Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0454-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and Large Appliance Coatings
Posted Date: 2007-07-10T04:00Z

[Federal Register: July 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 131)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 37581-37605]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10jy07-28]                         

[[Page 37581]]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 59

 Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines in 
Lieu of Regulations for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Metal Furniture 
Coatings; and Large Appliance Coatings; Proposed Rule

[[Page 37582]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 59

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0454; FRL-8336-7]
RIN 2060-A014

 
Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines 
in Lieu of Regulations for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Metal 
Furniture Coatings; and Large Appliance Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act, EPA 
proposes to determine that control techniques guidelines will be 
substantially as effective as national regulations in reducing 
emissions of volatile organic compounds in ozone national ambient air 
quality standard nonattainment areas from the following three product 
categories: Paper, film, and foil coatings; metal furniture coatings; 
and large appliance coatings. Based on this determination, EPA may 
issue Control Techniques Guidelines in lieu of national regulations for 
these product categories. EPA has prepared draft Control Techniques 
Guidelines for the control of volatile organic compound emissions from 
each of the product categories covered by this proposed determination. 
Once finalized, these Control Techniques Guidelines will provide 
guidance to the States concerning EPA's recommendations for reasonably 
available control technology-level controls for these product 
categories. EPA further proposes to take final action to list the three 
Group III consumer and commercial product categories addressed in this 
notice pursuant to Clean Air Act section 183(e).

DATES: Comments: Written comments on the proposed determination must be 
received by August 9, 2007, unless a public hearing is requested by 
July 20, 2007. If a hearing is requested on the proposed determination, 
written comments must be received by August 24, 2007. 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 July 20, 2007, 
we will hold a public hearing on July 25, 2007. The substance of any 
such hearing will be limited solely to EPA's proposed determination 
under Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) section 183(e)(3)(C) that the 
Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) for the three Group III product 
categories will be substantially as effective as regulations in 
reducing volatile organic compound (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 III--
Determination to Issue Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of 
Regulations, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0454. Comments concerning any 
draft CTG should be sent to the applicable docket, as noted below: 
Consumer and Commercial Products--Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, 
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0336; Consumer and Commercial Products--
Metal Furniture Coatings, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0334; or Consumer 
and Commercial Products--Large Appliance Coatings, Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0329, 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 3334, 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. on July 25, 2007 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 July 20, 2007. 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 July 20, 2007 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 the EPA Docket Center, Public 

Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 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

[[Page 37583]]

holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 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 determination and draft CTG for paper, 
film, and foil coatings, contact: Ms. Kim Teal, 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) 541-5580, e-mail address: 
teal.kim@epa.gov. For further information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determination and draft CTG for metal furniture 
coatings, contact: Ms. Martha Smith, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural 
Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2421, e-mail address: 
smith.martha@epa.gov. For further information on technical issues 

concerning the proposed determination and draft CTG for large appliance 
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.

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 \a\           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper, film, and foil         322221, 322222,       Facilities that
 coatings.                     322223, 322224,       apply coatings to
                               322225, 322226,       packaging paper,
                               322229, 325992,       paper bags,
                               326111, 326112,       laminated aluminum
                               326113, 32613,        foil, coated
                               32791, 339944.        paperboard,
                                                     photographic film,
                                                     abrasives, carbon
                                                     paper, and other
                                                     coated paper, film
                                                     and foil products.
Metal furniture coatings....  337124, 337214,       Facilities that
                               337127, 337215,       apply protective,
                               337127, 332951,       decorative, or
                               332116, 332612,       functional material
                               337215, 335121,       to metal furniture
                               335122, 339111,       components or
                               339114, 337127,       products.
                               81142.
Large appliance coatings....  335221, 335222,       Facilities that
                               335224, 335228,       apply coatings to
                               333312, 333319.       household and
                                                     commercial cooking
                                                     equipment,
                                                     refrigerators,
                                                     laundry equipment,
                                                     laundry drycleaning
                                                     and pressing
                                                     equipment.
Federal Government..........  ....................  Not affected.
State/local/tribal            ....................  State, local and
 government.                                         tribal regulatory
                                                     agencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be affected by this 
action, you should examine the applicable industry description in 
sections II.A, III.A, and IV.A of this notice. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the appropriate EPA contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
    Preparation of Comments. Do not submit information containing CBI 
to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr. 
Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, Attention: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0454, 0336, 
0334, or 0329 (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 World Wide 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 CTGs
    D. General Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
    E. Proposed Determination
    F. Availability of Documents
II. Paper, Film and Foil 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
III. Metal Furniture 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
IV. Large Appliance Coatings
    A. Industry Characterization
    B. Recommended Control Techniques

[[Page 37584]]

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

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    Under 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 
III of the list comprises five product categories: Portable fuel 
containers; aerosol spray paints; paper, film, and foil coatings; metal 
furniture coatings; and large appliance coatings. The portable fuel 
containers \2\ and aerosol spray paints categories are addressed in 
separate rulemaking actions \3\; the remaining three categories are the 
subject of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA promulgated a national regulation for VOC emissions from 
portable fuel containers on February 26, 2007 (72 FR 8428). National 
VOC emission standards for aerosol coatings currently are under 
development.
    \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 III by September 30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, consumer products, and portable fuel 
containers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 63 FR 48792, 48819, and 48848 (September 11, 1998); and 
72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

[[Page 37585]]

Congress is relevant to EPA's evaluation of the relative merits of a 
national regulation versus a CTG.

C. Significance of CTGs

    CAA section 172(c)(1) provides that state implementation plans 
(SIPs) for nonattainment areas must include ``reasonably available 
control measures'' (RACM), including RACT, for sources of emissions. 
Section 182(b)(2) provides that States must revise their ozone SIPs to 
include RACT for each category of 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 5 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 
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 draft CTGs that cover three 
product categories in Group III of the CAA section 183(e) list. These 
CTGs are guidance to the States and provide recommendations only. A 
State can develop its own strategy for what constitutes RACT for these 
three 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 1 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 effective as national regulations in 
reducing emissions of VOC from these products in areas that violate the 
NAAQS for ozone. On October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58745), EPA issued a similar 
final determination for flexible packaging printing materials, 
lithographic printing materials, letterpress printing materials, 
industrial cleaning solvents, and flat wood paneling coatings. 
Recognizing that the statute does not specify any criteria for making a 
determination under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), EPA, in 1999 and 2006, 
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

[[Page 37586]]

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 that 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 draft 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 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 three 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 in our Group II action (71 FR 
58745, October 5, 2006) and here, a CTG can achieve significant 
emission reductions from end-users of the consumer and/or commercial 
products at issue, which cannot be achieved through regulation under 
CAA section 183(e). In addition, for the reasons described below, a 
regulation governing the manufacturers and suppliers of these products 
would be unlikely to achieve the objective of reducing VOC emissions 
from these products in ozone nonattainment areas.

E. Proposed Determination

    Based on the factors identified above and the facts and 
circumstances associated with each of the Group III product categories, 
EPA proposes to determine that CTGs for paper, film, and foil coatings; 
metal furniture coatings; and large appliance coatings will be 
substantially as effective as national regulations in reducing VOC 
emissions from facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas.
    In each of the three 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 existing Federal, 
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 three 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 draft CTG documents covering the three consumer 
and commercial products source categories addressed in this action. 
Each of the draft CTGs addresses, among other things, RACT 
recommendations, cost impacts, and existing Federal, state and local 
VOC control strategies. These draft CTGs are available for public 
comment and are contained in the respective dockets listed in the 
ADDRESSES section of this notice.

II. Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings

A. Industry Characterization

1. Source Category Description
    This category of consumer and commercial products includes the 
coatings that are applied to paper, film, and foil in manufacturing 
products for the following industry sectors: Pressure sensitive tapes 
and labels, photographic film; industrial and decorative laminates; and 
flexible packaging.\9\ The category also includes coatings applied 
during miscellaneous paper, film, and foil surface coating operations 
for several products including: corrugated and solid fiber boxes; die-
cut paper, paperboard, and cardboard; converted paper and paperboard, 
not elsewhere classified; folding paperboard boxes, including sanitary 
boxes; manifold business forms and related products; plastic aseptic 
packaging; and carbon paper and inked ribbons. Paper, film, and foil 
surface coating can be described as a web coating process, which is a 
process that applies a continuous layer of coating material across the 
entire width or any portion of the width of a web substrate for any of 
the following reasons: (1) To provide a covering, finish, or functional 
or protective layer to a substrate; (2) to saturate a substrate for 
lamination; or (3) to provide adhesion between two substrates for 
lamination. The web coating operations and emission control techniques 
do not vary significantly among the sectors of the paper, film, and 
foil industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Coating performed on or in-line with any offset 
lithographic, screen, letterpress, flexographic, rotogravure, or 
digital printing press is not part of the paper, film and foil 
coating category. The application of inks, coatings and adhesives on 
or in-line with rotogravure or flexographic printing presses used in 
the production of flexible packaging is addressed in the CTG for 
Flexible Package Printing (EPA 453/R-06-003, September 2006). The 
application of inks, coatings and adhesives on or in-line with 
publication rotogravure printing presses is addressed in the CTG for 
Graphic Arts: Rotogravure and Flexography (EPA 450/2-78-033). The 
application of inks, coatings and adhesives on or in-line with 
offset lithographic or letterpress printing presses is addressed in 
the CTG for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing 
(EPA 453/R-06-002, September 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
    The coatings and cleaning materials \10\ used in paper, film, and 
foil surface

[[Page 37587]]

