petroleum ink oil and all of the vegetable ink oil is retained in the 
substrate and dry ink film. Since the vegetable ink oil does not 
volatilize in the dryer, the amount of vegetable ink oil that can be 
used in heatset inks is very limited. If there is too much vegetable 
oil in a heatset ink, the ink will not dry properly.
    Control devices, such as thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, or 
chiller condensers, can achieve a 90 percent or greater reduction in 
VOC emissions from heatset dryers. In light of the significant 
reductions in VOC emissions obtained with such devices, existing State 
and local regulations that address offset lithography require the use 
of controls on heatset dryer exhaust. The same controls are equally 
applicable to heatset letterpress dryers.
    We could not require such control devices at printers through a 
national rule, because, pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and 
(e)(3)(A), the regulated entities subject to a national rule would be 
the ink manufacturers and suppliers, not the printers. The draft CTG 
applies to printers, as the end users of the inks, and specifically 
recommends limiting emissions by requiring printers to install and 
operate control devices on heatset dryers.
    Although both a national rule and a CTG could, in theory, achieve 
some reduction in VOC emissions from heatset web inks by requiring 
minimum vegetable oil content or limiting the ratio of petroleum oil to 
vegetable oil, we do not believe that such an approach is appropriate 
for addressing the emissions associated with these inks. As noted 
above, only very limited amounts of vegetable oil can be used in 
heatset inks. As a result, only a small emission reduction could be 
achieved, and we believe that this emission reduction--whether pursued 
through a rule or CTG--would not be cost-effective. Accordingly, the 
draft CTG does not contain restrictions on vegetable oil content. Given 
the significant reductions achievable through use of add-on control 
devices and the limited reductions that would be achieved by a national 
rule for heatset inks, the most effective entity to regulate VOC 
emissions associated with heatset web offset lithographic inks and 
heatset letterpress inks is the printer.
    The VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset web lithographic inks 
and sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress inks are inherently very low. 
First, these inks are lower VOC-content inks than heatset web inks. 
Second, 95 percent of the petroleum ink oil and essentially all of the 
vegetable ink oil in sheet-fed and coldset web lithographic inks and 
sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress inks do not evaporate and are 
retained in the substrate and dry ink film. Because only a small 
percentage of the sheet-fed and coldset web lithographic and 
letterpress ink oils evaporate, VOC emissions associated with these 
inks are small.
    Although both a national rule and a CTG could, in theory, achieve 
some reduction in VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset web inks by 
requiring a minimum vegetable oil content or limiting the ratio of 
petroleum oil to vegetable oil, we do not believe that such an approach 
is appropriate for addressing the limited emissions associated with 
these inks. Only a small emission reduction could be achieved, and we 
believe that this emission reduction--whether pursued through a rule or 
a CTG--would not be cost-effective. There are therefore no restrictions 
on vegetable oil content in the draft CTG.
    In addition, there are no cost-effective control devices to address 
VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset web lithographic and 
letterpress printers because the emissions that occur from these 
processes are diffuse and spread over a large area. Such emissions 
stand in contrast to those associated with heatset offset web 
lithographic inks and heatset letterpress inks, as the petroleum oils 
in those inks volatilize in a dryer and can be controlled in a cost-
effective manner because they are emitted in a more concentrated form 
from a discrete source. Thus, the draft CTG, while a viable approach 
for addressing VOC emissions associated with heatset web inks with add-
on controls, does not contain any add-on control recommendations for 
sheet-fed and coldset web inks because of the absence of any cost-
effective control devices.
b. Fountain Solutions \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This section addresses offset lithographic printing only 
because fountain solutions are not used in letterpress printing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fountain solutions contain alcohol or alcohol substitutes, which 
are VOCs. Fountain solutions are generally purchased in the form of 
fountain solution concentrate from vendors serving offset lithographic 
printers. The printers--the end-users of the fountain solution--buy the 
concentrate and dilute it with water to make ``press-ready'' fountain 
solution. The more the concentrate is diluted, the lower the VOC 
content of the press-ready fountain solution and the fewer VOC 
emissions result.
    A national rule requiring fountain solution concentrate 
manufacturers and suppliers to package the fountain solution 
concentrate with less VOC would not be an effective means of addressing 
VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. In this regard, we could, 
in theory, require the manufacturer or supplier to sell only pre-
diluted fountain solution with a specified amount of VOC content. The 
effect of such a rule could be easily subverted, however, because the 
rule would not, in any way, affect the actions of the end-user of the 
fountain solution, i.e., the printers. In particular, printers can 
purchase alcohol or alcohol substitutes from a variety of sources and 
add these to the pre-diluted fountain solution concentrate, which would 
effectively nullify the reformulation actions of the manufacturer and 
supplier, resulting in no net change in VOC emissions in ozone 
nonattainment areas. By contrast, a CTG can reach the users of the 
product and can therefore implement controls or practices by the user 
that are more likely to achieve the intended VOC emission reduction 
goal.
    In addition, printers purchase fountain solution concentrate with 
the intention of diluting the solution with

[[Page 44531]]

water, as appropriate, for the particular printing at issue. Thus, a 
regulation requiring dilution of the fountain solution concentrate by 
the manufacturer would be redundant of the actions that will be taken 
by the printers. The only result of such a national regulation would be 
increased shipping costs for printers. Shipping costs would increase 
because diluting the fountain solution concentrate would increase the 
volume of material to be shipped to the printers.
    A national rule also, in theory, could prohibit fountain solution 
manufacturers and suppliers from selling fountain solution concentrates 
which contain alcohol or alcohol substitutes. Similar to the 
reformulation strategy described above, the net effect of such a rule 
could be easily nullified by actions of the printers, because nothing 
precludes the printers from purchasing alcohol or alcohol substitutes 
from vendors that would not be subject to the section 183(e) 
regulation. Moreover, most offset lithographic printing requires some 
alcohol or alcohol substitute in the fountain solution, so prohibiting 
alcohol or alcohol substitutes in fountain solution concentrate would 
be impractical.
    Although a national rule could, in theory, prohibit the sale of all 
alcohol and alcohol substitutes regardless of specified end use for 
purposes of reducing VOC emissions from the offset lithographic and 
letterpress printing industries, such an approach is unreasonable and 
impractical, as it would preclude the use of alcohol in all contexts 
just to obtain VOC reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from two 
limited product categories. A more effective approach is to target 
reductions through controls on the end-user, the printers, through a 
CTG. Specifically, the draft CTG recommends limiting the on-press VOC 
(alcohol or alcohol substitute) content of fountain solutions, or 
refrigerating the fountain solution to reduce evaporation of VOC. These 
approaches are consistent with approaches already taken by State and 
local authorities, and they have proven effective in reducing VOC 
emissions.
c. Cleaning Materials
    There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated 
with the cleaning materials used in the offset lithographic printing 
process and the letterpress printing process: (1) Limiting the 
composite vapor pressure of the cleaning materials, and (2) 
implementing work practices governing the use of the product. A 
national rule affecting lithographic cleaning material and letterpress 
cleaning material manufacturers that limits the composite vapor 
pressure of VOC in the cleaning materials sold suffers from the same 
deficiencies noted above with regard to fountain solutions. 
Specifically, although lithographic printers and letterpress printers 
generally purchase cleaning materials from vendors serving their 
respective industry, nothing in a national rule governing manufacturers 
would preclude them from purchasing bulk solvents or other multipurpose 
cleaning materials from other vendors. The general availability of bulk 
solvents or multipurpose cleaning materials from vendors that would not 
be subject to the regulation would directly undermine the effectiveness 
of the regulation.
    A national rule also could, in theory, limit the composite vapor 
pressure of all cleaning materials and all solvents sold regardless of 
specified end use, which would ensure that only low composite vapor 
pressure materials are available for lithographic printing and 
letterpress printing. Such an approach is unreasonable and impractical. 
Cleaning materials and solvents are sold for multiple different 
commercial and industrial purposes. Reducing the vapor pressure of all 
materials merely to achieve VOC emission reduction from two limited 
product categories, could preclude the use of such materials in many 
important, legitimate contexts.
    The more effective approach for obtaining VOC reductions from 
cleaning materials used by offset lithographic printers and letterpress 
printers is to control the use of such materials by the printers 
through a CTG. The draft CTG recommends limiting the composite vapor 
pressure of offset lithographic and letterpress cleaning materials. 
With the CTG, the composite vapor pressure restrictions would apply to 
the printer regardless of the source of the cleaning materials and 
solvents.
    Significantly, we could not impose work practices through a section 
183(e) rule. Work practices, by their nature, are directed at the end-
user of the product. The draft CTG recommends work practices such as 
keeping shop towels in closed containers. This measure alone results in 
significant reductions in VOC cleaning emissions, when used in 
conjunction with low composite vapor pressure cleaning materials. These 
reductions would not be possible through a section 183(e) regulation 
because, by statute, such regulations do not apply to the end-user. 
Finally, the approaches recommended in the CTG are consistent with 
approaches taken by States and localities for cleaning materials, and 
these approaches have proven effective in reducing VOC emissions.
    Based on the nature of the offset lithographic printing and 
letterpress printing processes, the sources of significant VOC 
emissions from those processes, and the available strategies for 
reducing such emissions, the most effective means of achieving VOC 
emission reductions from these product categories is through controls 
at the point of use of the products, (i.e., through controls on 
printers), and this can only be accomplished through a CTG. The 
approaches described in the draft CTG are also consistent with 
effective state and local VOC control strategies. These two factors 
alone demonstrate that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a 
national regulation.
2. The Product's Distribution and Place of Use and Likely VOC Emission 
Reductions Associated With a CTG Versus a Regulation
    The factors described in the above section, taken by themselves, 
weigh heavily in favor of the CTG approach. The other two factors 
relevant to the section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only further confirm 
that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national regulation 
for offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing products.
    First, the products described above are used at commercial printing 
facilities in specific, identifiable locations. This stands in contrast 
to other consumer products, such as architectural coatings, that are 
widely distributed and used by innumerable small users (e.g., 
individual consumers in the general public). Because the VOC emissions 
are occurring at commercial printing facilities, implementation and 
enforcement of controls concerning the use of products are feasible and 
therefore the nature of the product's place of use further counsels in 
favor of the CTG approach.
    Second, a CTG will achieve equal or greater emission reduction than 
a national rule for each source of VOC emissions from offset 
lithographic printing and letterpress printing. In total, the CTG will 
achieve greater emission reductions because, as explained above, there 
are certain control strategies, applicable to the end-user of the 
product, that achieve significant VOC reductions. In particular, a CTG 
will achieve a significant reduction of VOC emissions (90 percent or 
greater) from heatset inks through the use of control devices on dryers 
used in heatset web offset lithographic printing and heatset web

