
[Federal Register: July 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 135)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 40230-40263]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jy08-17]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 59

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0411; FRL-8689-5]
RIN 2060-AP01

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed determination and availability of draft 
control techniques guidelines.

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

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 five product 
categories: Miscellaneous metal products coatings, plastic parts 
coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings, fiberglass boat 
manufacturing materials, and miscellaneous industrial adhesives. Based 
on this determination, we may issue control techniques guidelines in 
lieu of national regulations covering these product categories. We have 
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. We further propose to take final 
action to list the five Group IV consumer and commercial product 
categories addressed in this notice pursuant to Clean Air Act section 
183(e).

DATES: Comments: Written comments on this proposed action must be 
received by August 13, 2008, unless a public hearing is requested by 
July 24, 2008. If a hearing is requested on this proposed action, 
written comments must be received by August 28, 2008. We are also 
soliciting written comments on the draft control techniques guidelines 
(CTG), and those comments must be submitted within the comment period 
for this proposed determination.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing concerning this proposed determination by July 24, 2008, 
we will hold a public hearing on July 29, 2008. The substance of any 
such hearing will be limited solely to EPA's proposed determination 
under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 183(e)(3)(C) that the CTGs covering 
the five Group IV 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 this proposed Determination 
should be sent to: Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV--
Determination to Issue Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of 
Regulations, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0411.
    Comments concerning any draft CTG should be sent to the applicable 
docket, as noted below: Consumer and Commercial Products--Miscellaneous 
Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0412; 
Consumer and Commercial Products--Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly 
Coatings, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0413; Consumer and Commercial 
Products--Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0415; or Consumer and Commercial Products--Miscellaneous 
Industrial Adhesives, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0460, Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Comments concerning the draft revision 
of the Automobile Topcoat Protocol, which is referenced in the draft 
CTG for Auto and Light-Duty Truck Coatings, should be sent to Consumer 
and Commercial Products--Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, 
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0413. 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 29, 2008 at Building C on the EPA campus in Research 
Triangle Park, NC,

[[Page 40231]]

or at an alternate site nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral 
testimony must contact Ms. Joan C. Rogers, 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: rogers.joanc@epa.gov, no later than 
July 24, 2008. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must 
also call Ms. Rogers to verify the time, date, and location of the 
hearing. If no one contacts Ms. Rogers by July 24, 2008 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 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 this proposed determination and draft CTG for 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, or for fiberglass boat 
manufacturing materials, contact: Ms. Kaye Whitfield, U.S. EPA, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2509, 
fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-mail address: whitfield.kaye@epa.gov. For 
further information on technical issues concerning this proposed 
determination and draft CTG for auto and light-duty truck assembly 
coatings or the draft revision of the Automobile Topcoat Protocol, 
contact: Mr. Dave Salman, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and 
Chemicals Group (E143-01), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number: (919) 541-0859, fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-
mail address: salman.dave@epa.gov. For further information on technical 
issues concerning this proposed determination and draft CTG for 
miscellaneous industrial adhesives, contact: Ms. Martha Smith, U.S. 
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 
541-2421, fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-mail address: 
smith.martha@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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous metal and         331, 332, 333,     Facilities that
 plastic parts coatings.         334, 336, 482,     manufacture and
                                 811.               repair fabricated
                                                    metal, machinery,
                                                    computer and
                                                    electronic
                                                    equipment,
                                                    transportation
                                                    equipment, rail
                                                    transportation
                                                    equipment.
Auto and light-duty truck       336111, 336112,    Automobile and light-
 assembly coatings.              336211.            duty truck assembly
                                                    plants, producers of
                                                    automobile and light-
                                                    duty truck bodies.
Fiberglass boat manufacturing   336612...........  Boat building
 materials.                                         facilities.
Miscellaneous industrial        316, 321, 326,     Facilities that
 adhesives.                      331, 332, 333,     manufacture and
                                 334, 336, 337,     repair leather and
                                 339, 482, 811.     allied products,
                                                    wood products,
                                                    plastic and rubber
                                                    products, fabricated
                                                    metal, machinery,
                                                    computer and
                                                    electronic
                                                    equipment,
                                                    transportation
                                                    equipment, furniture
                                                    and related
                                                    products, rail
                                                    transportation
                                                    equipment, and
                                                    facilities involved
                                                    in miscellaneous
                                                    manufacturing.
Federal Government............  .................  Not Affected.
State, local and 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, IV.A, and V.A of this notice. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the appropriate EPA contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
    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-2008-0411, 0412, 
0413, 0415, or 0460 (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

[[Page 40232]]

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 WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following 
signature, a copy of this 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 CTG
    D. General Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
    E. Proposed Determination
    F. Availability of Documents
II. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 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. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly 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. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials
    A. Industry Characterization
    B. Recommended Control Techniques
    C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
    D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
V. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives
    A. Industry Characterization
    B. Recommended Control Techniques
    C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
    D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be 
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
VI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order: 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. Background Information and Proposed Determination