coating operations are sources of VOC emissions. The coating line is 
the main source of VOC emissions. The remaining emissions are 
principally from cleaning operations. VOC emissions from surface 
preparation, solvent handling and storage, and waste/wastewater 
operations are small. The following discussion describes the sources of 
VOC from the coatings and cleaning materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In a previous notice, EPA identified specific categories, 
including paper, film, and foil coating, the cleaning operations of 
which would not be covered by EPA's 2006 CTG for industrial cleaning 
solvents (71 FR 44522, 44540 (2006)). In the notice, EPA expressed 
its intention to address cleaning operations associated with these 
categories in the CTGs for these specified categories if the Agency 
determines that a CTG is appropriate for the respective categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The VOC in coatings are emitted from the coating line. In general, 
a coating line consists of a series of one or more unwind/feed 
stations; one or more coating applicators; one or more flash-off areas 
(the area between two consecutive coating applicators or between a 
coating applicator and a drying oven); one or more drying ovens; and 
one or more rewind/cutting stations. The majority, usually greater than 
90 percent, of the VOC in the coatings volatilizes in the drying ovens. 
A smaller amount of VOC in the coatings volatilizes at the coating 
applicator and flash-off area. The amount of VOC emitted from coatings 
varies depending on the type of coatings being used. The types of 
coatings used in the paper, film, and foil surface coating industry 
include solvent-borne and waterborne coatings, as well as radiation-
cure coatings, hot-melt adhesives and other 100 percent solids 
coatings.
    Solvent-borne coatings are widely used in the paper, film, and foil 
surface coating industry. Solvent-borne coating formulations typically 
range from 40 to 80 percent solvents by weight, as supplied by the 
manufacturer. The solvent-borne coatings may be diluted by the users 
with additional solvents prior to being used. The primary solvents in 
solvent-borne coatings include methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, 
and xylene. A significant part of the volatiles in waterborne coating 
is water, although some VOC-containing solvents may be used at up to 30 
percent of the volatiles. Most coating equipment used for solvent-borne 
coatings can also be used for waterborne coatings.
    Radiation cure coatings, hot-melt adhesives and other 100 percent 
solids coatings such as wax coatings, wax laminations, extrusion 
coatings, extrusion laminations, and cold seal coatings typically 
contain no solvent. Accordingly, these coatings emit very little VOC. 
More information on coatings is provided in the draft CTG.
    Common techniques to reduce emissions from paper, film, and foil 
coatings include the use of low-VOC content coatings and the operation 
of add-on control systems where low-VOC content coatings cannot be used 
due to performance requirements calling for higher VOC coatings. An 
add-on control system consists of a capture system and a control 
device. The majority of VOC emissions from paper, film and foil coating 
occur in the drying oven. These emissions can be ducted from the drying 
oven directly to a control device. The drying oven is therefore 
typically the principal element of the capture system. In addition, 
hoods, floor sweeps or enclosures can be used to collect VOC emissions 
that occur in the coating application and flash-off areas, and route 
them to a control device.
    The most common add-on controls in use at paper, film, and foil 
surface coating facilities are thermal oxidizers and carbon adsorbers, 
both of which achieve greater than 90 percent control.
    The design of the capture system and the choice of the control 
device can greatly contribute to the overall VOC control efficiency, 
which is a combination of both capture and control efficiency. Please 
see the draft CTG for further detailed descriptions of add-on controls 
and capture systems that we reviewed in developing the draft CTG.
    As previously mentioned, another source of VOC emissions from 
paper, film, and foil surface coating operations is cleaning materials. 
Cleaning materials are used for several purposes, including washing 
equipment, removing residues from coating applicators, and cleaning 
spray guns. These materials are typically mixtures of organic solvents 
and represent less than 2 percent of the VOC emissions from paper, 
film, and foil surface coating operations. Work practices are widely 
used throughout the paper, film, and foil surface coating industry as a 
means of reducing VOC emissions from the cleaning materials during 
cleaning operations. These measures include covering cleaning material 
mixing tanks; storing cleaning solvents and solvent-soaked rags and 
wipes in closed containers; and cleaning spray guns in an enclosed 
system. Another means of reducing VOC emission from paper, film, and 
foil cleaning materials is the use of low-VOC content or low vapor 
pressure cleaning materials. Within the industry, there are controlled 
cleaning operations where cleaning is automated, enclosed and vented to 
a control device. Use of recycled solvents for cleaning is also typical 
in the industry.
3. Existing Federal, State and Local VOC Control Strategies
    There are three previous EPA actions that affect paper, film, and 
foil surface coating operations. In 1977, EPA issued a CTG document 
entitled ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing 
Stationary Sources--Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, 
Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks'' (EPA-450/2-77-008) (1977 
CTG). The 1977 CTG provided RACT recommendations for controlling VOC 
emissions from paper coating and fabric \11\ coating operations. The 
1977 CTG recommended RACT for paper coating as 0.35 kilogram/liter (kg/
l) (2.9 pound/gallon (lb/gal)) of coating, excluding water and exempt 
compounds, as applied. These recommended limits were based on the use 
of conventional solvent-borne coatings and oxidation of the dryer oven 
exhaust which achieved an overall VOC control efficiency of 81 percent. 
These recommended limits were expressed in terms of a compliant 
coating's VOC content to encourage the development and use of low-VOC 
content coatings. Equivalent solids-based limits were presented in ``A 
Guideline for Surface Coating Calculations'' (EPA-340/1-86-016). For 
paper coating, the equivalent limit was 0.58 kg/l (4.8 lb/gal) of 
solids. These equivalent limits were calculated using an assumed VOC 
density of 0.88 kg/l (7.36 lb/gal). This assumed VOC density is the 
same as that used in calculating the limits recommended in the 1977 
CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Fabric coating operations for use in pressure sensitive 
tape and abrasive materials are included under paper, film, and foil 
surface coating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1983, EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) 
for pressure sensitive tape and label surface coating operations (40 
CFR part 60 subpart RR).\12\ The 1983 NSPS differs from the 1977 CTG in 
that it only applies to pressure sensitive tape and label surface 
coating lines. The 1983 NSPS emission limits do not apply to pressure 
sensitive tape and label surface coating operations that input 45 
megagrams/year (Mg/yr) (50 tons per year (tpy)) or less VOC into the 
coating process (other requirements such as recordkeeping and reporting 
do apply). The 1983 NSPS requires a 90 percent reduction of VOC 
emission. Alternatively it establishes an emission limit of 0.20 kg 
VOC/kg (0.20 lb VOC/lb) solids applied based on VOC emission reduction 
of 90 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The 1983 NSPS applies to sources that commenced 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after December 30, 
1980.

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

[[Page 37588]]

    In 2002, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Paper and Other Web Coating (POWC), 
40 CFR part 63 subpart JJJJ, which applies to paper, film, and foil 
surface coating as well as other coating operations. The 2002 NESHAP 
addresses organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions, including 
VOC HAP emissions, from all web coating lines at a paper, film, and 
foil surface coating facility.
    The 2002 NESHAP has different emission limitations for sources that 
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 13, 
2000 (existing sources), and sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 13, 2000 (new sources). The 2002 NESHAP 
emission limits for existing sources and new sources are based on 
overall HAP control efficiencies of 95 percent and 98 percent, 
respectively (65 FR 55334).
    The 1977 CTG, the 1983 NSPS, and the 2002 NESHAP are further 
discussed in the current draft CTG document.
    In addition to the EPA actions mentioned above, at least 44 State 
and several local jurisdictions have regulations that affect VOC 
emissions from paper, film, and foil surface coating. Fourteen local 
jurisdictions in California have generic surface coating rules. These 
generic surface coating rules regulate all machinery with the potential 
to emit organic compounds.
    All 44 of the States and 6 of the California jurisdictions have 
regulations that address all or part of the paper, film, and foil 
surface coating industry. The regulations in these State and local 
jurisdictions cover the coating lines. Generally, these regulations 
establish emission limits and allow compliance with the limits to be 
demonstrated by using low-VOC content coatings or add-on control 
systems in conjunction with higher-VOC content coatings.
    Almost all of the jurisdictions that specifically address all or 
part of the paper, film, and foil surface coating industry have adopted 
the recommended VOC emission limits in the 1977 CTG. However, there are 
fourteen jurisdictions that have more stringent requirements than the 
1977 CTG. These jurisdictions allow compliance either using compliant 
coatings, or by using an add-on control system. Seven jurisdictions 
have VOC emission limits that are more stringent than the 1977 CTG, 
five in California and two in Illinois. The California jurisdictions 
limit VOC emissions to 265 g/l (2.2 lb/gal) of coating, excluding water 
and exempt compounds, as applied. The two jurisdictions in Illinois 
limit VOC emissions to 0.28 kg/l (2.3 lb/gal) of coating, excluding 
water and exempt compounds, as applied. As an alternative to the VOC 
emission limits the California and Illinois jurisdictions allow 
facilities to install capture systems and control devices to reduce VOC 
emissions from these coating operations. The required overall emission 
reduction, including capture and control efficiency, ranges from 55 
percent to 90 percent. Specifically, the San Diego County Air Pollution 
Control District (San Diego) and the Ventura County Air Pollution 
Control District (Ventura) both require an overall control efficiency 
of 90 percent. Finally, there are seven jurisdictions that have VOC 
emission limits that are the same as the 1977 CTG. However, these 
jurisdictions require 95 percent emission reduction as an alternative 
to the VOC emission limit. The 95 percent overall control efficiency is 
the most stringent and likely can only be met with a permanent total 
enclosure that achieves 100 percent capture efficiency. A detailed 
summary of the State and local regulations is presented in the draft 
CTG.
    Several jurisdictions in California have requirements to regulate 
the VOC content of cleaning materials used in the paper, film and foil 
surface coating industry. These regulations are aimed at reducing VOC 
emissions from cleaning materials by combining work practice standards 
with limits on the VOC content or composite vapor pressure of the 
solvent being used. In some cases, the jurisdictions allow the use of 
add-on controls as an alternative to the VOC content/vapor pressure 
limits. The different air pollution control authorities in California 
have established similar work practice standards. However, the cleaning 
material VOC content/vapor pressure limits vary by jurisdiction, as do 
the overall control efficiency required when add-on controls are used 
as an alternative.
    There are 10 States that have cleaning material regulations that 
apply to paper, film, and foil surface coating operations. Of these, 9 
States do not limit the VOC content/vapor pressure of cleaning 
materials. Instead, they have established equipment standards, work 
practices, and/or recordkeeping requirements. There is one State that 
requires work practices as well as limiting the vapor pressure of the 
cleaning materials. The cleaning material regulations are summarized in 
detail in the draft CTG.

B. Recommended Control Techniques

    The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for reducing 
VOC emissions from paper, film, and foil coatings and cleaning 
materials. As explained in the draft CTG, we are recommending these 
control options for facilities whose paper, film, and foil surface 
coating operations emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tons VOC/
year) or more before the consideration of control. We do not recommend 
these control approaches for facilities that emit below this level 
because of the very small VOC emission reductions that can be achieved. 
The recommended threshold level is equivalent to the evaporation of 
approximately 2 gallons of solvent per day. Such a level is considered 
to be an incidental level of solvent usage that could be expected even 
in facilities that use very low-VOC content coatings, such as 
ultraviolet (UV) cure coatings. Furthermore, based on the 2002 NEI data 
and the 2004 ozone nonattainment designations, facilities emitting 
below the recommended threshold level collectively emit less than 2 
percent of the total reported VOC emissions from paper, film, and foil 
coating facilities in ozone nonattainment areas. For these reasons, we 
did not extend our recommendations in the draft CTG to these low 
emitting facilities. For purposes of determining whether a facility 
meets the above recommended threshold, aggregate emissions from all 
paper, film, and foil surface coating operations and related cleaning 
activities at a given facility are included. This recommended threshold 
is also consistent with our recommendations in many previous CTGs.
    We nevertheless solicit comment on the above proposed applicability 
threshold of the coating and cleaning recommendations in the draft CTG 
for paper, film, and foil coating facilities. We specifically solicit 
comment on whether there are small operations emitting at or 
immediately above the proposed threshold and how many of these 
facilities exist. If information is provided during the comment period 
indicating that there are many small operations emitting at and/or 
immediately above the proposed threshold, we may consider modifying the 
recommended threshold. We specifically solicit comment on whether a 
slightly higher threshold of 12.3 kg VOC/day (27 lb VOC/day or 5 tons 
VOC/year) would be more appropriate for this category, and we solicit 
data and analyses supporting such a threshold.
    Coating performed on or in-line with any offset lithographic, 
screen, letterpress, flexographic, rotogravure, or digital printing 
press is not subject to the recommendations in the draft CTG. Printing, 
coating and laminating

[[Page 37589]]

performed on or in-line with such presses is addressed in other CTGs.
1. Coatings
    Coatings are defined in the draft CTG as material applied onto or 
impregnated into a substrate for decorative, protective, or functional 
purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to, solvent-borne 
coatings, waterborne coatings, adhesives, wax coatings, wax 
laminations, extrusion coatings, extrusion laminations, 100 percent 
solid adhesives, UV cured coatings, electron beam cured coatings, hot 
melt coatings, and cold seal coatings. Materials used to form 
unsupported substrates, such as calendaring of vinyl, blown film, cast 
film, extruded film, and co-extruded film, are not considered coatings.
    In the draft CTG, we recommend an overall VOC control efficiency of 
90 percent for each paper, film, and foil surface coating line.\13\ 
This emission reduction is based on the San Diego and Ventura levels of 
control, as well as the 1983 NSPS. As an alternative, we recommend VOC 
content based emission limits that are equivalent to 90 percent overall 
control. Specifically, we recommend the ``as-applied'' VOC limits of 
0.40 kg VOC/kg (0.40 lb VOC/lb) solids applied and 0.08 kg VOC/kg (0.08 
lb VOC/lb) coating for this product category except for pressure 
sensitive tape and label surface coating lines. The derivation of these 
limits is discussed in detail in the draft CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ We are defining a paper, film, and foil surface coating 
line as a series of coating applicator(s), flash-off area(s), and 
any associated curing/drying equipment between one or more an unwind 
(or feed) stations and one or more rewind (or cutting) stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For pressure sensitive tape and label surface coating lines, we 
recommend 0.20 kg VOC/kg (0.20 lb VOC/lb) solids applied, which is 
based on 90 percent control efficiency. We also recommend an equivalent 
value of 0.067 kg VOC/kg (0.067 lb VOC/lb) coating. The development of 
the recommended limitations is presented in more detail in the draft 
CTG.
2. Cleaning Materials
    The draft CTG recommends work practices to reduce VOC emissions 
from cleaning materials used in paper, film, and foil surface coating 
operations. Specifically, we recommend the following work practices: 
(1) Store all VOC-containing cleaning materials and used shop towels in 
closed containers; (2) ensure that mixing and storage containers used 
for VOC-containing cleaning materials are kept closed at all times 
except when depositing or removing these materials; (3) minimize spills 
of VOC-containing cleaning materials; (4) convey VOC-containing 
cleaning materials from one location to another in closed containers or 
pipes; and (5) minimize VOC emissions from cleaning of storage, mixing, 
and conveying equipment.