[[Page 44532]]

letterpress printing. A CTG also provides for work practices associated 
with cleaning materials. The VOC reductions associated with these 
measures could not be obtained through a national regulation because 
they require the implementation of measures by the end-user.
    In addition, there are certain strategies that arguably could be 
implemented through rulemaking, but are far more effective if 
implemented directly at the point of use of the product. For the 
reasons described above, it is more effective to control the alcohol or 
alcohol-substitutes content of fountain solution concentrate and the 
composite vapor pressure of cleaning materials through a CTG, than a 
regulation.
    Furthermore, the number of sources affected by a CTG, as compared 
to the number of sources in nonattainment areas does not change our 
conclusion that the CTG would, in total, achieve greater VOC emission 
reductions than a rule. Based on the April 2006 designations, we 
estimate that 6,700 offset lithographic printing facilities, and 2,200 
letterpress printing facilities would be affected by the draft CTG. We 
further estimate that there are 30,500 offset lithographic printing 
facilities and 11,000 letterpress printing facilities located in ozone 
nonattainment areas. Although there is a large difference between the 
number of facilities affected by the CTG, as compared to the number of 
facilities in nonattainment areas, the facilities not covered by the 
CTG are predominantly small sheet-fed printing facilities that, as 
demonstrated above, are inherently low VOC emitters.
    Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and 
circumstances associated with these product categories, we propose to 
determine that a CTG for offset lithographic printing and letterpress 
printing will be substantially as effective as a national regulation.

III. Flexible Packaging Printing Materials

A. Industry Characterization

1. Source Category Description
    Flexible packaging refers to any package or part of a package the 
shape of which can be readily changed. Flexible packaging includes, but 
is not limited to, bags, pouches, labels, liners, and wraps utilizing 
paper, plastic, film, aluminum foil, metalized or coated paper or film, 
or any combination of these materials. Printing, coating, laminating, 
and the use of adhesives, primers, and varnishes may all be performed 
on or in-line with a flexible packaging printing press, and these 
activities are included in the source category.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
    The primary source of VOC emissions from the flexible packaging 
printing industry is evaporation of components of the printing inks, 
coatings, adhesives and cleaning materials.
    About 80 percent of flexible packaging printing is performed using 
rotogravure processes. Gravure printing is a printing process in which 
an image (type and art) is etched or engraved below the surface of a 
plate or cylinder. Rotogravure package printing uses a wide variety of 
different ink systems, including solvent systems (using aromatic, 
aliphatic and oxygenated hydrocarbon solvent-borne inks), and 
waterborne inks. VOC are contained in the printing inks, coatings, 
adhesives and cleaning materials.
    In flexographic printing, the image is raised above the printing 
plate, and the image carrier is made of rubber or other elastomeric 
materials. The major applications of flexographic printing are flexible 
and rigid packaging; tags and labels; newspapers, magazines, and 
directories; and paper towels, tissues, etc. Flexographic inks include 
both waterborne and solvent-based systems. Solvents used must be 
compatible with the rubber or polymeric plates; thus, aromatic solvents 
are not used. VOC are contained in the printing inks, coatings, 
adhesives and cleaning materials.
    There are two approaches to reducing VOC emissions from the inks, 
coatings and adhesives used in the flexible packaging printing 
industry. The first approach includes improving existing capture and/or 
control systems or adding control systems where none are in use. The 
second approach, focusing on pollution prevention, is to substitute 
lower VOC content or VOC-free inks, coatings and adhesives for higher 
VOC content materials presently in use. The controls employed are 
influenced by the type of inks, coatings and adhesives used, the 
printing process being used, the substrate, and performance 
requirements for the end product.
    Capture systems in use include combinations of dryer exhausts, 
floor sweeps, hoods, and total enclosures. Pressroom ventilation air 
can also be exhausted to a control device. Capture efficiencies can 
vary widely; the differences in efficiency contribute much more to the 
variation in overall efficiencies than the choice of control device. 
Control devices in use include carbon adsorbers, thermal oxidizers, and 
catalytic oxidizers.
    Many facilities in the packaging rotogravure and flexographic 
printing industries use waterborne inks. These inks typically contain a 
small proportion of alcohols or glycol ethers which function to reduce 
surface tension and improve flow characteristics. Waterborne inks are 
being used successfully for printing on paper packaging and for 
printing on non-absorbent packaging substrates such as plastics, 
aluminum, and laminates.
    Use of waterborne inks for rotogravure printing is increasing; 
however, problems still limit their use at press speeds above 1,000 
feet per minute. Their use may require redesign of the system (e.g., 
changes in ink formulation, cylinder engraving, press operation, and 
dryer design) for rotogravure flexible packaging printing. While use of 
waterborne inks reduces or eliminates VOC emissions, their higher 
surface tension and slower drying rate continue to be obstacles to 
their expanded use.
    There is widespread use of waterborne inks in flexographic 
printing. Most of these facilities have no control devices, and may 
have converted from solvent-borne to waterborne materials to avoid the 
need to install control devices to comply with VOC regulations. 
Flexographic printing is more easily adapted to the use of waterborne 
materials, and may not require redesign of the system.
    Flexible packaging producers print on many different substrates 
within the same facility. Low-VOC inks are not available to meet all of 
the performance requirements of the products produced at these 
facilities or for all substrates in all of the colors required by some 
facilities.
3. State and Local Regulations
    At least 34 States and several more local agencies have regulations 
that control VOC emissions from rotogravure and flexographic printing 
for flexible packaging. The majority of these agencies have adopted 
control levels consistent with the 1978 RACT levels of 65 percent 
overall control for rotogravure, 60 percent overall control for 
flexography, or use of inks, coatings and adhesives with less than or 
equal to 25 percent by volume VOC in their volatile fraction, more than 
60 volume percent solids less water, or less than 0.5 kg of VOC per kg 
of solids. More recently issued regulations for flexible package 
printing operations are more stringent than the recommendations found 
in the 1978 CTG. These regulations have overall control efficiency 
requirements ranging from 66 percent to 85 percent.

[[Page 44533]]