C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques

    Based on the 2002 NEI database, we estimate that there are a total 
of 474 paper, film, and foil surface coating facilities located in 
ozone nonattainment areas (using April 2004 designations). As 
previously mentioned, we are recommending the control options described 
in this draft CTG apply to facilities in ozone nonattainment areas that 
emit 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) or more of VOC. Based on VOC emissions data 
in the 2002 NEI database, 251 of the facilities in ozone nonattainment 
areas emit VOC at or above this level.
    Although there is limited cost information available, we believe 
that the cost estimates and other related studies developed for the 
2002 NESHAP are appropriate for estimating the cost impact of our 
recommendations in the draft CTG for the following reasons. The 
recommended level of control in the draft CTG covers the same processes 
as the 2002 NESHAP (i.e., all coating applicators and any associated 
drying/curing equipment between the unwind/feed station and the rewind/
cutting station). In addition, the annual costs estimates developed for 
the 2002 NESHAP were based on the use of thermal oxidizers to control 
HAP emissions and these oxidizers achieve the same level of control for 
VOC. Finally, both the 2002 NESHAP emission limits and the limits 
recommended in the draft CTG can be met by the same options (i.e., use 
of low-VOC content coatings or add-on control systems when high-VOC 
content coatings are used).
    According to studies performed for the development of the 2002 
NESHAP, 47 percent of the existing facilities would be subject to the 
2002 NESHAP. To estimate the costs associated with the add-on control 
recommendation in the draft CTG, we assumed that all facilities subject 
to the NESHAP (i.e., 47 percent of the facilities in the 2002 NEI 
database (119 facilities)) are currently in compliance with the NESHAP. 
We assume that facilities already in compliance with the 2002 NESHAP 
would not be required to upgrade or install capture and/or thermal 
oxidizers to achieve the emission reduction recommended in the draft 
CTG and therefore would have no additional annual costs associated with 
the draft CTG.
    We estimated that the nationwide emission reduction would be 20,000 
Mg/yr (22,000 tpy) and nationwide total annual costs were $26 million 
per year, resulting in cost effectiveness of $1,320 per Mg ($1,200 per 
ton). These costs represent worst-case costs, using thermal oxidizers. 
Other control options (i.e., carbon adsorbers or solvent recovery 
systems) can be expected to have lower costs.
    We believe that our work practice recommendations in the draft CTG 
will result in a net cost savings. Implementing work practices reduce 
the amount cleaning materials used by reducing the amount that 
evaporates and is wasted.

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 
paper, film, and foil coatings product category under CAA section 
183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four factors identified in Section I.D of 
this notice 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 
paper, film, and foil surface coating operations.
    As noted above, 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 discuss our belief 
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 the use of coatings at facilities that apply 
surface coatings to paper, film, and foil 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 Federal, State 
and local VOC control 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 also discuss the likely VOC emission 
reductions associated with a CTG, as compared to a regulation. 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 
products through a CTG. Such reductions could

[[Page 37590]]

not be obtained through a regulation under CAA section 183(e) because 
the controls affect the end-user, which cannot be a regulated entity 
under CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). For these reasons, which are described 
more fully below, we believe that a CTG will achieve 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 paper, film, and foil 
surface coating operations: (1) Evaporation of VOC from coatings; 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
    A national rule could contain limits for the as-sold VOC content of 
paper, film, and foil coatings. However, given the nature of the paper, 
film, and foil surface coating process, we believe that such a rule 
would result in little reduction in VOC emissions.
    Although significant amounts of low-VOC content coatings are 
currently being used for paper, film, and foil surface coating, they 
cannot replace the traditional solvent-borne coatings in some 
instances. Performance specifications and other functional 
characteristics determine the types of coatings that can be used. For 
example, hot-melt coatings are virtually solvent free, but cannot be 
used on film substrates that are sensitive to heat because the 
substrate could melt during the coating process. Accordingly, a 
national rule that requires low VOC content in paper, film, and foil 
coatings would nevertheless need to include higher VOC limits to allow 
for the use of solvent-borne materials when necessary and to maintain 
these materials' intended effect. Because such a rule would merely 
codify what the paper, film, and foil coating facilities are already 
doing, we do not expect that it would result in significant VOC 
reductions from these facilities.
    Furthermore, the effect of a national rule setting low VOC content 
limits for paper, film, and foil coatings could be easily subverted 
because it does not guarantee that only those low-VOC content coating 
materials will be used for paper, film, and foil surface coating. Many 
coatings used in the paper, film, and foil surface coating industry are 
not specifically identified by the supplier as paper, film, and foil 
coatings. Therefore, these facilities can purchase and use coating 
materials not specified as paper, film, and foil coatings, which would 
effectively nullify the reformulation actions of the manufacturers and 
suppliers, resulting in no net change in VOC emissions in ozone 
nonattainment areas.
    Alternatively, a national rule could set low VOC content limits for 
all coatings sold, regardless of specified end use, thus ensuring that 
only low-VOC coatings are available for paper, film, and foil surface 
coatings. Such an approach would be unreasonable and impractical. 
Coatings are sold for multiple different commercial and industrial 
purposes. Reducing the VOC content of all coatings would impact uses of 
these materials in operations other than paper, film, and foil surface 
coating and may inadvertently preclude the use of higher VOC containing 
materials in many important, legitimate contexts.
    By contrast, a CTG can reach the end users of the coating materials 
and can therefore implement the control measures that are more likely 
to achieve the objective of reducing VOC emissions from this product 
category in ozone nonattainment areas. As previously discussed, the 
draft CTG recommends two VOC control options for this product category: 
(1) Emission limits for paper, film, and foil surface coating 
operations that can be achieved through the use of low-VOC content 
coatings; and (2) a 90 percent control efficiency for facilities that 
choose to use add-on controls in conjunction with high-VOC content 
coatings. The draft CTG also recommends work practices to reduce VOC 
emissions from cleaning materials. The use of low-VOC content coatings, 
which are available for paper, film, and foil surface coating, can 
greatly reduce VOC emissions. Alternatively, control devices, such as 
oxidizers or carbon adsorbers, can achieve a significant reduction in 
VOC emissions from high-VOC content materials during surface coating 
operations. The recommended work practices have also been shown to be 
effective VOC reduction measures. Given the significant reductions 
achievable through these recommended VOC control measures, the most 
effective entity to address VOC emissions associated with paper, film, 
and foil coatings is the facility using the coating.
    These control measures are consistent with existing Federal, State 
and local VOC control strategies applicable to paper, film, and foil 
surface coating. As mentioned above, previous EPA actions and existing 
State and local regulations applicable to paper, film, and foil surface 
coating similarly call for VOC emission reduction \14\ either through 
the use of control devices in conjunction with high-VOC content 
coatings or the use of equivalent low-VOC content coatings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The 2002 NESHAP requires reduction of organic HAP, over 99 
percent of which are VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We cannot issue a national rule directly requiring paper, film, and 
foil surface coating facilities to use low-VOC content coating 
materials or control devices 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 manufacturers and suppliers, not the 
paper, film, and foil surface coating facilities. By contrast, a CTG 
can reach these end users of paper, film, and foil coatings, and can 
therefore implement the measures by the users that are identified above 
as more likely to achieve the intended VOC emission reduction goal. 
Accordingly, we are including these control measures in the draft CTG 
that applies to paper, film, and foil surface coating facilities as the 
end users of these materials.
b. Cleaning Materials
    There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated 
with the cleaning materials used in paper, film, and foil surface 
coating: (1) Limiting the VOC content or vapor pressure of the cleaning 
materials, and (2) implementing work practices governing the use of the 
cleaning materials. A national rule requiring that manufacturers of 
cleaning materials for paper, film, and foil coating operations provide 
low-VOC content or low vapor pressure (i.e., replace VOC that have a 
high vapor pressure with low vapor pressure VOC) cleaning materials 
would suffer from the same deficiencies noted above with regard to the 
coatings. Specifically, nothing in a national rule that specifically 
regulates manufacturers and suppliers of cleaning materials specified 
for use in paper, film, and foil surface coating operations would 
preclude the industry 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 such regulation would directly 
undermine the effectiveness of such a national regulation.
    A national rule also could, in theory, limit the VOC content or 
vapor pressure of all cleaning materials and all solvents sold 
regardless of specified end use,

[[Page 37591]]

which would ensure that only low-VOC content or low vapor pressure 
cleaning materials are available for cleaning operations associated 
with paper, film, and foil surface coating. As with a low-VOC content 
limit on coatings, setting a low-VOC content or low vapor pressure 
limit for all cleaning materials and solvents would be unreasonable and 
impractical. Cleaning materials and solvents are sold for multiple 
different commercial and industrial purposes. Replacing highly volatile 
cleaning materials with less volatile cleaning materials and solvents 
would impact uses of these materials other than cleaning operations at 
paper, film, and foil surface coating facilities and may inadvertently 
preclude the use of such materials in many important, legitimate 
contexts.
    The more effective approach for reducing VOC emissions from 
cleaning materials used by paper, film, and foil surface coaters is to 
control the use of the cleaning materials through work practices. The 
draft CTG recommends that paper, film, and foil surface coating 
facilities implement work practices to reduce VOC emissions from 
cleaning materials during paper, film, and foil surface coating 
operations. An example of an effective work practice is keeping 
solvents and used shop towels in closed containers. This measure alone 
results in significant reduction of VOC emissions from cleaning 
materials. Provided immediately below are examples of other effective 
work practices that are being required by State and local regulations. 
Given the significant VOC reductions achievable through implementation 
of work practices, we conclude that the most effective entity to 
address VOC emissions from cleaning materials used in paper, film, and 
foil surface coating operations is the facility using the cleaning 
materials during surface coating operations.
    This recommendation is consistent with measures required by State 
and local jurisdictions for reducing VOC emissions from cleaning 
materials used in paper, film, and foil surface coating operations. In 
addition to keeping solvents and shop towels in closed containers, 
State and local requirements include: Minimizing spills of VOC-
containing cleaning materials; cleaning up spills immediately; and 
conveying any VOC-containing cleaning materials in closed containers or 
pipes. Work practices have proven to be effective in reducing VOC 
emissions.
    We cannot issue a national rule requiring such work practices for 
paper, film, and foil surface coating facilities because, pursuant to 
CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the regulated entities subject 
to a national rule would be the cleaning materials manufactures and 
suppliers and not the paper, film, and foil surface coating facilities. 
Accordingly, we are including these work practices in the draft CTG 
that applies to these facilities as the end users of the cleaning 
materials.
    Based on the nature of the paper, film, and foil surface 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 surface coating facilities), 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 paper, film, and foil coatings and cleaning materials.
    First, paper, film, and foil coatings and associated cleaning 
materials are used at commercial facilities in specific, identifiable 
locations. Specifically, these materials are used in commercial 
facilities that coat paper, film, and foil products, as described in 
Section II.A. 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 these products are feasible. Therefore, the 
nature of these products' place of use further counsels in favor of the 
CTG approach.
    Second, a CTG will achieve greater emission reduction than a 
national rule for each source of VOC emissions from paper, film, and 
foil surface coating and associated cleaning materials. For the reasons 
described above, we believe that a national rule limiting the VOC 
content in coatings and cleaning materials used in paper, film, and 
foil surface coating operations would result in little VOC emission 
reduction. By contrast, a CTG can achieve significant VOC emission 
reductions because it can provide for the highly effective emission 
control strategies described above that are applicable to the end-users 
of the coatings and cleaning materials at paper, film, and foil surface 
coating facilities. Specifically, this draft CTG can provide for the 
use of control devices in conjunction with high VOC content coatings 
and work practices associated with cleaning materials. These 
significant VOC reductions could not be obtained through a national 
regulation, because they require the implementation of measures by the 
end-user. In addition, as previously explained, strategies that 
arguably could be implemented through rulemaking, such as a limit on 
VOC content in coatings and cleaning materials, 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 through a CTG than through a national regulation.
    Furthermore, the number of paper, film, and foil surface coating 
facilities affected by our recommendations in this draft CTG, as 
compared to the total number of such facilities in ozone nonattainment 
areas, does not change our conclusion that the CTG would be more 
effective than a rule in controlling VOC emissions for this product 
category. As previously mentioned, we recommend the control measures 
described in the draft CTG for paper, film, and foil surface coating 
facilities that emit 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) or more VOC. Based on the 
April 2004 ozone nonattainment designations, we estimate that 251 of 
the 474 paper, film, and foil surface coating facilities located in 
ozone nonattainment areas emit 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) or more and are 
therefore addressed by our recommendations in the draft CTG. There are 
223 paper, film, and foil surface coating facilities that would not be 
covered by the recommendations in the draft CTG. According to the 2002 
NEI database, these 223 facilities collectively emitted less than 150 
Mg/yr (170 tpy), which is less than 2 percent of the total VOC reported 
emissions (an average of 0.68 Mg/yr (0.75 tpy) per facility) in ozone 
nonattainment areas. The CTG thus addresses 98 percent of the VOC 
emissions from these paper, film, and foil surface coating facilities 
in ozone nonattainment areas, which further supports our conclusion 
that a

[[Page 37592]]

CTG is more likely to achieve the intended VOC emission reduction goal 
for this product category than a national rule.
    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 paper, film, and foil coatings and cleaning 
materials will be substantially as effective as a national regulation.