B. Recommended Control Techniques

    The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for flexible 
packaging printing (inks, coatings and adhesives) and cleaning. The 
recommendations in the draft CTG apply to flexible packaging printing 
operations that emit at least 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) of VOC before 
consideration of control. This level of emissions has been the 
applicability threshold for many CTG in the past. For purposes of this 
threshold, emissions from all flexible packaging printing and cleaning 
activities associated with flexible packaging printing at a given 
facility are included. The only exception to this threshold relates to 
the control recommendations provided below for emissions from inks, 
coatings and adhesives, and that exception is described below.
1. Inks, Coatings and Adhesives
    More recently installed presses are capable of achieving greater 
capture efficiencies than older presses. For presses first installed 
prior to March 14, 1995, the draft CTG recommends an overall capture 
and control efficiency of 70 percent for flexible packaging printers. 
Alternative ``as-applied'' ink, coating and adhesive limits of 0.5 kg 
of VOC/kg of solids applied (0.5 lb of VOC/lb of solids applied) or 
0.10 kg of VOC/kg of materials applied (0.10 lb of VOC/lb of materials 
applied) are also recommended.
    For presses installed on or after March 14, 1995, the draft CTG 
recommends an overall capture and control efficiency of 80 percent for 
flexible packaging printers. Alternative ``as-applied'' ink, coating 
and adhesive limits of 0.5 kg VOC/kg of solids applied (0.5 lb of VOC/
lb of solids applied) or 0.10 kg VOC/kg of materials applied (0.10 lb 
of VOC/lb of materials applied) are also recommended.
    The above recommended levels of control apply only to flexible 
packaging printing operations with potential to emit at least 25 tpy of 
VOC from inks, coatings and adhesives combined before consideration of 
controls. We are recommending the 25 tpy threshold because not all 
flexible packaging facilities can use low VOC content inks, coatings 
and adhesives, and because the limited information currently available 
to us suggests that add-on controls for small printers may be more 
costly for a given amount of emission reduction.
    Based on available information, we estimate that for a press 
exhausting approximately 5,800 cubic feet per minute, operating 2000 
hours per year, and achieving 70 percent capture efficiency, the VOC 
emission reduction achieved by add-on controls would range from 30 to 
60 megagrams (Mg) (33 to 66 tons) per year and the cost effectiveness 
would range from $1,400/Mg to $3,100/Mg ($1,300/ton to 2,800/ton) 
depending on the average hourly solvent use rate. At lower solvent use 
rates, the cost per ton of emission controlled would likely be higher.
    We recognize that we have limited information on small flexible 
packaging printing facilities and the cost of add-on controls to reduce 
VOCs emitted from inks, coatings and adhesives at these smaller 
sources. To allow us to assess the cost of controlling emissions from 
inks, coatings and adhesives at small flexible packaging printing 
facilities and the appropriateness of the 25 tpy threshold for 
recommending control of these emissions, we request information on the 
mass of VOC emissions from inks, coatings and adhesives before control, 
dryer exhaust rates, press utilization rates and other relevant 
operating parameters for these smaller facilities. We would also 
welcome information on the experience of smaller facilities in 
controlling these emissions, including any alternative control 
approaches, and the cost of such controls.
2. Work Practices for Cleaning Materials
    The draft CTG recommends work practice requirements to ensure that 
all cleaning materials are stored in closed containers; spills are 
minimized; cleaning materials are conveyed from one location to another 
in closed containers or pipes; and emissions of VOC are minimized 
during cleaning of equipment. The draft CTG also recommends that used 
shop towels be stored in closed containers.

C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques

    EPA estimates that there are a total of 219 facilities located in 
ozone nonattainment areas (based on April 2006 designations). Based on 
VOC emissions data, EPA estimates that there are approximately 100 
facilities in ozone nonattainment areas that would be affected based on 
the 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) VOC emissions applicability threshold.
    Nonattainment area VOC emissions (based on April 2006 designations) 
are estimated to range from 8,636 to 16,364 Mg/yr (9,500 to 18,000 
tpy). Many facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas are already 
meeting the control levels recommended in the draft CTG. These 
facilities may be using capture and control systems or low VOC content 
inks, coatings and adhesives. The costs for facilities using higher VOC 
materials that are not currently controlled and will be subject to RACT 
for the first time will vary depending on the flow rate, hourly solvent 
use rate, and operating hours. Although we do not have sufficient 
information for the industry as a whole to estimate the costs of the 
recommended control approaches, we have information on certain sources 
from which we can estimate the likely emissions reductions and costs 
for a typical source subject to control for the first time.
    As noted above, on a relatively small flexible packaging press 
exhausting approximately 5,800 cubic feet per minute, operating 2000 
hours per year, and achieving 70 percent capture efficiency, we 
estimate the VOC emission reduction to range from 30 to 60 megagrams 
(Mg) (33 to 66 tons) per year and the cost effectiveness to range from 
$1,400/Mg to $3,100/Mg ($1,300/ton to $2,800/ton) depending on the 
average hourly solvent use rate. Increasing the hourly solvent use 
rate, annual operating hours, or capture efficiency of this size press 
would increase the annual VOC emission reduction and improve the cost 
effectiveness. Larger presses with proportionately larger hourly 
solvent use rates would also have larger annual VOC emission reductions 
and better cost effectiveness than smaller presses.

D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 
Effective as a Regulation

    In determining whether to do a national rule or a CTG for the 
flexible packaging printing materials category, we evaluated the 
factors noted above in Section I.D of this notice in light of the 
specific facts and circumstances associated with this product category. 
Given the nature of the flexible packaging printing process, the 
sources of VOC emissions from this process and the available strategies 
for reducing VOC emissions from this process, we propose to determine 
that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a rule in achieving 
VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from the flexible 
packaging printing materials product category.
1. The Most Effective Entity To Target for VOC Reductions and 
Consistency With State and Local VOC Strategies
    To evaluate the most effective entity to target for VOC reductions, 
it is important to first identify the primary sources of VOC emissions. 
There are two main sources of VOC emissions from flexible package 
printing: (1) Evaporation of VOC from inks, coatings,

[[Page 44534]]

and adhesives; and (2) evaporation of VOC from cleaning materials. We 
address each of these sources of VOC emissions, in turn, below, as we 
discuss the CTG versus regulation approach.
a. Inks, Coatings, and Adhesives
    While there is already significant use of low-VOC inks, coatings 
and adhesives, not all flexible packaging printing can be done with 
low-VOC content materials. In addition, in some cases where low-VOC 
content materials could be used for some or all of the products 
produced by a particular printer, there can be significant equipment 
costs associated with switching to low-VOC content materials. For 
example, in order to switch from solvent-borne materials to waterborne 
materials, a rotogravure printer would need to re-engrave all of its 
rotogravure cylinders. In other cases significant modifications may 
need to be made to dryers.
    A national rule could, in theory, limit the as-sold VOC content of 
inks, coatings and adhesives used for specific purposes in flexible 
packaging printing. This would in essence be specifying which print 
work must be done with waterborne or other low-VOC content materials 
and which print work may be done with solvent-borne materials. During 
the development of the national emission standard for hazardous air 
pollutants for the printing and publishing industry, we identified many 
inks, coatings and adhesives with low hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 
content; however, we were unable to identify specific print work that 
could always be performed with low HAP content materials. Similarly, 
given the wide variety of flexible packaging products; the wide variety 
of combinations of substrates, inks, coatings and adhesives used to 
make these products; the wide variety of products that may be printed 
on an individual press; and the wide variation in the capabilities of 
individual presses, we do not believe that we would be able to identify 
specific print work that could always be performed with waterborne or 
other low-VOC content materials. As a result, we do not believe we 
could create an effective national rule which specified which print 
work must be done with waterborne or other low-VOC content materials 
and which print work may be done with solvent-borne materials.
    Alternatively, a national rule could contain limits for the as-sold 
VOC content of broad categories of flexible packaging printing inks, 
coatings, and adhesives, but given the nature of the flexible package 
printing process, this would result in little, if any, reduction in VOC 
emissions. For example, a national rule could categorize inks by their 
chemistry into waterborne inks, other low-VOC content inks, and 
solvent-borne inks and set VOC content limits for each category. Such a 
rule would not restrict the type of work that could be conducted with 
each type of ink. Structuring a rule in this fashion would not result 
in significant reductions in VOC emissions because solvent-borne inks, 
which are the primary source of VOC emissions, would still be allowed 
to have high VOC content, and a national rule would not require 
printers to use add-on controls in conjunction with these high VOC 
content materials. It is more effective to address the emissions 
associated with solvent-borne inks at the point of use through a CTG.
    Indeed, control devices, such as thermal oxidizers, catalytic 
oxidizers, or carbon adsorbers, can achieve significant reductions in 
VOC emissions from high VOC content inks, coatings and adhesives. 
Existing State and local regulations that address flexible packaging 
printing authorize the use of high VOC content materials in conjunction 
with control devices or the use equivalent low-VOC content materials.
    We could not require control devices at printers through a national 
rule, because, pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the 
regulated entities subject to a national rule would be the ink, coating 
and adhesive manufacturers and suppliers, not the printers. The draft 
CTG applies to printers, as the end users of the inks, coatings and 
adhesives, and specifically recommends limiting emissions by requiring 
printers to install and operate control devices or to use equivalent 
low-VOC content materials. Given the significant reductions achievable 
through use of add-on control devices, the most effective entity to 
regulate to address VOC emissions associated with flexible packaging 
inks, coatings and adhesives is the printer.
b. Cleaning Materials
    There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated 
with the cleaning materials used in the flexible packaging printing 
process: (1) Limiting the composite vapor pressure of the cleaning 
materials and (2) implementing work practices governing the use of the 
product.
    A national rule affecting flexible packaging printing cleaning 
material manufacturers that limits the composite vapor pressure of VOC 
in the cleaning materials sold would suffer from the same deficiencies 
noted above with regard lithographic printing fountain solutions and 
lithographic printing and letterpress printing cleaning materials. 
Specifically, although flexible packaging printers may purchase 
cleaning materials from vendors serving their respective industry, 
nothing in a national rule governing manufacturers would preclude them 
from purchasing bulk solvents or other multipurpose cleaning materials 
from other vendors. The general availability of bulk solvents or 
multipurpose cleaning materials from vendors that would not be subject 
to the regulation would directly undermine the effectiveness of the 
regulation.
    A national rule also could, in theory, limit the composite vapor 
pressure of all cleaning materials and all solvents sold regardless of 
specified end use, which would ensure that only low composite vapor 
pressure materials are available for flexible packaging printing. Such 
an approach is unreasonable and impractical. Cleaning materials and 
solvents are sold for multiple different commercial and industrial 
purposes. Reducing the vapor pressure of all cleaning materials and 
solvents merely to achieve VOC emission reduction from flexible 
packaging printing, would preclude the use of such materials in many 
important, legitimate contexts.
    The more effective approach for obtaining VOC reductions from 
cleaning materials used by flexible packaging printers is to control 
the use of such materials by the printers through a CTG. The draft CTG 
recommends limiting the composite vapor pressure of flexible packaging 
cleaning materials. With the CTG, the composite vapor pressure 
restrictions would apply to the printer regardless of the source of the 
cleaning materials and solvents.
    Significantly, we could not impose work practices through a CAA 
section 183(e) rule. Work practices, by their nature, are directed at 
the end-user of the product. The draft CTG recommends work practices 
such as keeping shop towels in closed containers. This measure alone 
results in significant reductions in VOC cleaning emissions, when used 
in conjunction with low composite vapor pressure cleaning materials. 
These reductions would not be possible through a CAA section 183(e) 
regulation because, by statute, such regulations do not apply to the 
end-user. Finally, the approaches recommended in the CTG are consistent 
with approaches taken by States and localities for cleaning materials, 
and these approaches have proven effective in reducing VOC emissions.
    Based on the nature of the flexible packaging printing process, the 
sources of significant VOC emissions from this

[[Page 44535]]

process, and the available strategies for reducing such emissions, the 
most effective means of achieving VOC emission reductions from this 
product category is through controls at the point of use of the 
products, (i.e., through controls on printers), and this can only be 
accomplished through a CTG. The approaches described in the draft CTG 
are also consistent with effective state and local VOC control 
strategies. These two factors alone demonstrate that a CTG will be 
substantially as effective as a national regulation.
2. The Product's Distribution and Place of Use and Likely VOC Emission 
Reductions Associated With a CTG Versus a Regulation
    The factors described in the above section, taken by themselves, 
weigh heavily in favor of the CTG approach. The other two factors 
relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only further 
confirm that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national 
regulation for flexible packaging printing products.
    First, the products described above are used at commercial printing 
facilities in specific, identifiable locations. This stands in contrast 
to other consumer products, such as architectural coatings, that are 
widely distributed and used by innumerable small users (e.g., 
individual consumers in the general public). Because the VOC emissions 
are occurring at commercial printing facilities, implementation and 
enforcement of controls concerning the use of products are feasible and 
therefore the nature of the product's place of use further counsels in 
favor of the CTG approach.
    Second, as described above, a CTG will achieve equal or greater 
emission reductions than a national rule for each source of VOC 
emissions from flexible packaging printing. In total, the CTG will 
achieve greater emission reductions because, as explained above, there 
are certain control strategies, applicable to the end-user of the 
product, that achieve significant VOC reductions. In particular, the 
only mechanism by which to achieve the significant VOC reductions 
associated with installing add-on controls, which is one of the 
recommended approaches for addressing VOC emissions from inks, 
coatings, and adhesives, is through a CTG. The VOC reductions 
associated with work practices similarly can only be achieved through a 
CTG as it affects the end-user. Although a regulation could impose low 
VOC content restrictions for inks, coatings, and adhesives, and vapor 
pressure limits for cleaning materials, we believe, for the reasons 
described above, that it is far more effective to control these 
materials at the point of use, rather than the point of manufacture.
    Furthermore, the number of sources affected by a CTG, as compared 
to the number of sources in nonattainment areas does not change our 
conclusion that the CTG would, in total, achieve greater VOC emission 
reductions than a rule. Based on the April 2006 designations, we 
estimate that approximately 100 flexible packaging printing facilities 
in ozone nonattainment areas would meet the applicability criteria in 
the CTG (i.e., 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day)) VOC emissions. We further 
estimate that there are 219 flexible packaging printing facilities 
located in ozone nonattainment areas. Although the CTG would apply only 
to about half of the facilities in ozone nonattainment areas, the 
facilities that are not covered by the CTG are, by themselves, low VOC 
emitters in that they emit less than 15 lb VOC per day (which is less 
than 2.5 tpy).
    Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and 
circumstances associated with this product category, we propose to 
determine that a CTG for flexible packaging printing will be 
substantially as effective as a national regulation.

IV. Flat Wood Paneling Coatings

A. Industry Characterization

1. Source Category Description
    Flat wood paneling coatings include, but are not limited to, 
paints, stains, sealers, topcoats, basecoats, primers, enamels, inks 
and adhesives used in the manufacture of flat wood paneling. The 
coatings provide a protective or decorative layer to paneling products 
used in interior and exterior construction of residential, commercial 
and institutional buildings. These paneling products can be classified 
into three main product types: decorative interior panels, exterior 
siding, and tileboard.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
    The primary VOC emissions from flat wood paneling surface coating 
operations occur during coating application and drying/curing of the 
coatings. The remaining emissions are primarily from mixing and/or 
thinning and cleaning operations. In most cases, VOC emissions from 
surface preparation, storage, handling, and waste/wastewater operations 
are relatively small.
    After being coated by any of the conventional wet coating 
operations (such as spray coating, roll coating, or dip coating), the 
flat wood paneling products are cured using heated dryers. This step 
removes any remaining volatiles from the coating so that the surface of 
the flat wood paneling product meets the hardness, durability, and 
appearance requirements of the customer.
    The industry currently uses primarily waterborne coatings, although 
some products (e.g., tileboard and fire-resistant paneling) still 
require solvent-borne coatings to provide adequate water, weather, and 
fire resistance. Quick drying time is another important reason why 
manufacturers use solvent-borne coatings, especially when fast line 
speeds are used. Solvent-borne coatings contain higher amounts of VOC 
materials so they evaporate more readily than water and the products 
take less time to cure in the ovens. Curing time is an important 
variable because the applied coating must be dry, hard, and cool prior 
to packaging, otherwise the products have the potential to stick 
together when stacked, causing defects or rejected material.
    Decorative interior panels require multiple coating layers and 
coating steps. Production speeds of 30 to 35 boards per minute require 
the use of solvents that evaporate without leaving cure blisters and 
without leaving residual solvent in the coating film or substrate. 
Exterior siding products must have coatings able to withstand extreme 
and long-term weather conditions and resist ultra-violet radiation. 
These performance requirements impact the amount of VOC emitted from 
the coating of exterior siding. Tileboard is a premium interior wall 
paneling product made of hardboard that is used in high moisture areas 
of the home such as kitchens and bathrooms. Tileboard has more 
stringent product performance requirements compared to standard 
interior wall paneling.
    Common techniques to reduce emissions include use of low-VOC 
coatings and operation of add-on control devices where low-VOC 
materials cannot be used due to performance requirements calling for 
solvent-borne coatings. In addition, emissions from cleaning operations 
can be reduced through use of work practices such as keeping cleaning 
solvents and shop towels in covered containers.
3. State and Local Regulations
    At least 28 State and local jurisdictions have regulations that 
control VOC emissions from surface coating operations that include flat 
wood paneling. Most of these regulations are general surface coating

[[Page 44536]]

rules; a few are specific to flat wood paneling. In addition to the 
State and local requirements, there are two previous EPA actions that 
affect surface coating operations for flat wood paneling. In 1978, EPA 
issued a CTG document (EPA-450/2-78-032) that provided RACT 
recommendations for controlling VOC emissions from this industry. In 
2003, EPA promulgated national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP) covering surface coating of wood building products. 
See 68 FR 31746 (May 28, 2003). The 1978 CTG and the 2003 NESHAP are 
further discussed in the current draft CTG document.
    Almost all of the jurisdictions that specifically address flat wood 
paneling have based their rules on the old 1978 CTG. However, there are 
two jurisdictions in California that have requirements specific to flat 
wood paneling that are more current than the 1978 CTG. In the Placer 
County California Air Pollution Control District, VOC emissions from 
flat wood paneling operations in a nonattainment area are limited to 
250 g VOC/l (2.1 lb VOC/gal) of coating (excluding water) or the 
overall control device efficiency must be at least 90 percent.
    The California South Coast AQMD defines flat wood paneling as 
``interior wood panels and exterior wood siding, which include, by way 
of illustration and not limitation, redwood, cedar or plywood stocks, 
plywood panels, particle boards, composition hard boards, and any other 
panels or siding constructed of solid wood or a wood-containing 
product.'' The emissions limit established by the South Coast rule is 
identical to the emission limit established by Placer County, 
California and also covers exterior siding, which the Placer County 
rule does not.

B. Recommended Control Techniques

    The draft CTG provides flexibility by recommending either low-VOC 
materials or, as an option, add-on controls as an alternative to low-
VOC materials. The low-VOC materials recommendations include an 
emissions limit of 250 g VOC/l (2.1 lb VOC/gal) of material (minus 
water). An equivalent limit, expressed as units of weight of VOC per 
volume of solids in all coatings would be 350 grams of VOC per liter 
solids (2.9 lb of VOC per gal of solids). Or, alternatively, a facility 
could choose to use add-on control equipment to meet an overall control 
efficiency of 90 percent. These control options would apply to surface 
coatings, inks, and adhesives applied to all types of flat wood 
paneling. ?>
    The draft CTG also recommends work practice standards. The work 
practice plan must include steps to ensure that VOC emissions are 
minimized from mixing operations, storage tanks and other containers, 
and handling operations for coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and 
waste materials. Examples of work practice standards include: Storing 
all VOC coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials in closed 
containers, minimizing spills of VOC containing coatings, thinners, 
cleaning up spills immediately, conveying any coatings, thinners, and 
cleaning materials in closed containers or pipes, closing mixing 
vessels which contain VOC coatings and other materials except when 
specifically in use, and minimizing emissions of VOC during cleaning of 
storage, mixing, and conveying equipment.