III. Metal Furniture Coatings

A. Industry Characterization

1. Source Category Description
    This category of consumer and commercial products includes the 
coatings that are applied to metal furniture surfaces at facilities 
that manufacture metal furniture. Metal furniture includes household, 
office, institutional, laboratory, hospital, public building, 
restaurant, barber and beauty shop, and dental furniture, as well as 
components of these products. Metal furniture also includes office and 
store fixtures, partitions, shelving, lockers, lamps and lighting 
fixtures, and wastebaskets. Metal furniture coatings include paints and 
adhesives, and are typically applied without a primer. Higher solids 
and powder coatings are used extensively in the metal furniture 
industry. Metal furniture coatings provide a covering, finish, or 
functional or protective layer, and also provide a decorative finish to 
metal furniture.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
    The VOC emissions from metal furniture surface coating operations 
are a result of evaporation of the VOC contained in many of the 
coatings and cleaning materials \15\ used in these operations. The 
primary VOC emissions from metal furniture coatings occur during 
coating application, flash-off, and coating drying/curing. The 
remaining emissions are primarily from mixing and thinning of the 
coatings, and evaporation of the VOC contained in the cleaning 
materials during cleaning activities, such as spray gun cleaning, paint 
line flushing, rework operations, and touchup cleaning at final 
assembly. VOC emissions from surface preparation (where metal furniture 
components and products are treated and/or cleaned prior to coating 
application), coating storage and handling, and waste/wastewater 
operations (i.e., handling waste/wastewater that may contain residues 
from both coatings and cleaning materials) are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In a previous notice, EPA identified specific categories, 
including metal furniture coating, the cleaning operations of which 
would not be covered by EPA's 2006 CTG for industrial cleaning 
solvents (71 FR 44522 and 44540, October 5, 2006). In the notice, 
EPA expressed its intention to address cleaning operations 
associated with these categories in the CTGs for these specified 
categories if the Agency determines that a CTG is appropriate for 
the respective categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously mentioned, some VOC emissions occur during mixing and 
thinning operations. These VOC emissions occur from displacement of 
VOC-laden air in containers used to mix coatings before coating 
application. The displacement of VOC-laden air can occur during the 
filling of containers. It can also be caused by changes in temperature 
or barometric pressure, or by agitation during mixing.
    The majority of VOC emissions occur from evaporation of solvents 
during coating application. The transfer efficiency (the percent of 
coating solids deposited on the metal furniture component or product) 
of a coating application method affects the amount of VOC emissions 
during coating application. The more efficient a coating application 
method is in transferring coatings to the metal furniture component or 
product, the lower the volume of coatings (and therefore solvents) 
needed per given amount of production, thus resulting in lower VOC 
emissions.
    The coatings used in the metal furniture surface coating industry 
may be in the form of a liquid or powder, and may be applied by means 
of spray or dip coating. Conventional air atomized spray application 
systems utilize higher atomizing air pressure and typically have 
transfer efficiencies ranging between 25 and 40 percent. Dip coating is 
the immersion of metal furniture components or products into a coating 
bath and is typically used on parts that do not require high quality 
appearance. The transfer efficiency of a dip coater is very high 
(approximately 90 percent); however, some VOC is emitted from the 
liquid coating bath due to its large exposed surface area.
    Most spray applied coatings are electrostatically applied. In 
electrostatic coating, the presence of an electrostatic field creates 
an electrical attraction between the paint, which is positively 
charged, and the grounded metal furniture component or product and 
enhances the amount of coating deposited on the surface. This coating 
method is more efficient than conventional air atomized spray, with 
transfer efficiency typically ranging from 60 to 90 percent.
    Other coatings application methods used in the metal furniture 
surface coating industry include flow coating, roll coating, high 
volume/low pressure (HVLP) spray, electrocoating, autophoretic coating, 
and application of coatings by hand. These coating methods are 
described in more detail in the draft CTG.
    The coated metal furniture components and products are usually 
baked or cured in heated drying ovens, but some are air dried. For 
liquid spray and dip coating operations, the coated components or 
products are typically first moved through a flash-off area after the 
coating application operation. The flash-off area, which lies between 
the coating application area and the oven, allows solvents in the wet 
coating film to evaporate slowly, thus avoiding bubbling of the coating 
while it is curing in the oven. The amount of VOC emitted from the 
flash-off area depends on the type of coating used, the speed of the 
coating line (i.e., how quickly the component or product moves through 
the flash-off area), and the distance between the application area and 
bake oven.
    After the flash-off area, the metal furniture components or 
products are usually cured or dried. For powder coatings, the curing/
drying step melts the powder and forms a continuous coating on the 
component or product. For liquid coatings, this step removes any 
remaining volatiles from the coating. The cured coatings provide the 
desired decorative and/or protective characteristics. The VOC emissions 
during the curing/drying process result from the evaporation of the 
remaining solvents in the dryer.
    Until the late 1970's, conventional solvent-borne coatings were 
used in the metal furniture surface coating industry. Since then, the 
industry has steadily moved towards alternative coating formulations 
that eliminate or reduce the amount of solvent in the formulations, 
thus reducing VOC emissions per unit amount of coating solids used.
    Currently the metal furniture surface coating industry uses 
primarily higher solids solvent-borne coatings and powder coatings and 
applies them by electrostatic spraying. This combination of coating 
type and application method is an effective measure for reducing VOC 
emissions. Not only are VOC emissions reduced by using coatings with 
low VOC content, the use of an application method with a high transfer 
efficiency, such as electrostatic spraying, lowers the volume of 
coatings needed per given amount of production, thus further reducing 
the amount of VOC emitted during the coating application.
    Other alternative coatings include waterborne coatings and UV cured

[[Page 37593]]

coatings. These coatings are described in more detail in the CTG.
    The most common approach to reduce emission from metal furniture 
coating operations is to use low-VOC content coatings, including powder 
coatings, higher solids solvent-borne coatings, and UV cured coatings. 
Add-on controls may also be used to reduce VOC emissions from metal 
furniture coating operations. The majority of VOC emissions from spray 
coating operations occur in the spray booth. The volume of air 
exhausted from a spray booth is typically high and the VOC 
concentration in spray booth exhaust is typically low. The cost of 
controlling VOC in spray booth exhaust is therefore greater than the 
cost of using low-VOC content coatings. The wide availability and lower 
cost of low-VOC content coatings makes them a more attractive option 
than add-on controls. For those situations where an add-on control 
device is used, thermal oxidation and carbon adsorption are most widely 
used. Please see the draft CTG for a detailed discussion of these and 
other available control devices.
    To control VOC emissions from containers used to store VOC-
containing solvents or to mix coatings containing VOC solvents, work 
practices (e.g., using closed storage containers) are used throughout 
the metal furniture surface coating industry.
    As previously mentioned, another source of VOC emissions from metal 
furniture surface coating is cleaning materials. The VOC are emitted 
when solvents evaporate from the cleaning materials. Cleaning materials 
are used for several purposes, including the removal of coating residue 
or other unwanted materials from equipment related to the coating 
operations, as well as the cleaning of spray guns, transfer lines 
(e.g., tubing or piping), tanks, and the interior of spray booths. 
These cleaning materials are typically mixtures of organic solvents. 
Work practices are widely used throughout the metal furniture surface 
coating industry as a means of reducing VOC emissions from these types 
of cleaning operations. These measures include covering mixing tanks, 
storing solvents and solvent soaked rags and wipes in closed 
containers, and cleaning spray guns in an enclosed system. Another 
means of reducing VOC emissions from cleaning operations associated 
with surface coating operations is the use of low-VOC content or low 
vapor pressure cleaning materials. However, little information is 
available regarding the effectiveness of the use of these types of 
cleaning materials to reduce VOC emissions in the metal furniture 
surface coating industry.
3. Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Control Strategies
    There are three previous EPA actions that affect metal furniture 
surface coating operations. In 1977, EPA issued a CTG document entitled 
``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary 
Sources Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture'' (EPA-450/2-77-
032) (1977 CTG) that provided RACT recommendations for controlling VOC 
emissions from metal furniture surface coating operations. The 1977 CTG 
addresses VOC emissions from metal furniture coating lines, which 
include the coating application area, the flash-off area, and the 
drying/curing ovens. The 1977 CTG recommended RACT for metal furniture 
surface coating operations as 0.36 kg VOC/l (3.0 lb/gal) of coating, 
excluding water and exempt compounds, as applied. This recommendation 
was derived using an assumed VOC density of 0.88 kg/l (7.36 lb/gal). 
The recommended limit represents a higher solids solvent-borne coating 
with approximately 59 percent volume solids and is equivalent to 0.61 
kg VOC/l (5.1 lb VOC/gal) coating solids (the 1977 CTG-equivalent 
limit). This equates to an 81 percent reduction of VOC emissions from a 
conventional high-VOC content solvent-borne coating.
    In 1982, EPA promulgated the metal furniture surface coating NSPS) 
(40 CFR part 60 subpart EE.\16\ The 1982 NSPS is similar to the 1977 
CTG in that it applies to metal furniture surface coating operations 
which include the coating application station, the flash-off area, and 
the drying/curing oven. In contrast to the 1977 CTG, metal furniture 
surface coating operations that use less than 3,842 l/yr (1,015 gal/yr) 
of coating as-applied, are not subject to the emission limits (other 
requirements, such as recordkeeping and reporting, in the 1982 NSPS do 
apply). The 1982 NSPS VOC limit is 0.90 kg VOC/l (7.5 lb VOC/gal) 
coating solids deposited. Because the 1982 NSPS limit is in terms of 
coating solids deposited and the 1977 CTG-equivalent limit is in terms 
of coating solids used, these limits cannot be compared directly. 
During the implementation of the 1977 CTG, a baseline transfer 
efficiency of 60 percent (i.e., 0.60 volume of solids deposited per 
unit volume of solids used) was used to express the CTG-equivalent 
limit on a solids deposited basis. The CTG-equivalent limit on a solids 
deposited basis is 1.01 kg VOC/l (8.4 lb VOC/gal) coating solids 
deposited. The 1982 NSPS limit is more stringent than the 1977 CTG-
equivalent limit on a solids deposited basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The 1982 NSPS applies to sources that commenced 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after November 28, 
1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2003, EPA promulgated the National Emissions Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture, 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart RRRR, which applies to metal furniture surface coating 
operations. The 2003 NESHAP addresses organic HAP emissions, including 
VOC HAP emissions, from all activities at a facility that involve 
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in metal furniture 
surface coating operations. The areas covered by the 2003 NESHAP 
include: Coating operations; vessels used for storage and mixing of 
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; equipment, containers, 
pipes and pumps used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning 
materials; and storage vessels, pumps and piping, and conveying 
equipment and containers used for waste materials.
    The 2003 NESHAP imposes an organic HAP emission limitation for 
sources that commenced construction on or before April 24, 2002 
(existing sources), of 0.10 kg organic HAP/l (0.83 lb organic HAP/gal) 
of coating solids used. For sources that commenced construction after 
April 24, 2002 (new sources) the 2003 NESHAP prohibits organic HAP 
emissions. The 2003 NESHAP also specifies work practices to minimize 
organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of 
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in and waste materials 
generated by the coating operation.
    In addition to the EPA actions mentioned above, at least 36 States 
and several local jurisdictions have specific regulations that control 
VOC emissions from metal furniture surface coating operations. Almost 
all of the jurisdictions that specifically address metal furniture 
coatings have adopted the emission limit recommended in the 1977 CTG. 
The California Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Bay Area), 
however, has adopted more stringent limits. The Bay Area has 
established two VOC emission limits for metal furniture surface 
coatings: (1) 275 g VOC/l (2.3 lb VOC/gal) of coating, excluding water 
and exempt compounds, as applied, for baked coating; and (2) 340 g VOC/
l (2.8 lb VOC/gal) of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, as 
applied, for air-dried coating. Under the Bay Area regulation, metal 
furniture surface coating facilities must use coatings that