C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques

    EPA estimates that there are a total of 24 flat wood paneling 
facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas (based on April 2006 
designations). Based on VOC emissions data, all of the 24 facilities in 
ozone nonattainment areas would be affected considering the 6.8 kg/day 
(15 lb/day) VOC emissions applicability threshold. This level of 
emissions has been the applicability threshold for many CTG in the 
past. For purposes of this threshold, aggregate emissions from all flat 
wood paneling coating operations and cleaning activities associated 
with flat wood paneling coating at a given facility are included.
    These facilities emit about 4,400 Mg (4,000 tons) of VOC per year. 
The cost effectiveness estimates vary according to the type of flat 
wood paneling. Based on studies conducted as part of development of the 
Placer County and South Coast regulations, the cost effectiveness is 
estimated at $4,400 per ton of VOC for exterior siding and $1,900 per 
ton of VOC for interior paneling and tileboard. Due to the higher 
estimated cost for a given amount of emission reductions from exterior 
siding, and because exterior siding is not covered by the 1978 CTG and 
by several current State rules based on that CTG, EPA solicits comments 
on whether it is appropriate to exclude exterior siding from 
applicability of the draft CTG. As discussed above, the draft CTG 
recommends three alternatives, plus work practices, for reducing VOC 
emissions from these operations. Two of the alternatives focus on use 
of low-VOC coatings that are readily available. For those facilities 
that choose to use high-VOC coatings, they may choose to employ the 
third alternative, the use of add-on controls. From information in the 
NEI database, there is no indication that any of the 24 facilities 
currently have add-on controls, but may be using low-VOC coatings for 
compliance with any existing State or local requirements.

D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 
Effective as a Regulation

    In determining whether to develop a national rule or a CTG for the 
product category of flat wood paneling coatings under CAA section 
183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four factors identified above in Section 
I.D in light of the specific facts and circumstances associated with 
this product category. Based on that analysis, we propose to determine 
that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a rule in achieving 
VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from flat wood 
paneling coatings.
    This section is divided into two parts, each of which addresses two 
of the factors relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) determination. 
In the first part, we determine that the most effective means of 
achieving VOC emission reductions in this category is through controls 
at the point of use of the product, (i.e., through controls on 
facilities that apply surface coatings to flat wood paneling products), 
and this can only be accomplished through a CTG. We further explain 
that the approaches in the draft CTG are consistent with existing 
effective state and local VOC strategies. In the second part, we 
discuss how the distribution and place of use of the products in this 
category also support the use of a CTG. We further explain that there 
are control approaches for this category that result in significant VOC 
emission reductions and that such reductions could only be obtained by 
controlling the use of the product through a CTG. Such reductions could 
not be obtained through a regulation under CAA section 183(e) because 
the controls affect the end-user, which is not a regulated entity under 
CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). Accordingly, for these reasons and the 
reasons described more fully below, we believe that a CTG will achieve 
much greater VOC emission reductions than a rule for this category.
1. The Most Effective Entity To Target for VOC Reductions and 
Consistency With State and Local VOC Strategies
    To evaluate the most effective entity to target for VOC reductions, 
it is important to first identify the primary sources of VOC emissions. 
There are two main sources of VOC emissions from flat wood paneling 
coating: (1)

[[Page 44537]]

Evaporation of VOC from coatings and adhesives; and (2) evaporation of 
VOC from cleaning materials. We address each of these sources of VOC 
emissions, in turn, below, as we discuss the CTG versus regulation 
approach.
a. Coatings and Adhesives
    The industry currently uses primarily waterborne coatings, although 
some products (e.g., tileboard and fire-resistant paneling) still 
require solvent-borne coatings to provide adequate water, weather, and 
fire resistance. Quick drying time is another important reason why 
manufacturers use solvent-borne coatings, especially when fast line 
speeds are used. A national rule could contain limits for the as-sold 
VOC content of coatings and adhesives, but given the nature of the flat 
wood paneling coating process, this would result, in little, if any, 
reduction in VOC emissions. A national rule could, for example, set 
lower VOC content limits for waterborne and other low-VOC content 
materials and higher VOC content limits for solvent-borne materials 
without specifying which flat wood paneling products must be coated 
with each type of material. This rule structure would leave facilities 
free to choose which type of material to use. Further, many coatings 
and adhesives used in flat wood paneling coating are not identified by 
the supplier specifically as flat wood paneling coatings and would fall 
outside of the scope of such a national rule. Thus, such a rule would 
not compel anyone to use lower VOC content materials and would achieve 
little, if any, VOC emission reduction.
    Control devices, such as thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, or 
carbon adsorbers, can achieve a significant reduction in VOC emissions 
from high VOC content materials. In light of the significant reductions 
in VOC emissions obtained with such devices, existing State and local 
regulations that address flat wood paneling coating allow the use of 
high VOC content materials in conjunction with control devices. These 
regulations require the use of such controls or the use of equivalent 
low-VOC content materials. In addition, the 2003 NESHAP contains a 
compliance option that allows the facility to lower the emission rate 
by using add-on controls.
    We could not require such control devices at flat wood paneling 
facilities through a national rule, because, pursuant to CAA section 
183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the regulated entities subject to a 
national rule would be the coating and adhesive manufacturers and 
suppliers, not the flat wood paneling facilities. The draft CTG applies 
to these facilities, as the end users of the coatings and adhesives, 
and specifically recommends limiting emissions by the use of low-VOC 
coatings or to control emissions through the operation of control 
devices. Given the significant reductions achievable through available 
use of add-on control devices, the most effective entity to regulate to 
address VOC emissions associated with flat wood paneling coatings is 
the facility using the coatings.
b. Cleaning Materials
    There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated 
with the cleaning materials used in the flat wood paneling coating 
process: (1) Limiting the VOC content of the cleaning materials, and 
(2) implementing work practices governing the use of the product.
    A national rule affecting solvent manufacturers that supply 
cleaning materials to the flat wood paneling industry that limits the 
VOC content of VOC in the cleaning materials sold would suffer from the 
same deficiencies noted above with regard to lithographic printing 
fountain solutions, lithographic printing and letterpress printing 
cleaning materials, and flexible packaging printing cleaning materials. 
Specifically, although flat wood paneling coaters may purchase cleaning 
materials from vendors serving their respective industry, nothing in a 
national rule governing manufacturers would preclude them from 
purchasing bulk solvents or other multipurpose cleaning materials from 
other vendors. The general availability of bulk solvents or 
multipurpose cleaning materials from vendors that would not be subject 
to the regulation would directly undermine the effectiveness of the 
regulation.
    A national rule also could, in theory, limit the VOC content of all 
cleaning materials and all solvents sold regardless of specified end 
use, which would ensure that only low-VOC materials are available to 
the flat wood paneling coating industry. Such an approach is 
unreasonable and impractical. Cleaning materials and solvents are sold 
for multiple different commercial and industrial purposes. Reducing the 
vapor pressure of all cleaning materials and solvents merely to achieve 
VOC emission reductions from the flat wood paneling coating industry 
would preclude the use of such materials in many important, legitimate 
contexts.
    The more effective approach for obtaining VOC reductions from 
cleaning materials used by flat wood paneling coaters is to control the 
use of such materials by the coaters through a CTG. Significantly, we 
could not impose work practices through a CAA section 183(e) rule. Work 
practices, by their nature, are directed at the end-user of the 
product. The draft CTG recommends work practices such as keeping 
solvents and shop towels in closed containers. This measure alone 
results in significant reductions in VOC cleaning emissions. These 
reductions would not be possible through a CAA section 183(e) 
regulation because, by statute, such regulations do not apply to the 
end-user. Finally, the approaches recommended in the CTG are consistent 
with approaches taken by States and localities for cleaning materials, 
and these approaches have proven effective in reducing VOC emissions.
    Based on the nature of the flat wood paneling coating process, the 
sources of significant VOC emissions from this process, and the 
available strategies for reducing such emissions, the most effective 
means of achieving VOC emission reductions from this product category 
is through controls at the point of use of the products, (i.e., through 
controls on flat wood paneling coaters), and this can only be 
accomplished through a CTG. The approaches described in the draft CTG 
are also consistent with effective state and local VOC control 
strategies. These two factors alone demonstrate that a CTG will be 
substantially as effective as a national regulation.
2. The Product's Distribution and Place of Use and Likely VOC Emission 
Reductions Associated With a CTG Versus a Regulation
    The factors described in the above section, taken by themselves, 
weigh heavily in favor of the CTG approach. The other two factors 
relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only further 
confirm that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national 
regulation for flat wood paneling coatings.
    First, the products described above are used at commercial 
facilities in specific, identifiable locations. This stands in contrast 
to other consumer products, such as architectural coatings, that are 
widely distributed and used by innumerable small users (e.g., 
individual consumers in the general public). Because the VOC emissions 
are occurring at commercial manufacturing facilities, implementation 
and enforcement of controls concerning the use of products are feasible 
and therefore the nature of the product's place of use further counsels 
in favor of the CTG approach.

[[Page 44538]]

    Second, as described above, a CTG will achieve equal or greater 
emission reduction than a national rule for each source of VOC 
emissions from flat wood paneling coating. In total, a CTG will achieve 
significantly more emission reduction than a national rule for this 
category. A CTG will achieve a significant greater emission reductions 
because, as explained above, there are certain control strategies, 
applicable to the end-user of the product, that achieve significant 
emission reductions. In particular, a CTG will achieve a significant 
reduction of VOC emissions from coatings and adhesives through the use 
of control devices. A CTG provides for work practices associated with 
cleaning materials. The VOC reductions associated with these measures 
could not be obtained through a national regulation, because they 
require the implementation of measures by the end-user.
    In addition, there are certain strategies that arguably could be 
implemented through rulemaking, but are far more effective if 
implemented directly at the point of use of the product. For the 
reasons stated above it is more effective to control the VOC content of 
coatings and adhesives through a CTG than through a regulation
    Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and 
circumstances associated with this product category, we propose to 
determine that a CTG for flat wood paneling coatings will be 
substantially as effective as a national regulation.
    Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and 
circumstances associated with this product category, we propose to 
determine that a CTG for flat wood paneling coatings will be 
substantially as effective as a national regulation.

V. Industrial Cleaning Solvents

A. Industry Characterization

1. Source Category Description
    This category of consumer and commercial products includes the 
industrial cleaning solvents used by many industries. This category 
includes a variety of products used to remove contaminants such as 
adhesives, inks, paint, dirt, soil, oil, and grease from parts, 
products, tools, machinery, equipment, vessels, floors, walls, and 
other production related work areas. Cleaning operations are performed 
for a variety of reasons including safety, operability, and to avoid 
contamination of the products being manufactured or repaired at the 
facility. The cleaning solvents used in these operations are, in many 
cases, generally available bulk solvents that are used for a multitude 
of applications not limited to cleaning. For example, naphtha may be 
used as a cleaning solvent, as a paint thinner, or as an ingredient 
used in the manufacture of paint.
2. Sources of VOC Emissions and Controls
    In general, VOC emissions occur from industrial cleaning solvents 
through evaporation during cleaning activities such as wiping, 
flushing, and brushing, as well as from storage and disposal of used 
shop towels and solvent. Because a portion of all solvents evaporate 
during use, such solvent-based cleaning materials can result in large 
amounts of emissions of VOC.
    In 1994, EPA completed a study of industrial cleaning solvents that 
characterized cleaning operations carried out within six focus 
industries (automotive, electrical equipment, magnetic tape, furniture, 
packaging, and photographic supplies) to evaluate sources of 
evaporative emissions from VOC solvents used as cleaning materials. We 
believe that the range of cleaning activities performed in these 
industries provided a good variety of cleaning operations for the 
study, and that the information obtained relevant to VOC emission 
sources and possible control techniques can be applied to virtually any 
industry. During the study, EPA collected information on emissions from 
industrial cleaning solvents used in approximately 300 individual 
cleaning operations across the six focus industries. EPA classified 
these operations into nine ``unit operations'' (UO). We believe that 
any given industrial cleaning activity would fall into one or more of 
these UO: (1) Spray gun cleaning; (2) spray booth cleaning; (3) large 
manufactured components cleaning; (4) small manufactured components 
cleaning; (5) parts cleaning; (6) equipment cleaning; (7) floor 
cleaning; (8) line cleaning; and (9) tank cleaning. The purpose of 
identifying these UO is to assist State and local agencies in 
identifying the sources of VOC emissions from cleaning activities and 
to provide a structure for developing and applying control techniques 
to mitigate VOC emissions from industrial cleaning solvents used in 
these UO.
    In February 1994, EPA published an Alternative Control Techniques 
(ACT) document (EPA-453/R-94-015) to provide information to State and 
local agencies on sources and various means of controlling VOC 
emissions from industrial cleaning operations. The ACT document 
identified the cleaning UO listed above and presented techniques 
available to reduce solvent losses, including the anticipated costs of 
control and potential for emissions reductions for these options. The 
ACT document also provided a quantitative overview of cleaning solvents 
used and a model solvent management system for accounting and tracking 
solvent usage. The model solvent management system was provided as a 
tool for facilities to use in tracking their solvent usage. The ACT 
document also provided a methodology for calculating emissions in a 
consistent way.
    Although the industrial cleaning solvent product category includes 
a variety of different products with differing VOC contents, and 
although these products are used in different ways by a wide range of 
industries, we believe that there are two basic approaches to achieve 
VOC emission reductions. First, the users of the products can control 
emissions through work practices targeted at the activities and sources 
of emissions specific to the user's industry (e.g., keeping solvent 
containers covered, properly storing and disposing of used shop towels 
and solvent, etc.). Second, users can also reduce overall VOC emissions 
through solvent substitution (e.g., use of low-VOC, no-VOC, or low-
vapor pressure solvents). Theoretically, solvent substitution could be 
achieved at the point of manufacture or at the point of use, but in 
practice it is usually the user who selects the solvent or mixture of 
solvents to use in the various industrial cleaning operations 
throughout a facility. Either individually or in tandem, these two 
general approaches are effective strategies to achieve significant 
emission reductions from this product category, notwithstanding the 
variation in the products, their users, and their specific uses.
3. State and Local Regulations
    Many State and local agencies, including a number of the California 
Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), have developed strategies for 
reducing VOC emissions from industrial cleaning solvents. Typically, 
these strategies include both work practices governing the use of the 
products and VOC limits governing the VOC content of the products. A 
table identifying and summarizing some of these existing State and 
local measures is included in the draft CTG document for this product 
category.
    To identify potential control recommendations for the draft CTG, 
EPA reviewed the existing State and local regulations governing VOC 
emissions from this product category. The review indicated that the

[[Page 44539]]

regulations in three of the California AQMDs (South Coast, Bay Area, 
and Sacramento) are good models to evaluate, because these rules are 
consistent with each other in format and approach, the technical 
information developed to support these regulations is readily 
available, and these regulations are more current than those of other 
jurisdictions. Additionally, several case studies were available from 
the California AQMDs pertaining to their rules that help illustrate how 
specific facilities achieved VOC reductions and at what cost. Moreover, 
many other State and local agencies either have, or are considering, 
using the current regulations from the California AQMDs as models for 
the format and content their own control strategies. If the California 
AQMD strategies are effective, EPA believes that there can be a benefit 
to extending these measures to other nonattainment areas and 
maintaining nationwide consistency, as appropriate.
    The regulations adopted in the California AQMDs all have 
requirements for both work practices and VOC content limits for solvent 
cleaning materials. A comparison of the various AQMD regulations 
governing VOC emissions from industrial cleaning solvents indicates 
that the work practice provisions are similar and require product users 
to implement generally accepted practices that have been shown to be 
effective in mitigating evaporative losses from solvent storage, 
handling, and disposal activities. These work practices are further 
discussed in the draft CTG and in section B below.
    Although the work practice requirements are similar among the 
AQMDs, the VOC content limits and rule applicability differ somewhat 
from District to District. For example, South Coast AQMD Rule 1171 
(2005) has a ``general use'' VOC limit of 25 grams VOC per liter of 
cleaning material that applies to most industries. In cases where water 
based cleaners or low-VOC solvent cleaners cannot be used, however, 
South Coast AQMD allows higher limits for a number of specific 
industries as provided for in section 1171(c) of their rule.
    By comparison, Bay Area AQMD Regulation 8, Rule 4, provides for a 
``general use'' limit of 50 grams VOC per liter of cleaning material, 
unless emissions are controlled by an emission control system with an 
overall abatement efficiency of at least 85 percent. The Bay Area rule 
exempts relatively few specific operations (e.g., electrical apparatus 
components, electronic components, precision optics, research and 
development laboratories, etc.) from the ``general use'' limit (see Bay 
Area AQMD's section 8-4-116). In addition, the Bay Area rule exempts 
cleaning operations subject to other specific Bay Area AQMD rules. 
There are 18 such exemptions listed in Bay Area AQMD's section 8-4-117 
(e.g., architectural coating, light and medium duty motor vehicle 
assembly plants, plastic parts and products, etc.).
    EPA's review of existing and State and local approaches to reduce 
VOC emissions from this product category indicates that strategies that 
include both work practices and VOC content limits can be effective and 
should be the basis for a CTG under CAA section 183(e).