[[Page 37594]]

comply with the VOC emission limit or as an alternative to using low-
VOC content coatings, the facility may choose to install add-on 
controls. If add-on controls are used, the Bay Area requires that the 
VOC emissions generated by all sources of VOC emissions (i.e., the 
coating line) are reduced by at least 85 percent. The Bay Area's 
emission limit for air dried coating is also more stringent than the 
1977 CTG recommended limit. In addition, its rule requires the use of 
coating application equipment that can meet a 65 percent or greater 
transfer efficiency. Compliance with the standard's 65 percent or 
greater transfer efficiency can be achieved by properly operated 
electrostatic application or HVLP spray, flow coat, roller coat, dip 
coat including electrodeposition, and brush coat.
    Like the Bay Area's limits the VOC emission limits established by 
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast) for the 
coating of metal parts and products (which includes metal furniture 
using a baked general multi-component coating) are: (1) 275 g VOC/l 
(2.3 lb VOC/gal) coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, as 
applied, for baked coating; and (2) 340 g VOC/l (2.8 lb VOC/gal) of 
coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, as applied, for air-
dried coating. In addition to the VOC emission limits, the South Coast 
regulation specifies the use of the following application methods: 
Electrostatic application, flow coat, dip coat, roll coat, HVLP spray, 
hand application methods, or other coating application method capable 
of achieving a transfer efficiency equivalent or better than that 
achieved by HVLP spraying. As an alternative to the VOC emission limit 
and specified operating equipment, the South Coast regulation allows 
metal furniture facilities to choose to install emission capture 
systems and add-on control devices. The South Coast regulation requires 
that if a facility chooses the capture and add-on control device 
alternative, 90 percent of the VOC emissions must be captured and the 
add-on control device must have a control efficiency of 95 percent.
    Several jurisdictions in California have requirements to regulate 
the VOC content of cleaning materials used in the metal furniture 
surface coating industry. These regulations are aimed at reducing VOC 
emissions from cleaning materials by combining work practice standards 
with limits on the VOC content or composite vapor pressure of the 
solvent being used. In some cases, the jurisdictions allow the use of 
add-on controls as an alternative to the VOC content/vapor pressure 
limits. The different air pollution control authorities in California 
have established similar work practice standards. However, the cleaning 
material VOC content/vapor pressure limits vary by jurisdiction, as do 
the overall control efficiency required when add-on controls are used 
as an alternative.
    There are ten States that have cleaning material regulations that 
apply to metal furniture surface coating operations. Of these, nine 
States do not limit the VOC content/vapor pressure of cleaning 
materials. Instead, they have established equipment standards, work 
practices, and/or recordkeeping requirements. There is one State that 
requires work practices as well as limiting the vapor pressure of the 
cleaning materials.

B. Recommended Control Techniques

    The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for reducing 
VOC emissions from metal furniture coatings and cleaning materials. As 
explained in the draft CTG, we are recommending these control options 
for the metal furniture surface coating operations that emit 6.8 kg 
VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tons/year) or more before consideration of 
control. We do not recommend these control approaches for facilities 
that emit below this level because of the very small VOC emission 
reductions that can be achieved. The recommended threshold level is 
equivalent to the evaporation of approximately 2 gallons of solvent per 
day. Such a level is considered to be an incidental level of solvent 
usage that could be expected even in facilities that use very low-VOC 
content coatings, such as powder or UV cure coatings. Furthermore, 
based on the 2002 NEI data and the 2004 ozone nonattainment 
designations, facilities emitting below the recommended threshold level 
collectively emit less than 4 percent of the total reported VOC 
emissions from metal furniture surface coating facilities in ozone 
nonattainment areas. For these reasons, we did not extend our 
recommendations in the draft CTG to these low emitting facilities. This 
recommended threshold is also consistent with our recommendations in 
many previous CTGs.
    For purposes of determining whether a facility meets the 6.8-kg/day 
(15-lb/day) threshold, aggregate emissions from all metal furniture 
surface coating operations and related cleaning activities at a given 
facility are included.
1. Coatings
    The draft CTG provides flexibility by recommending two options for 
controlling VOC emissions from coatings: (1) An emission limit that can 
be achieved through the use of low-VOC content coatings; or (2) an 
overall control efficiency of 90 percent for facilities that choose to 
use add-on controls instead of low-VOC content coating. Specifically, 
the low-VOC content coatings recommendation includes a limit of 0.275 
kg VOC/l (2.3 lb VOC/gal) of coating, excluding water and exempt 
compounds, as applied, and the use of the following application 
methods: Electrostatic spray, HVLP spray, flow coat, roller coat, dip 
coat including electrodeposition, brush coat, or other coating 
application method capable of achieving a transfer efficiency 
equivalent or better than that achieved by HVLP spraying. As an 
alternative to using low-VOC content coatings, a facility could choose 
to use combinations of capture and add-on control equipment to meet an 
overall control efficiency of 90 percent.
    Furthermore, the draft CTG recommends work practices to control VOC 
emissions from metal furniture surface coating-related activities. The 
draft CTG recommends that these work practices include the following: 
(1) Store all VOC-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related 
waste materials in closed containers; (2) ensure that mixing and 
storage containers used for VOC-containing coatings, thinners, and 
coating-related waste materials are kept closed at all times except 
when depositing or removing these materials; (3) minimize spills of 
VOC-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related waste materials; 
and (4) convey coatings, thinners and coating-related waste materials 
from one location to another in closed containers or pipes.
2. Cleaning Materials
    The draft CTG recommends work practices to reduce VOC emissions 
from cleaning materials used in metal furniture surface coating 
operations. The draft CTG recommends that, at a minimum, these work 
practices include the following: (1) Store all VOC-containing cleaning 
materials and used shop towels in closed containers; (2) ensure that 
mixing and storage containers used for VOC-containing cleaning 
materials are kept closed at all times except when depositing or 
removing these materials; (3) minimize spills of VOC-containing 
cleaning materials; (4) convey cleaning materials from one location to 
another in closed containers or pipes; and (5) minimize VOC emissions 
from cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment.

[[Page 37595]]

C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques

    Based on the 2002 NEI database, we estimate that there are a total 
of 456 metal furniture facilities in the U.S. Using the April 2004 
ozone nonattainment designations, we estimated that a total of 289 of 
these facilities are in ozone nonattainment areas. Based on the 2002 
NEI VOC emissions data, 143 of the 289 facilities in ozone 
nonattainment areas emitted VOC at or above the recommended 6.8-kg/day 
(15-lb/day) VOC emissions applicability threshold. According to the 
2002 NEI, these 143 facilities, in aggregate, emit about 3,100 
Megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (3,400 tons per year (tpy)) of VOC per year, 
or an average of about 21 Mg/yr (23 tpy) of VOC per facility.
    As previously mentioned, the draft CTG recommends either the use of 
low-VOC content coatings with specified application methods or optional 
add-on control technology. Both recommendations also include certain 
work practices to further reduce emission from coatings, as well as 
controlling VOC emissions from cleaning materials. Because the industry 
is already using predominantly low-VOC content coatings, such as powder 
coatings, we have estimated the total annual costs to be approximately 
$240,500. Since these recommended measures are expected to result in a 
VOC emissions reduction of 1855 Mg/yr (2040 tpy), the cost-
effectiveness is estimated to be $130/Mg ($118/ton). The impacts are 
further discussed in the draft CTG document.
    The draft CTG also recommends work practices for reducing VOC 
emissions from both coatings and cleaning materials. We believe that 
our work practice recommendations in the draft CTG will result in a net 
cost savings. Implementing work practices reduce the amount of cleaning 
materials used by decreasing the amount that evaporates and is wasted.

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 category of metal furniture 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 metal 
furniture surface coating operations.
    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 this category is through controls 
at the point of use of the product, (i.e., through controls on the use 
of coating and cleaning materials at metal furniture surface coating 
facilities), and this can only be accomplished through a CTG. We 
further explain that the recommended approaches in the draft CTG are 
consistent with existing effective EPA, State, and local VOC control 
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 also discuss the likely VOC emission reductions associated with 
a CTG, as compared to a regulation. 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 products 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). For these reasons, which are 
described more fully below, we believe that a CTG will achieve greater 
VOC emission reductions than a rule for this category.
1. The Most Effective Entity To Target for VOC Reductions and 
Consistency With Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Strategies
    To evaluate the most effective entity to target for VOC reductions, 
it is important first to identify the primary sources of VOC emissions. 
There are two main sources of VOC emissions from metal furniture 
coating: (1) Evaporation of VOC from coatings; 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
    A national rule could contain limits for the as-sold VOC content of 
metal furniture coatings. However, given the nature of the metal 
furniture surface coating process, we believe that such a rule would 
result in little reduction in VOC emissions.
    Although the metal furniture surface coating industry currently 
uses primarily low-VOC content coatings (such as high solids and powder 
coatings), these low-VOC content coatings cannot replace the 
traditional solvent-borne coatings in some instances. Specialized 
appearance and other functional characteristics determine the types of 
coatings that can be used. For example, some products (e.g., recliner 
mechanisms) require a thin dried film thickness that can only be 
achieved using solvent-borne coatings. Accordingly, a national rule 
that requires low VOC content in metal furniture surface coatings would 
nevertheless need to include higher VOC limits to allow for the use of 
solvent-borne coatings when necessary and to maintain these materials' 
intended effect. Because such a rule would merely codify what the metal 
furniture surface coating facilities are already doing, we do not 
expect that it would result in significant reductions from these 
facilities.
    Furthermore, the effect of a national rule setting low VOC content 
limits for metal furniture coatings could be easily subverted because 
it does not guarantee that only those low-VOC content coating materials 
will be used for metal furniture surface coating. Many coatings used in 
metal furniture surface coating are not specifically identified by the 
supplier as metal furniture coatings. Therefore, these facilities can 
purchase and use coating materials not specified as metal furniture 
coatings, which would effective nullify the reformulation actions of 
the manufacturers and suppliers, resulting in no net change in VOC 
emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.
    Alternatively, a national rule could set low VOC content limits for 
all coatings sold, regardless of specified end use, thus ensuring that 
only low-VOC materials are available for metal furniture surface 
coating. Such an approach would be unreasonable and impractical. 
Coatings are sold for multiple different commercial and industrial 
purposes. Reducing the VOC content of all coatings would impact uses of 
these materials in operations other than metal furniture surface 
coating and may inadvertently preclude the use of higher VOC containing 
materials in many important, legitimate contexts.
    By contrast, a CTG can reach the end users of the coating materials 
and can therefore implement the control measures that are more likely 
to achieve the objective of reducing VOC emissions from this product 
category in ozone nonattainment areas. As previously discussed, the 
draft CTG recommends an emission limit for metal furniture surface 
coating operations that can be achieved through the use of low-VOC

[[Page 37596]]