B. Recommended Control Techniques

    The following sections describe recommendations EPA is providing in 
the draft CTG document for industrial cleaning solvents, including a 
discussion of the recommended control measures and a description of 
industries to which these recommendations apply. These recommendations 
are discussed in more detail in the draft CTG document, which also 
incorporates the entire 1994 ACT document.
1. Control Measures
    Based on our analysis of State and local requirements, primarily 
the California AQMD measures, the draft CTG recommends both work 
practices and a generally applicable VOC content limit for most 
operations modeled after the Bay Area AQMD rule.
a. Work Practices
     The draft CTG recommends practices similar to those required by 
the California AQMDs. Specifically, these are: (1) Covering open 
containers and used applicators; (2) minimizing air circulation around 
cleaning operations; (3) properly disposing of used solvent and shop 
towels; and (4) implementing equipment practices that minimize 
emissions (e.g., keeping parts cleaners covered, maintenance of 
cleaning equipment to repair solvent leaks, etc.).
b. VOC Content Limit
    The draft CTG recommends a generally applicable VOC content limit 
of 50 grams VOC per liter (0.42 1b/gal) of cleaning material, unless 
emissions are controlled by an emission control system with an overall 
abatement efficiency of at least 85 percent. This limit is modeled on 
the ``general use'' category of the Bay Area AQMD solvent cleaning 
regulations, taking into account the specific exclusions provided for 
in the Bay Area AQMD rule and described earlier. In addition to the Bay 
Area exclusions, and as discussed earlier, the more stringent South 
Coast AQMD ``general use'' limit is accompanied by higher limits for 
several individual operations (e.g., cleaning of ultraviolet ink 
application equipment, screen printing, cleaning of coating application 
equipment, etc.). When developing RACT measures for industrial cleaning 
operations, we suggest that State and local agencies consider the 
specific industries and operations in their jurisdictions and the 
individual requirements of those operations and tailor their rules to 
those specific scenarios accordingly. Furthermore, in considering 
existing cleaning requirements as bases for specific exemptions from 
their general industrial cleaning solvents rules, State and local 
agencies should take into account how current those measures are. EPA 
believes that more recent rules are likely to be more effective than 
older, possibly outdated, rules. We remind the States that the ultimate 
determination of whether any specific State or local measures meet any 
applicable RACT requirement will occur during the notice and comment 
rulemaking process associated with EPA action on SIP submissions.
c. Alternative Vapor Pressure Limit
    In addition to the VOC content limit recommended here, EPA solicits 
comment on possible use of a composite vapor pressure limit, for 
example, 8 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) at 20 degrees Celsius, as (1) 
a replacement for the 50 g/l VOC content limit entirely; or (2) an 
alternative limit that may be used in lieu of the 50 g/l VOC content 
limit for specific operations as determined by the State or local 
agency.
    EPA is considering this option because, historically, some State 
and local agencies have specified composite vapor pressure limits in 
their cleaning requirements. For example some States (e.g., Illinois, 
Connecticut, New York, etc.) limit solvents used in cold cleaning to 
1.0 mmHg. California's Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 
allows a composite vapor pressure of 33 mmHg for solvents used for 
cleaning of coating application equipment and other cleanup of uncured 
coatings, adhesives, inks, and resins and for cleaning of electronic 
and electrical components, medical devices, and aerospace components.
2. Applicability
    In the draft CTG, EPA recommends that, in general, these measures 
should have broad applicability to any industrial cleaning operations 
that have VOC emissions of at least 6.8 kg/day (15

[[Page 44540]]

lb/day), before controls. This level of emissions has been the 
applicability threshold for many CTG in the past. Furthermore, it is 
consistent with the intent of CAA section 183(e) to address 
individually small uses of consumer and commercial products that, in 
the aggregate, are significant sources of VOC emissions. We recommend 
that, for purposes of determining this threshold, aggregate emissions 
from all solvent cleaning activities associated with covered operations 
at a given facility are included. As described above, we also recommend 
that specific industry category exclusions, similar to the ones 
provided for in the Bay Area and South Coast rules but tailored to the 
States'' individual situations, accompany the applicability threshold.
    In addition to the exclusions a State or local agency may specify 
as a result of the existence of effective measures that address 
cleaning operations associated with specific source categories within 
its jurisdiction, we recommend that the States exclude from 
applicability those cleaning operations in the following categories 
listed for regulation under CAA section 183(e): Aerospace coatings, 
wood furniture coatings, shipbuilding and repair coatings, flexible 
packaging printing materials, lithographic printing materials, 
letterpress printing materials, flat wood paneling coatings, large 
appliance coatings, metal furniture coatings, paper film and foil 
coating, plastic parts coatings, miscellaneous metals parts coatings, 
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, miscellaneous industrial 
adhesives, and auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings.\11\ For 
three of these product categories (i.e., aerospace coatings, wood 
furniture coatings, and shipbuilding and repair coatings), EPA has 
already issued CTGs that address cleaning operations. For the remaining 
categories, EPA intends to include control measures for cleaning 
associated with these categories if the Agency determines that a CTG is 
appropriate for the respective categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA may amend the list and exercise its discretion in 
scheduling its actions under CAA section 183(e) in order to achieve 
an effective regulatory program. Should EPA revise the list in the 
future, these categories could change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques

    EPA estimates that there are approximately 2,550 facilities in 
ozone nonattainment areas that would be affected by the draft CTG. 
These facilities had emissions that exceed the emission threshold of 
6.8 kg (15 1b) of VOC per day. Total aggregate VOC emissions from 
solvent cleaning operations from these sources are approximately 64,000 
Mg/yr (71,000 tpy). EPA used studies published by the Bay Area AQMD to 
estimate the cost of compliance for the measures recommended in the 
draft CTG. According to these estimates, EPA believes that affected 
sources may either incur minimal additional costs or realize a savings 
on a case-by-case basis, depending primarily on facts such as how much 
they currently spend to operate high-VOC content solvent-based parts 
cleaners, and the cost of organic solvent disposal.
    The Bay Area AQMD studies indicate that replacing high-VOC cleaning 
materials with low-VOC, water-based cleaning materials, for 
applications in which these materials are similar in effectiveness to 
high-VOC materials, results in a cost savings. The CTG for industrial 
cleaning solvents is guidance for the States. Although States can adopt 
the recommendations in the CTG, they may choose not to follow those 
recommendations and instead adopt other technically-sound approaches 
that meet the requirements of RACT in the CAA and EPA's implementing 
regulations. Accordingly, there is necessarily some uncertainty in any 
prediction of costs and emission impacts associated with the 
recommendations in the CTG. Nevertheless, assuming that States address 
the VOC emissions from this product category in accordance with the 
recommendations in the CTG or comparable approaches, EPA anticipates a 
net cost savings.\12\ We based this prediction on an assumption that 
substitution of low-VOC materials for high-VOC materials is possible 
for all uses. Because this assumption is not true for some 
applications, this prediction may not be valid in all cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ From a purely economic perspective, the CTG does not 
produce a cost savings, because the recommendations contained in the 
document represent control methods that are currently available to 
facilities. Facilities can implement the recommended approach of 
using low-VOC materials today and recognize a cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as 
Effective as a Regulation

    In determining whether to develop a national rule or a CTG for the 
product category of industrial cleaning solvents under CAA section 
183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four factors identified above in Section 
I.D in light of the specific facts and circumstances associated with 
this product category. Based on that analysis, we propose to determine 
that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a rule in achieving 
VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from industrial 
cleaning solvents.
    This section is divided into two parts, each of which addresses two 
of the factors relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) determination. 
In the first part, we determine that the most effective means of 
achieving VOC emission reductions in this category is through controls 
at the point of use of the product, (i.e., through controls on 
facilities that conduct solvent cleaning), and this can only be 
accomplished through a CTG. We further explain that the approaches in 
the draft CTG are consistent with existing effective state and local 
VOC strategies. In the second part, we discuss how the distribution and 
place of use of the products in this category also support the use of a 
CTG. We further explain that there are control approaches for this 
category that result in significant VOC emission reductions and that 
such reductions could only be obtained by controlling the use of the 
product through a CTG. Such reductions could not be obtained through a 
regulation under CAA section 183(e) because the controls affect the 
end-user, which is not a regulated entity under CAA section 
183(e)(1)(C). Accordingly, for these reasons and the reasons described 
more fully below, we believe that a CTG will achieve much greater VOC 
emission reductions than a rule for this category.
1. The Most Effective Entity To Target for VOC Reductions and 
Consistency With State and Local VOC Strategies
    There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated 
with the industrial cleaning solvents product category: (1) Limiting 
the VOC content of the cleaning materials, and (2) implementing work 
practices governing the use of the products.
    A national rule affecting industrial cleaning solvent manufacturers 
that limits the VOC content of the cleaning materials sold suffers from 
the same deficiencies noted above with regard to lithographic printing, 
letterpress printing, flexible packaging printing, and flat wood 
paneling coating. Specifically, although facilities performing cleaning 
operations generally purchase cleaning materials from vendors serving 
their respective industry, nothing in a national rule governing 
manufacturers would preclude them from purchasing bulk solvents or 
other multipurpose cleaning materials from other vendors. The general 
availability of bulk solvents or multipurpose cleaning materials from 
vendors that would not be subject to the