content coatings, and specific application methods. Alternatively, the 
draft CTG recommends an overall 90 percent control efficiency should a 
facility choose to use add-on controls in conjunction with high-VOC 
content coatings. In addition, both recommendations in the draft CTG 
include work practices to further reduce VOC emissions from coatings as 
well as controlling VOC emissions from cleaning materials. The use of 
low-VOC content coatings, which are available for metal furniture 
surface coating, can greatly reduce VOC emissions. Alternatively, 
control devices, such as thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, or 
carbon adsorbers, can achieve a significant reduction in VOC emissions 
from high-VOC content coatings. The recommended work practices and 
application methods have also been shown to be effective VOC reduction 
measures. Given the significant reductions achievable through the use 
of these recommended control measures, the most effective entity to 
address VOC emissions from metal furniture coatings is the facility 
using the coating.
    These control measures are consistent with existing EPA, State, and 
local VOC control strategies applicable to metal furniture surface 
coating. As mentioned above, previous EPA actions and existing State 
and local regulations (in particular, the majority of the California 
jurisdictions) that address metal furniture surface coating similarly 
call for VOC emission reduction either through the use of control 
devices in conjunction with high-VOC content coating materials or the 
use of equivalent low-VOC content coating materials; some also include 
work practices and specific application methods.
    We cannot, however, issue a national rule directly requiring metal 
furniture surface coating facilities to use low-VOC content coatings, 
control devices or specific application methods, or to implement work 
practices to reduce VOC emissions 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 manufacturers and suppliers, not the 
metal furniture surface coating facilities. By contrast, a CTG can 
reach the end users of the metal furniture coatings, and can therefore 
implement the measures by the users that are identified above as more 
likely to achieve the intended VOC emission reduction goal. 
Accordingly, we are including these recommended control measures in the 
draft CTG that applies to metal furniture surface coatings facilities 
as the end users of the coating materials.
b. Cleaning Materials
    There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated 
with the cleaning materials used in the metal furniture surface coating 
process: (1) Limiting the VOC content or VOC vapor pressure of the 
cleaning materials, and (2) implementing work practices governing the 
use of the cleaning materials. A national rule requiring that 
manufacturers of cleaning materials for metal furniture coating 
operations provide low-VOC content or low vapor pressure (i.e., 
replacing VOC that have a high vapor pressure with low vapor pressure 
VOC) cleaning materials would suffer from the same deficiencies noted 
above with regard to the coatings. Specifically, nothing in a national 
rule that specifically regulates manufacturers and suppliers of 
cleaning materials specified for use in metal furniture surface coating 
operations would preclude the metal furniture surface coating industry 
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 such regulation would directly undermine the effectiveness of such a 
national regulation.
    A national rule also could, in theory, limit the VOC content or 
vapor pressure of all cleaning materials and all solvents sold 
regardless of specified end use, which would ensure that only low-VOC 
content or low vapor pressure cleaning materials are available for 
cleaning operations associated with metal furniture surface coating. As 
with a low-VOC content limit on coatings, setting a low-VOC content or 
a low vapor pressure limit for all cleaning materials and solvents 
would be unreasonable and impractical. Cleaning materials and solvents 
are sold for multiple different commercial and industrial purposes. 
Replacing highly volatile cleaning materials and solvents would impact 
uses of these materials other than cleaning operations at metal 
furniture surface coating facilities and may inadvertently preclude the 
use of such materials in many important, legitimate contexts.
    The more effective approach for reducing VOC emissions from 
cleaning materials used by metal furniture surface coaters is to 
control the use of cleaning materials through work practices. The draft 
CTG recommends that metal furniture surface coating facilities 
implement work practices to reduce VOC emissions from cleaning 
materials during metal furniture surface coating operations. An example 
of an effective work practice is keeping solvents and used shop towels 
in closed containers. This measure alone can significantly reduce VOC 
emissions from cleaning materials. Provided immediately below are 
examples of other effective work practices that are being required by 
State and local regulations. Given the significant VOC reductions 
achievable through the implementation of work practices, we conclude 
that the most effective entity to address VOC emission from cleaning 
materials used in metal furniture surface coating operations is the 
facility using the cleaning materials during surface coating 
operations.
    This recommendation is consistent with measures required by State 
and local jurisdictions for reducing VOC emissions from cleaning 
materials used in metal furniture surface coating operations. In 
addition to keeping solvents and shop towels in closed containers, 
State and local requirements include: Minimizing spills of VOC-
containing cleaning materials; cleaning up spills immediately; and 
conveying any VOC-containing cleaning materials in closed containers or 
pipes. Work practices have proven to be effective in reducing VOC 
emissions.
    We cannot, however, issue a rule requiring such work practices for 
metal furniture surface coating facilities because, pursuant to CAA 
section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the regulated entities subject to a 
national rule would be the cleaning materials manufactures and 
suppliers and not the metal furniture surface coating facilities. 
Accordingly, we are including these work practices in the draft CTG 
that applies to metal furniture surface coating facilities as the end 
users of the cleaning materials.
    Based on the nature of the metal furniture surface 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 metal furniture surface coaters), and this can only be 
accomplished through a CTG. The recommended approaches described in the 
draft CTG are also consistent with effective existing EPA, State, and 
local VOC control strategies for metal furniture surface coating 
operations. These two factors alone demonstrate that a CTG will be 
substantially as effective as a national regulation.

[[Page 37597]]

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 metal furniture coatings.
    First, metal furniture coatings and associated cleaning materials 
are used at commercial facilities in specific, identifiable locations. 
Specifically, these materials are used in commercial facilities that 
apply surface coating to metal furniture as described in section III.A. 
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 these products are feasible. Therefore the nature 
of the products' place of use further counsels in favor of the CTG 
approach.
    Second, a CTG will achieve greater emission reduction than a 
national rule for each source of VOC emissions from metal furniture 
coating and associated cleaning materials. For the reasons described 
above, we believe that a national rule limiting the VOC content in 
coatings and cleaning materials used in metal furniture surface coating 
operations would result in little VOC emissions reduction. By contrast, 
a CTG can achieve significant VOC emissions reduction because it can 
provide for the highly effective emission control strategies described 
above that are applicable to the end-users of the coatings and cleaning 
materials at metal furniture surface coating facilities. Specifically, 
the draft CTG can provide for the use of control devices in conjunction 
with high-VOC content coatings, specific application methods, and work 
practices. These significant VOC reductions could not be obtained 
through a national regulation, because they require the implementation 
of measures by the end-user. In addition, as previously explained, 
strategies that arguably could be implemented through rulemaking, such 
as a limit on VOC content in coatings and cleaning materials, 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 cleaning materials used for metal 
furniture surface coating through a CTG than through a national 
regulation.
    Furthermore, the number of metal furniture surface coating 
facilities affected by our recommendations in this draft CTG, as 
compared to the total number of such facilities in ozone nonattainment 
areas, does not affect our conclusion that the CTG would be 
substantially more effective than a rule in controlling VOC emissions 
for this product category. As previously mentioned, we recommend the 
control measures described in the draft CTG for metal furniture surface 
coating facilities that emit 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) or more VOC. Based 
on the April 2004 ozone nonattainment designations, we estimate that 
143 of the 289 metal furniture surface coating facilities located in 
ozone nonattainment areas emit 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) or more and are 
therefore addressed by our recommendations in the draft CTG. There are 
146 metal furniture surface coating facilities that would not be 
covered by the recommendations in the draft CTG. According to the 2002 
NEI database, these 146 facilities collectively emitted less than 103 
Mg/yr (115 tpy), which is less than 4 percent of the total reported VOC 
(an average of 0.71 Mg/yr (0.78 tpy) per facility) in ozone 
nonattainment areas. The fact that the CTG addresses more than 96 
percent of the VOC emissions from metal furniture surface coating 
facilities in an ozone nonattainment area further supports our 
conclusion that a CTG is more likely to achieve the intended VOC 
emission reduction goal for this product category than a national rule.
    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 metal furniture coatings will be substantially 
as effective as a national regulation.

IV. Large Appliances Coatings

A. Industry Characterization

1. Source Category Description
    This category of consumer and commercial products includes the 
coatings that are applied to the surfaces of large appliances parts and 
products at facilities that manufacture or assemble large appliances. 
Large appliances coatings include, but are not limited to, primers, 
basecoats, topcoats, and adhesives used in the manufacture of large 
appliance parts or products. A large appliance part is defined as any 
organic surface-coated metal lid, door, casing, panel, or other 
interior or exterior metal part or accessory that is assembled to form 
a large appliance product. A large appliance product is defined as any 
organic surface-coated metal range, oven, microwave oven, refrigerator, 
freezer, washer, dryer, dishwasher, water heater, trash compactor, or 
any other large appliance or equipment manufactured for household, 
commercial, or recreational use. The coatings provide a protective and/
or decorative layer to the surface of large appliance products.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
    VOC emissions from large appliance surface coating operations 
result from the evaporation of VOC contained in many of the coatings or 
used as cleaning materials.\17\ The primary VOC emissions from large 
appliances coatings occur during coating application (prime, single or 
topcoat application), flash-off, and drying/curing of the coatings. 
Some emissions also occur during mixing or thinning of the coatings. 
The primary VOC emissions from the cleaning materials occur during 
cleaning operations. VOC emissions from surface preparation (i.e., 
wiping with cleaning materials), storage and handling of coatings and 
cleaning materials, and waste/wastewater operations (i.e. handling 
waste/wastewater that may contain residues from both coatings and 
cleaning materials) are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In a previous notice, EPA stated that the cleaning 
operations associated with certain specified section 183(e) consumer 
and commercial product categories, including large appliances 
coatings, would not be covered by EPA's 2006 CTG for industrial 
cleaning solvents. 71 Fed. Reg. 44522, 44540 (2006). In that notice, 
EPA expressed its intention to address cleaning operations 
associated with these categories in the CTGs for these specific 
categories if the Agency determines that a CTG is appropriate for a 
respective category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VOC emissions from mixing and/or thinning of the coatings occur 
from displacement of organic vapor-laden air in containers used to mix 
coatings containing solvents (thinners) prior to coating applications. 
The displacement of vapor-laden air can occur during the filling of 
containers and can also be caused by changes in temperature or 
barometric pressure, or by agitation during mixing.
    The majority of VOC emissions occur from evaporation of solvents 
during coating application. The transfer efficiency (the percent of 
coating solids deposited on the large appliance part or product) of a 
coating application method affects the amount of VOC emissions during 
coating application. The more efficient a coating application method is 
in transferring coatings to the large appliance part or product, the

[[Page 37598]]

lower the volume of coatings (and therefore solvents) needed per given 
amount of production, thus resulting in lower VOC emissions.
    Most spray applied coatings are electrostatically applied. In 
electrostatic coating, the presence of an electrostatic field creates 
an electrical attraction between the paint, which is positively 
charged, and the grounded metal furniture component or product and 
enhances the amount of coating deposited on the surface. This coating 
method is more efficient than conventional air atomized spray, with 
transfer efficiency typically ranging from 60 to 90 percent.
    Other coatings application methods used in the large appliance 
surface coating industry include flow coating, roll coating, high 
volume/low pressure (HVLP) spray, electrocoating, autophoretic coating, 
and application of coatings by hand. These coating methods are 
described in more detail in the draft CTG.
    In typical liquid spray and dip coating operations, the coated 
parts/products move from the coating application area through a flash-
off area, where solvents in the wet coating film evaporate slowly, thus 
avoiding bubbling of the coating while it is curing in the oven. After 
being coated by any of the typical coating operations, large appliance 
parts and products are dried and cured using heated dryers or by air 
drying. This step removes any remaining volatiles from the coatings so 
that the surfaces of the large appliance parts and products meet the 
hardness, durability, and appearance requirements of customers.
    Until the late 1970's, the large appliances industry used 
conventional solvent-borne coatings almost exclusively. Since then, the 
industry has steadily moved towards alternative coating formulations 
that eliminate or reduce the amount of solvent in the formulations, 
thus reducing VOC emissions per unit amount of coating solids used.
    Currently the large appliance surface coating industry uses 
primarily higher solids solvent-borne coatings and powder coatings and 
applies them by electrostatic spraying. This combination of coating 
type and application method is an effective measure for reducing VOC 
emissions. Not only are VOC emissions reduced by using coatings with 
low VOC content, the use of an application method with a high transfer 
efficiency, such as electrostatic spraying, lowers the volume of 
coatings needed per given amount of production, thus further reducing 
the amount of VOC emitted during the coating application.
    Other alternative coatings include waterborne coatings and UV cured 
coatings. These coatings are described in more detail in the CTG.
    The most common approach to reduce emissions from large appliance 
coating operations is to use low-VOC content coatings, including powder 
coatings, higher solids solvent-borne coatings, waterborne coatings and 
UV cured coatings. Add-on controls may also be used to reduce VOC 
emissions from large appliance coating operations. The majority of VOC 
emissions from spray coating operations occur in the spray booth. The 
volume of air exhausted from a spray booth is typically high and the 
VOC concentration in spray booth exhaust is typically low. The cost of 
controlling VOC in spray booth exhaust is therefore greater than the 
cost of using low-VOC content coatings. The wide availability and lower 
cost of low-VOC content coatings makes them a more attractive option 
than add-on controls. For those situations where an add-on control 
device is used, thermal oxidation and carbon adsorption are most widely 
used. Please see the draft CTG for a detailed discussion of these and 
other available control devices. As previously mentioned, another main 
source of VOC emissions from large appliances coating is the cleaning 
materials. The VOC are emitted when solvents that are used as cleaning 
materials evaporate. Cleaning materials are used for several purposes, 
including the removal of coating residue or other unwanted materials 
from coating operations equipment, such as spray guns, transfer lines 
(e.g., tubing or piping), tanks, and the interior of spray booths. 
These cleaning materials are typically VOC solvents such as methyl 
ethyl ketone (MEK) and toluene. However, there has been an increase in 
the use of alcohol and water-based cleaners. Work practices and 
housekeeping measures are widely used throughout the large appliances 
coating industry as a means of reducing VOC emissions from these types 
of cleaning operations. These measures include covering mixing tanks, 
storing solvents and solvent soaked rags and wipes in closed 
containers, and cleaning spray guns in an enclosed system. Another 
means of reducing VOC emissions from cleaning operations is the use of 
low-VOC content cleaning materials. However, little information is 
available regarding the extent of the use of these types of cleaning 
materials to reduce VOC emissions in the large appliances coating 
industry.
3. Existing Federal, State and Local VOC Control Strategies
    There are three previous EPA actions that affect surface coating 
operations for large appliances. In 1977, EPA issued the Control of 
Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume V: 
Surface Coating of Large Appliances (EPA-450/2-77-034, December 1977) 
document (1977 CTG), which provided RACT recommendations for 
controlling VOC emissions from this industry. The 1977 CTG is 
applicable to prime, single and topcoat application area(s), flash-off 
area, and ovens. The 1977 CTG recommended a VOC emission limit of 0.34 
kg VOC/l (2.8 lb/gal) of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, 
as applied. This recommendation was derived using an assumed VOC 
density of 0.88 kg/l (7.36 lb/gal). The recommended limit represents a 
higher solids solvent-borne coating with approximately 62 percent 
volume solids and is equivalent to 0.55 kg VOC/l (4.5 lb VOC/gal) 
coating solids (the 1977 CTG-equivalent limit). This equates to an 81 
percent reduction of VOC emissions from a conventional high-VOC content 
solvent-borne coating.
    In 1982, EPA promulgated the Standards of Performance for 
Industrial Surface Coating: Large Appliances, 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
SS (47 FR 47785, October 27, 1982). The 1982 NSPS is applicable to 
large appliance surface coating operations which are defined as prime 
coat or a topcoat operation and includes the coating application 
station(s), flash-off area, and curing oven. The 1982 NSPS requires new 
large appliances coating facilities to comply with an emission limit of 
0.9 kg VOC/l(7.5 lb VOC/gal) of solids deposited. Because the 1982 NSPS 
limit is in terms of coating solids deposited and the 1977 CTG-
equivalent limit is in terms of coating solids used, these limits 
cannot be compared directly. During the implementation of the 1977 CTG, 
a baseline transfer efficiency of 60 percent (i.e., 0.60 volume of 
solids deposited per unit volume of solids used) was used to express 
the CTG-equivalent limit on a solids deposited basis. The CTG-
equivalent limit on a solids deposited basis is 0.9 kg VOC/l (7.5 lb 
VOC/gal) coating solids deposited which is the same as the 1982 NSPS 
limit.
    In 2002, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances, 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart NNNN (67 FR 48254, July 23, 2002). The 2002 NESHAP 
addresses organic HAP emissions,