[[Page 44541]]

regulation would directly undermine the effectiveness of the 
regulation.
    A national rule also could, in theory, limit the VOC content of all 
cleaning materials and all solvents sold regardless of specified end 
use, which would ensure that only low-VOC materials are available for 
any use. Such an approach is unreasonable and impractical. Cleaning 
materials and solvents are sold for multiple different commercial and 
industrial purposes. Reducing the VOC content of all materials merely 
to achieve VOC emission reduction from two limited product categories, 
could preclude the use of such materials in many important, legitimate 
contexts. Furthermore, many general-purpose solvents used for cleaning 
are single compounds (e.g., toluene) or are mixtures (e.g., mineral 
spirits) that are by nature 100 percent VOC. Consequently, they cannot 
be reformulated to low-VOC content.
    The more effective approach for obtaining VOC reductions from 
industrial cleaning solvents is to control the use of such materials 
through a CTG. The draft CTG recommends limiting the VOC content of 
cleaning materials. With the CTG, the VOC content restrictions would 
apply to the facility performing cleaning operations regardless of the 
source of the cleaning materials.
    Significantly, we could not impose work practices through a CAA 
section 183(e) rule. Work practices, by their nature, are directed at 
the end-user of the product. The draft CTG recommends work practices 
such as keeping solvents and shop towels in closed containers. This 
measure alone results in significant reductions in VOC cleaning 
emissions, when used in conjunction with low-VOC cleaning materials. 
These reductions would not be possible through a CAA section 183(e) 
regulation because, by statute, such regulations do not apply to the 
end-user. Finally, the approaches recommended in the CTG are consistent 
with approaches taken by States and localities for industrial cleaning 
operations, and these approaches have proven effective in reducing VOC 
emissions.
    Based on the sources of significant VOC emissions from industrial 
cleaning solvents and the available strategies for reducing such 
emissions, the most effective means of achieving VOC emission 
reductions from this product category is through controls at the point 
of use of the product (i.e., through controls on facilities performing 
solvent cleaning activities), and this can only be accomplished through 
a CTG. The approaches described in the draft CTG are also consistent 
with effective state and local VOC control strategies. These two 
factors alone demonstrate that a CTG will be substantially as effective 
as a national regulation.
2. The Product's Distribution and Place of Use and Likely VOC Emission 
Reductions Associated With a CTG Versus a Regulation
    The factors described in the above section, taken by themselves, 
weigh heavily in favor of the CTG approach. The other two factors 
relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only further 
confirm that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national 
regulation for industrial cleaning solvents.
    First, the products described above are used at manufacturing, 
repair, service, and other facilities in specific, identifiable 
locations. This stands in contrast to other consumer products, such as 
architectural coatings, that are widely distributed and used by 
innumerable small users (e.g. individual consumers in the general 
public). Because the VOC emissions are occurring at commercial 
facilities, implementation and enforcement of controls concerning the 
use of products are feasible and therefore the nature of the product's 
place of use further counsels in favor of the CTG approach.
    Second, a CTG will achieve equal or greater emission reduction than 
a national rule for each source of VOC emissions from industrial 
cleaning solvents, and, in total, a CTG will achieve significantly more 
emission reduction than a national rule for this category. A CTG will 
achieve a significant VOC emission reduction from cleaning materials 
through the combined use of low-VOC cleaning materials and work 
practices. A national rule could not effectively regulate the VOC 
content of cleaning materials, and a national rule cannot require work 
practices. In summary, a CTG will achieve a significant reduction in 
VOC emissions from the industrial cleaning solvents category while a 
national rule would achieve little, if any, emission reduction.
    Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and 
circumstances associated with this product category, we propose to 
determine that a CTG for industrial cleaning solvents will be 
substantially as effective as a national regulation.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined 
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within the 
meaning of the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain any information collection 
requirements and therefore is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a 
population of less

[[Page 44542]]

than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed 
determination, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it 
imposes no regulatory requirements. EPA is proposing take final action 
to list the five Group II consumer and commercial product categories 
addressed in this notice for purposes of CAA section 183(e) of the Act. 
The listing action alone does not impose any regulatory requirements. 
EPA's proposed determination that a CTG will be substantially as 
effective as a national regulation in achieving VOC emission reductions 
in ozone nonattainment areas means that EPA has concluded that it is 
not appropriate to issue federal regulations under CAA section 183(e) 
to regulate VOC emissions from these five product categories. Instead, 
EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to issue guidance in the form 
of CTG that provide recommendations to States concerning potential 
methods to achieve needed VOC emission reductions from these product 
categories. In addition to the proposed determination, EPA is also 
taking comment on draft CTG for these five product categories. When 
finalized, these CTG will be guidance documents. EPA does not directly 
regulate any small entities through the issuance of a CTG. Instead, EPA 
issues CTG to provide States with guidance on appropriate regulations 
to obtain VOC emission reductions from the affected sources within 
certain nonattainment areas. EPA's issuance of a CTG does trigger an 
obligation on the part of the States to issue State regulations, but 
States are not obligated to issue regulations identical to the Agency's 
CTG. States may follow the guidance or deviate from it, and the 
ultimate determination of whether a State regulation meets the RACT 
requirements of the CAA would be determined through notice and comment 
rulemaking in the Agency's action on each State's State Implementation 
Plan. Thus, States retain discretion in determining what degree to 
follow the CTGs.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under UMRA section 202, 2 U.S.C. 
1532, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for any proposed or final rule that ``includes any 
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and 
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
$100,000,000 or more * * * in any one year.'' A ``Federal mandate'' is 
defined under section 421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' and a ``Federal private sector mandate.'' A 
``Federal intergovernmental mandate,'' in turn, is defined to include a 
regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, 
or Tribal governments,'' section 421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i), 
except for, among other things, a duty that is ``a condition of Federal 
assistance,'' section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A ``Federal private sector 
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty 
upon the private sector,'' with certain exceptions, section 421(7)(A), 
2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A).
    EPA has determined that the listing action, the proposed 
determination that a CTG would be substantially as effective as a 
regulation for these product categories, and the proposed draft CTGs 
for these categories, do not contain a Federal mandate that may result 
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 
and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have determined that the listing 
action, the proposed determination and the proposed draft CTGs contain 
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments because they contain no regulatory requirements that 
apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, 
this action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the EO to 
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.''
    The listing action, the proposed determination that CTGs are 
substantially as effective as regulations for these product categories, 
and the proposed draft CTGs do not have federalism implications. They 
do not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in EO 13132. The CAA establishes the 
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, and this 
action does not impact that relationship. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply 
to the proposed determination and proposed draft CTGs. However, in the 
spirit of EO 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA is 
soliciting comment on the listing action, the proposed determination, 
and the proposed draft CTGs from State and local officials.

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

    EO 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
Tribal implications.''
    The listing action, the proposed determination that CTGs would be 
substantially as effective as regulations to achieve VOC emission 
reductions from these product categories, and the proposed draft CTGs 
do not have Tribal implications as defined by EO 13175. They do not 
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, in that 
the listing action, the proposed determination, and the proposed draft 
CTGs impose no regulatory burdens on tribes. Furthermore, the listing 
action, the proposed determination, and the proposed draft CTGs do not 
affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the 
Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) establish the relationship of the Federal 
government and Tribes in implementing the Clean Air Act. Because 
listing action, the proposed determination, and the proposed draft CTGs 
do not have Tribal implications, EO 13175 does not apply.

[[Page 44543]]

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

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under EO 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, 
Section 5B501 of the EO directs the Agency to evaluate the 
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, 
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    The listing action, the proposed determination, and the proposed 
draft CTGs are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are 
not economically significant regulatory actions as defined by Executive 
Order 12866. In addition, EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as 
applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health and 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulations. The 
listing action, the proposed determination, and the proposed draft CTGs 
are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they do not include 
regulatory requirements based on health or safety risks.

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

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) provides that 
agencies shall prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for certain 
actions identified as ``significant energy actions.'' Section 4(b) of 
EO 13211 defines ``significant energy actions'' as ``any action by an 
agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or 
is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, 
including notices of inquiry, advance notices of final rulemaking, and 
notices of final rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory 
action under EO 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a ``significant energy 
action.'' EPA has determined that listing action, the proposed 
determination, and the proposed draft CTGs are a not significant 
regulatory action under EO 12866, and that they are not likely to have 
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in their 
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with 
explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
    The listing action, the proposed determination that CTGS will be 
substantially as effective as regulations to achieve VOC emission 
reductions, and the proposed draft CTGs do not involve technical 
standards and therefore the NTTAA does not apply.

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

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' provides 
for Federal agencies to consider the impact of programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations, 
including tribes.
    EPA believes that the listing action, the proposed determination, 
and the proposed draft CTGs should not raise any environmental justice 
issues. The purpose of section 183(e) is to obtain VOC emission 
reductions to assist in the attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The health 
and environmental risks associated with ozone were considered in the 
establishment of the ozone NAAQS. The level is designed to be 
protective of the public with an adequate margin of safety. EPA's 
listing of the products, determination that CTGs are substantially as 
effective as regulations, and proposed draft CTGs, are actions intended 
to help States achieve the NAAQS in the most appropriate fashion.

    Dated: July 27, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, part 59, Subpart 
A is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 59--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Subpart A is added to read as follows:

Subpart A--General

Sec.  59.1  Final Determinations Under Section 183(e)(3)(C).

    This section identifies the consumer and commercial product 
categories for which EPA has determined that CTGs will be substantially 
as effective as regulations in reducing VOC emissions in ozone 
nonattainment areas:
    (a) Wood furniture coatings;
    (b) Aerospace coatings;
    (c) Shipbuilding and repair coatings;
    (d) Lithographic printing materials;
    (e) Letterpress printing materials;
    (f) Flexible packaging printing materials;
    (g) Flat wood paneling coatings; and
    (h) Industrial cleaning solvents.

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P