[[Page 37599]]

including VOC HAP emissions, from all activities that involve coatings, 
thinners, and cleaning materials used in large appliance coating 
operations. The areas covered by the 2002 NESHAP include: Coating 
operations; vessels used for storage and mixing of coatings, thinners, 
and cleaning materials; equipment, containers, pipes and pumps used for 
conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and storage 
vessels, pumps and piping, and conveying equipment and containers used 
for waste materials. The 2002 NESHAP limits organic HAP to 0.13 kg/l 
(1.1 lb/gal) of coating solids used during each compliance period 
(monthly) for existing sources and 0.022 kg/l (0.18 lb/gal) of coating 
solids used for new sources.
    In addition to the EPA actions mentioned above, at least 24 State 
and local jurisdictions have specific regulations that control VOC 
emissions from large appliances coating operations. Almost all of the 
jurisdictions that specifically address large appliances coatings have 
adopted the emission limit recommended in the 1977 CTG. The California 
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Bay Area), however, has 
adopted more stringent limits. The Bay Area has established two VOC 
emission limits for surface coatings of large appliances: (1) 275 g 
VOC/l (2.3 lb VOC/gal) of coating, excluding water and exempt 
compounds, as applied, for baked coating; and (2) 340 g VOC/l (2.8 lb 
VOC/gal) of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, as applied, 
for air-dried coating. Under the Bay Area regulation, large appliances 
coating facilities must use coatings that comply with the VOC emissions 
limit or as an alternative to using low-VOC content coatings, the 
facility may choose to install add-on controls. If add-on controls are 
used, the Bay Area requires that the VOC emissions generated by all 
sources of VOC emissions (i.e., the coating line) are reduced by at 
least 85 percent. The Bay Area rule also requires the use of coating 
application equipment that can meet a 65 percent or greater transfer 
efficiency. Compliance with the standard's 65 percent or greater 
transfer efficiency requirement can be achieved by properly operated 
electrostatic application or HVLP spray, flow coat, roller coat, dip 
coat including electrodeposition, and brush coat.
    Like the Bay Area's limits, the VOC emissions limits established by 
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast) for the 
coating of metal parts and products (which includes large appliances 
using a general multi-component coating) are: (1) 275 g VOC/l (2.3 lb 
VOC/gal) of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, as applied, 
for baked coating; and (2) 340 g VOC/l (2.8 lb VOC/gal) of coating, 
excluding water and exempt compounds, as applied, for air-dried 
coating. The South Coast regulation specifies the use of the following 
application methods: Electrostatic application, flow coat, dip coat, 
roll coat, HVLP spray, hand application methods, or other coating 
application method capable of achieving a transfer efficiency 
equivalent or better than that achieved by HVLP spraying. As an 
alternative to the VOC emissions limit and specified operating 
equipment, the South Coast regulation allows large appliances coating 
facilities to choose to install emission capture systems and add-on 
control devices. The South Coast regulation requires that if a facility 
chooses the capture and add-on control device alternative, 90 percent 
of the VOC emissions must be captured and the add-on control device 
must have a control efficiency of 95 percent.
    Of the existing Federal, State, and local large appliances coating 
regulations discussed, the 2002 NESHAP, the Bay Area, the South Coast, 
and some other State regulations contain work practices as a control 
strategy for controlling VOC emissions from coating and cleaning 
materials. Under the 2002 NESHAP, the large appliances coating facility 
must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize volatile 
organic HAP emissions if they comply with the standard using the 
emission rate with add-on controls option. The California regulations 
emphasize the work practice of keeping coating and cleaning material 
containers closed.

B. Recommended Control Techniques

    The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for reducing 
VOC emissions from large appliance coatings and cleaning materials. As 
explained in the draft CTG, we are recommending these control options 
for the large appliance furniture surface coating operations that emit 
6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day) or more before consideration of control. 
We do not recommend these control approaches for facilities that emit 
below this level because of the very small VOC emission reductions that 
can be achieved. The recommended threshold level is equivalent to the 
evaporation of approximately 2 gallons of solvent per day. Such a level 
is considered to be an incidental level of solvent usage that could be 
expected even in facilities that use very low-VOC content coatings, 
such as powder or UV cure coatings. Furthermore, based on the 2002 NEI 
data and the 2004 ozone nonattainment designations, we estimate that 
all 68 of the large appliance surface coating facilities located in 
ozone nonattainment areas currently emit at or above this level. For 
these reasons, we did not extend our recommendations in the draft CTG 
to these low emitting facilities. This recommended threshold is also 
consistent with our recommendations in many previous CTGs.
    For purposes of determining whether a facility meets the 6.8-kg/day 
(15-lb/day) threshold, aggregate emissions from all large appliance 
surface coating operations and related cleaning activities at a given 
facility are included.
1. Coatings
    The draft CTG provides flexibility by recommending two options for 
controlling VOC emissions from coatings: (1) An emission limit that can 
be achieved through the use of low VOC content coatings; or (2) an 
overall control efficiency of 90 percent for facilities that choose to 
use add-on controls instead of low-VOC content coating. Specifically, 
the low-VOC content coatings recommendation includes a limit of 0.275 
kg VOC/l (2.3 lb VOC/gal) of coating, excluding water and exempt 
compounds, as applied, and the use of the following application 
methods: Electrostatic spray, HVLP spray, flow coat, roller coat, dip 
coat including electrodeposition, brush coat, or other coating 
application method capable of achieving a transfer efficiency 
equivalent or better than that achieved by HVLP spraying. As an 
alternative to using low-VOC content coatings, a facility could choose 
to use combinations of capture and add-on control equipment to meet an 
overall control efficiency of 90 percent.
    Furthermore, the draft CTG recommends work practices to control VOC 
emissions from large appliance surface coating-related activities. The 
draft CTG recommends that these work practices include the following: 
(1) Store all VOC-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related 
waste materials in closed containers; (2) ensure that mixing and 
storage containers used for VOC-containing coatings, thinners, and 
coating-related waste materials are kept closed at all times except 
when depositing or removing these materials; (3) minimize spills of 
VOC-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related waste materials; 
and (4) convey coatings, thinners and coating-related waste materials 
from one location to another in closed containers or pipes.

[[Page 37600]]

2. Cleaning Materials
    The draft CTG recommends work practices to reduce VOC emissions 
from cleaning materials used in large appliance surface coating 
operations. The draft CTG recommends that, at a minimum, these work 
practices include the following: (1) Store all VOC-containing cleaning 
materials and used shop towels in closed containers; (2) ensure that 
mixing and storage containers used for VOC-containing cleaning 
materials are kept closed at all times except when depositing or 
removing these materials; (3) minimize spills of VOC-containing 
cleaning materials; (4) convey cleaning materials from one location to 
another in closed containers or pipes; and (5) minimize VOC emissions 
from cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment.

C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques

    EPA estimates that approximately 34 percent of the large appliances 
coating facilities are located in ozone nonattainment areas (based on 
the 2004 designations). Accordingly, of the estimated 200 large 
appliances coating facilities nationwide, 68 are projected to be in 
nonattainment areas. As previously mentioned, the control strategies in 
the draft CTG are recommended for large appliances coating operations 
that emit at least 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day). As noted above, based on 
available data, we estimate that all of the facilities in ozone 
nonattainment areas emit at or above this level.
    Assuming that the 68 facilities projected to be in nonattainment 
areas are currently controlled at the 1977 CTG recommended level of 
control,\18\ they are estimated to emit, in total, about 3,064 Mg 
(3,370 tons) of VOC per year. As discussed above, the draft CTG 
recommends either the use of low-VOC content coatings with specified 
application methods or add-on control technology. Both recommendations 
also include certain work practices to further reduce emissions from 
coatings as well as controlling VOC emission from cleaning materials. 
We estimated that the control measures under either recommendation 
would reduce VOC emissions from large appliances coating operations by 
about 32 percent (a reduction of 989 Mg (1,088 tons) of VOC from the 
nonattainment area facilities). In our analysis of the impacts of the 
recommended level of control, we have assumed that all facilities will 
choose to utilize the low-VOC content coatings alternative. We made 
this assumption for two reasons. First, we believe that complying low-
VOC content coatings are already widely available at a cost that is not 
significantly greater than the cost of coatings with higher VOC 
contents. Secondly, the use of add-on controls to reduce emissions from 
typical spray coating operations is a more costly alternative because 
the spray booths and flash-off areas are often quite large and, thus, 
very large volumes of air must be captured and directed to the control 
device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ We believe that this assumption is reasonable because 24 
states have adopted the 1977 CTG limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The compliance cost information that was obtained during the 
development of the NSPS and the NESHAP were used to estimate the 
impacts of the recommended level of control. This information is 
believed to be applicable because the primary means of compliance with 
the NSPS and the NESHAP was projected to be through the use of 
complying low-VOC content and low-HAP content coatings, respectively. 
The coating reformulation costs that were developed for estimating the 
impacts of the NESHAP are also the most recent information available. 
Using relevant information from coating reformulation studies and/or 
analyses conducted as part of the development of the NSPS and NESHAP, 
we estimate that the recommended level of control can be achieved at a 
total cost of $544,000. Based on the associated VOC emission reductions 
of 989 Mg/yr (1088 tpy), the estimated cost-effectiveness is $550/Mg 
($500/ton). These estimates are further discussed in the draft CTG 
document.
    The draft CTG also recommends work practices for reducing VOC 
emissions from both coatings and cleaning materials. We believe that 
our work practice recommendations in the draft CTG will result in a net 
cost savings. Implementing work practices reduce the amount of cleaning 
materials used by decreasing the amount that evaporates and is wasted.

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 category of large appliances 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 large 
appliance surface coating operations.
    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 this category is through controls 
at the point of use of the products, (i.e., through controls on the use 
of coating and cleaning materials at large appliances coating 
facilities), and this can only be accomplished through a CTG. We 
further explain that the recommended approaches in the draft CTG are 
consistent with existing effective Federal, State and local VOC control 
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 also discuss the likely VOC emission reductions associated with 
a CTG, as compared to a regulation. 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 products 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). For these reasons, which are 
described more fully below, we believe that a CTG will achieve much 
greater VOC emission reductions than a national rule developed under 
CAA section 183(e) for this category.
1. The Most Effective Entity To Target for VOC Reductions and 
Consistency With Existing Federal, State and Local VOC Strategies
    To evaluate the most effective entity to target for VOC reductions, 
it is important first to identify the primary sources of VOC emissions. 
There are two main sources of VOC emissions from large appliances 
coating: (1) Evaporation of VOC from coatings; 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
    A national rule could contain limits for the as-sold VOC content of 
large appliance coatings. However, given the nature of the large 
appliances coating process, we believe that such a rule would result in 
little reduction in VOC emissions.
    Although significant amounts of low-VOC content coatings are 
currently being used for large appliances coating, they cannot replace 
the traditional

[[Page 37601]]

solvent-borne coatings in some instances. As described above, customer 
specifications, quick drying time (needed to meet production demands 
and prevent surface damage) and capital investments are reasons why 
solvent-borne coatings are still being used. Accordingly, a national 
rule that requires low VOC content in large appliance coatings would 
nevertheless need to include higher VOC content limits to allow for the 
use of solvent-borne coatings when necessary and to maintain these 
materials' intended effect. Because such a rule would merely codify 
what the large appliance surface coating facilities are already doing, 
we do not expect that it would result in significant VOC reductions 
from these facilities.
    Furthermore, the effect of a national rule setting low VOC content 
limits for large appliance surface coatings could be easily subverted 
because it does not guarantee that only those low VOC coating materials 
will be used for large appliance surface coating. Many coatings used in 
large appliance surface coating are not identified by the supplier 
specifically as large appliances coatings. Therefore, these facilities 
can purchase and use coating materials not specified as large appliance 
coatings, which would effectively nullify the reformulation actions of 
the manufacturers and suppliers, resulting in no net change in VOC 
emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.
    Alternatively, a national rule could, in theory, limit the VOC 
content of all coatings sold regardless of specified end use, thus 
ensuring that only low-VOC materials are available for large appliances 
coatings. Such an approach would be unreasonable and impractical. 
Coatings are sold for multiple different commercial and industrial 
purposes. Coating reformulation could impact uses of these materials 
other than large appliances coating and may inadvertently preclude the 
use of such materials in many important, legitimate contexts.
    By contrast, a CTG can reach the end users of the coating materials 
and can therefore implement the control measures that are more likely 
to achieve the objective of reducing VOC emissions from this product 
category in ozone nonattainment areas. As previously discussed, the 
draft CTG recommends an emission limit for large appliances surface 
coating operations that can be achieved through the use of low-VOC 
content coatings and specific application methods. Alternatively, the 
draft CTG recommends an overall 90 percent control efficiency should a 
facility choose to use add-on controls in conjunction with high VOC 
content coatings. In addition, both recommendations in the draft CTG 
include work practices to further reduce VOC emissions from coatings as 
well as controlling VOC emissions from cleaning materials. The use of 
low-VOC content coatings can greatly reduce VOC emissions. 
Alternatively, control devices, such as thermal oxidizers, catalytic 
oxidizers, or carbon adsorbers, can achieve a significant reduction in 
VOC emissions from high VOC content coatings. The recommended work 
practices and application methods have also been shown to be effective 
VOC reduction measures. Given the significant reductions achievable 
through use of these recommended control measures, the most effective 
entity to address VOC emissions from large appliances coatings is the 
facility using the coatings.
    These control measures are consistent with existing EPA, State and 
local VOC control strategies applicable to large appliances coating. As 
mentioned above, previous EPA actions and existing State and local 
regulations that address large appliance surface coating similarly call 
for VOC emission reduction through the use of control devices in 
conjunction with high-VOC content coating materials or the use of 
equivalent low-VOC content coating materials; some also include work 
practices and specific application methods.
    We cannot, however, issue a national rule directly requiring large 
appliances coating facilities to use low-VOC content coatings, specific 
application methods, or control devices, or to implement work practices 
to reduce VOC emissions 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 manufacturers and suppliers, not the large appliances 
facilities. By contrast, a CTG can reach the end users of the large 
appliances coatings and can therefore implement the measures by the 
users that are identified above as more likely to achieve the intended 
VOC emission reduction goal. Accordingly, we are including these 
control measures in the draft CTG that applies to large appliances 
coating facilities as the end users of the coating materials.
b. Cleaning Materials
    There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated 
with the cleaning materials used in large appliances coating process: 
(1) Limiting the VOC content or vapor pressure of the cleaning 
materials, and (2) implementing work practices governing the use of the 
product. A national rule requiring that manufacturers of cleaning 
materials for large appliance coating operations provide low-VOC 
content or low vapor pressure cleaning materials would suffer from the 
same deficiencies noted above with regard to coatings. Specifically, 
nothing in a national rule governing manufacturers of the cleaning 
materials would preclude the large appliances products facilities 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 such a 
national regulation.
    A national rule also could, in theory, limit the VOC content or 
vapor pressure of all cleaning materials and all solvents sold 
regardless of specified end use, which would ensure that only low-VOC 
content or low vapor pressure cleaning materials are available for 
cleaning operations associated with large appliance surface coating. As 
with a low-VOC content limit on coatings, setting a low-VOC content or 
a low vapor pressure limit for all cleaning materials and solvents 
would be unreasonable and impractical. Cleaning materials and solvents 
are sold for multiple different commercial and industrial purposes. 
Replacing highly volatile cleaning materials and solvents would impact 
uses of these materials other than cleaning operations at large 
appliance surface coating facilities and may inadvertently preclude the 
use of such materials in many important, legitimate contexts.
    The more effective approach for obtaining VOC reductions from 
cleaning materials used by large appliances coaters is to control the 
use of such materials. The draft CTG recommends large appliance coaters 
implement work practices to reduce VOC emissions from cleaning 
materials during large appliances coating operations. An example of an 
effective work practice is keeping solvents and used shop towels in 
closed containers. This measure alone can significantly reduce VOC 
emissions from cleaning materials. Provided immediately below are 
examples of other effective work practices that are being required by 
State and local regulations. Given the significant VOC reductions 
achievable through implementation of work practices, we conclude that 
the most effective entity to address VOC emissions from cleaning 
materials used in large appliances coating operations is

[[Page 37602]]

the facility using the cleaning materials during these operations.
    This recommendation is consistent with measures required by 
Federal, States, and localities for reducing VOC emissions from 
cleaning materials used in large appliances coating operations. In 
addition to keeping solvents and shop towels in closed containers, 
State and local requirements include: Cleaning and wash-off solvent 
accounting systems (i.e., log of solvent purchase, usage, and 
disposal); collecting and containing all VOC when cleaning coating 
lines and spray guns, and using low-VOC cleaning materials. Work 
practices have proven to be effective in reducing VOC emissions.
    We cannot, however, issue a rule requiring such work practices at 
large appliances facilities because, pursuant to CAA section 
183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the regulated entities subject to a 
national rule would be the cleaning materials manufacturers and 
suppliers and not the large appliances facilities. Accordingly, we are 
including these work practices in the draft CTG that applies to large 
appliances coating facilities as the end users of the cleaning 
materials.
    Based on the nature of large appliances 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 large appliances coaters), and this can only be 
accomplished through a CTG. The approaches described in the draft CTG 
are also consistent with effective existing EPA, State, local VOC 
control strategies for large appliances coating operations. These two 
factors alone demonstrate that a CTG will be substantially as effective 
as a national regulation under CAA section 183(e).
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 large appliances coatings.
    First, the products described above are used at commercial 
facilities in specific, identifiable locations. Specifically, these 
materials are used in commercial facilities that coat large appliance 
products and parts, as described in Section IV.A. 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 these products are 
feasible and therefore the nature of these products' place of use 
further counsels in favor of the CTG approach.
    Second, a CTG will achieve greater emission reduction than a 
national rule for each source of VOC emissions from large appliances 
coatings and associated cleaning materials. For the reasons described 
above, we believe that a national rule limiting the VOC content in 
coatings and cleaning materials used in large appliance surface coating 
operations would result in little VOC emissions reduction. By contrast, 
a CTG can achieve significant VOC emission reduction because it can 
provide for the highly effective emission control strategies described 
above that are applicable to the end-users of the coating and cleaning 
materials at large appliance facilities. Specifically, the draft CTG 
can provide for the use of add-on control devices in conjunction with 
high-VOC coatings and work practices. These significant VOC reductions 
associated with these measures could not be obtained through a national 
regulation because they are achieved through the implementation of 
measures by the end-user. In addition, as previously explained, 
strategies that arguably could be implemented through rulemaking, such 
as limiting the VOC content in large appliances coatings and cleaning 
materials, 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 cleaning materials 
used for large appliances coating through a CTG than through a national 
regulation.
    Furthermore, the number of large appliances coating facilities 
affected by our recommendations in this draft CTG, as compared to the 
number of such facilities in nonattainment areas does not affect our 
conclusion that the CTG would be more effective than a rule in 
controlling VOC emissions for this product category. As previously 
mentioned, we recommend the control measures described in the draft CTG 
for large appliances surface coating facilities that emit at or above 
6.8 kilograms per day (15 pounds per day). Based on the 2004 ozone 
nonattainment designations, we estimate that all of the large 
appliances surface coating facilities located in ozone nonattainment 
areas (68 facilities) emit at or above this level and are therefore 
addressed by our recommendations in the draft CTG.
    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 large appliances coatings will be 
substantially as effective as a national regulation.

V. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 
This action does not contain any information collection requirements.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare

[[Page 37603]]

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and 
comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act 
or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed 
determination, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
proposed action will not impose any requirements on small entities. EPA 
is proposing to take final action to list the three Group III 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 is also proposing to determine 
that, for the three product categories at issue, a CTG will be 
substantially as effective as a national regulation in achieving VOC 
emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas. The proposed 
determination means that EPA has concluded that it is not appropriate 
to issue Federal regulations under CAA section 183(e) to regulate VOC 
emissions from these three product categories. Instead, EPA has 
concluded that it is appropriate to issue guidance in the form of CTGs 
that provide recommendations to States concerning potential methods to 
achieve needed VOC emission reductions from these product categories. 
In addition to the proposed determination, EPA is also taking comment 
on the draft CTGs for these three 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 developing 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 certain States to issue State 
regulations, but States are not obligated to issue regulations 
identical to the Agency's CTG. States may follow the guidance in the 
CTG 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.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to 
adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 
than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that the listing action and the proposed 
determination for each of the three product categories that a CTG would 
be substantially as effective as a regulation for these product 
categories contain no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions 
of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector because they impose no enforceable duty on any State, 
local or tribal governments or the private sector. (Note: The term 
``enforceable duty'' does not include duties and conditions in 
voluntary Federal contracts for goods and services.) 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 and the 
proposed determination 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 and the proposed determination that CTGs are 
substantially as effective as regulations for these product categories 
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 Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the relationship between 
the Federal Government and the States, and this action does not impact 
that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the 
listing action and the proposed determination. However, in the spirit 
of EO 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications 
between EPA and State

[[Page 37604]]

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

    Executive Order 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 and the proposed determination that CTGs would 
be substantially as effective as regulations to achieve VOC emission 
reductions from these product categories do not have Tribal 
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. They do not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, in that the 
listing action and the proposed determination impose no regulatory 
burdens on tribes. Furthermore, the listing action and the proposed 
determination do not affect the relationship or distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. 
The CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) establish the relationship 
of the Federal government and Tribes in implementing the Clean Air Act. 
Because listing action and the proposed determination do not have 
Tribal implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply.

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, the 
Agency must 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 and the proposed determination 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 and the 
proposed determination 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

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Action Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. These actions 
impose no regulatory requirements and are therefore not likely to have 
any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that the listing action and the proposed 
determination will not have disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. 
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 and its determination that CTGs are 
substantially as effective as regulations are actions intended to help 
States achieve the NAAQS in the most appropriate fashion. Accordingly, 
these actions would help increase the level of environmental protection 
to populations in affected ozone nonattainment areas without having any 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any populations, including any minority or low-income 
populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59

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

    Dated: June 29, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations 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. 7414 and 7511b(e).

Subpart A--General

    2. Section 59.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  59.1  Final determinations under section 183(e)(3)(C) of the 
Clean Air Act.

    This section identifies the consumer and commercial product 
categories for which EPA has determined that control techniques 
guidelines (CTGs) will be substantially as effective as regulations

[[Page 37605]]

in reducing volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in ozone 
nonattainment areas:
    (a) Wood furniture coatings;
    (b) Aerospace coatings;
    (c) Shipbuilding and repair coatings;
    (d) Lithographic printing materials;
    (e) Letterpress printing materials;
    (f) Flexible packaging printing materials;
    (g) Flat wood paneling coatings;
    (h) Industrial cleaning solvents;
    (i) Paper, film, and foil coatings;
    (j) Metal furniture coatings; and
    (k) Large appliance coatings.
[FR Doc. E7-13104 Filed 7-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P