A. The Ozone Problem

    Ground-level ozone, a major component of smog, is formed in the 
atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen in the presence 
of sunlight. The formation of ground-level ozone is a complex process 
that is affected by many variables.
    Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of 
human health effects, 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 EPA's discretion under CAA 
section 183(e).
    EPA has revised the list several times. See 70 FR 69759 (November 
17, 2005); 64 FR 13422 (March 18, 1999). 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 IV of the list comprises five product categories: 
Miscellaneous metal products coatings, plastic parts coatings, auto and 
light-duty truck assembly coatings, fiberglass boat manufacturing 
materials, and miscellaneous industrial adhesives.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pursuant to the court's order in Sierra Club v. EPA, 1:01-
cv-01597-PLF (D.C. Cir., March 31, 2006), EPA must take final action 
on the product categories in Group IV by September 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 40233]]

portable fuel containers, and aerosol coatings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 63 FR 48792, 48819, and 48848 (September 11, 1998); 72 
FR 8428 (February 26, 2007); and 73 FR 15604 (March 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) further provides that we may issue a CTG 
in lieu of a national regulation for a product category where we 
determine 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 we are to make this 
determination, but does provide a fundamental distinction between 
national regulations and CTG.
    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, CTG are guidance 
documents that recommend reasonably available control technology (RACT) 
measures that States can adopt and apply to the end-users of products. 
This dichotomy (i.e., that EPA cannot directly regulate end-users under 
CAA section 183(e), but can address end-users through a CTG) created by 
Congress is relevant to EPA's evaluation of the relative merits of a 
national regulation versus a CTG.

C. Significance of CTG

    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 SIP 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.
    EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a 
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control 
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and 
economic feasibility,'' 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979). In subsequent 
notices, EPA has addressed how States can meet the RACT requirements of 
the CAA. Significantly, RACT for a particular industry is determined on 
a case-by-case basis, considering issues of technological and economic 
feasibility.
    EPA provides States with guidance concerning what types of controls 
could constitute RACT for a given source category through issuance of a 
CTG. The recommendations in the CTG are based on available data and 
information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the 
circumstances. 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 CAA and EPA's regulations. To the extent a State adopts any of 
the recommendations in a CTG into its State RACT rules, interested 
parties can raise questions and objections about the substance of the 
guidance and the appropriateness of the application of the guidance to 
a particular situation during the development of the State rules and 
EPA's SIP approval process.
    We encourage States in developing their RACT rules to consider 
carefully the facts and circumstances of the particular sources in 
their States because, as noted above, RACT is determined on a case-by-
case basis, considering issues of technological and economic 
feasibility. For example, a State may decide not to require 90 percent 
control efficiency at facilities that are already well controlled, if 
the additional emission reductions would not be cost-effective. States 
may also want to consider reactivity-based approaches, as appropriate, 
in developing their RACT regulations.\3\ Finally, if States consider 
requiring more stringent VOC content limits than those recommended in 
the draft CTG, 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.\4\ However, EPA guidance permits averaging 
times longer than 24 hours under certain conditions.\5\ The EPA's 
``Economic Incentive Policy'' \6\ provides guidance on use of long-term 
averages with regard to RACT and generally provides for averaging times 
of no greater than 30 days. Thus, if the appropriate conditions are 
present, States may consider the use of averaging in conjunction with 
more stringent limits. Because of the nature of averaging, however, we 
would expect that any State RACT Rules that allow for averaging also 
include appropriate recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds 
in Ozone State Implementation Plans,'' 70 FR 54046 (September 13, 
2005).
    \4\ See, e.g., 52 FR 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.''
    \5\ Memorandum from John O'Connor, Acting Director of the Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ``Averaging 
Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits-SIP Revision Policy.''
    \6\ ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, 
January 2001,'' available at http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/
artd/air/policy/search.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By this action, we are making available four draft CTGs that cover 
the five product categories in Group IV of the CAA section 183(e) list 
(miscellaneous metal products coatings and plastic parts coatings are 
addressed in one draft CTG referred to as ``miscellaneous metal and 
plastic parts coatings''). These CTGs are guidance to the States and 
provide recommendations only. A State can develop its own strategy for 
what constitutes RACT for these five 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 CAA and its implementing 
regulations.
    Finally, CAA section 182(b)(2) provides that a CTG issued after 
1990 specify the date by which a State must submit a SIP revision in 
response to the CTG. In the draft CTGs at issue here, EPA provides that 
States should submit their SIP revisions within one year of the date 
that the CTGs are finalized.

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

    CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) authorizes EPA to issue a CTG in lieu of a 
regulation for a category of consumer and commercial products if a CTG 
``will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing VOC 
emissions''

[[Page 40234]]

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. Most 
recently, on October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57215), EPA issued a similar final 
determination for paper, film, and foil coatings; metal furniture 
coatings; and large appliance coatings. Recognizing that the statute 
does not specify any criteria for making a determination under CAA 
section 183(e)(3)(C), EPA, in 1999, 2006, and 2007, 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. 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 this determination, we 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. We believe 
that it is possible for the EPA 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 the unnecessary wasting of limited time and resources by the EPA and 
the stakeholders participating in the processes. Moreover, such an 
approach would be directly contrary to CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), which 
authorizes EPA to issue a CTG in lieu of a regulation if it determines 
that the CTG ``will be substantially as effective as'' a regulation in 
reducing VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.
    With regard to the five product categories at issue here, EPA notes 
that it does not have reliable quantitative data that would enable it 
to conduct a ton-by-ton comparison of the likely emission reductions 
associated with a national regulation versus a CTG. Although we 
conducted such a comparative analysis in 1999 for the product 
categories of wood furniture coatings, aerospace coatings and 
shipbuilding and repair coatings, (64 FR 37773, July 13, 1999), such 
analysis is not necessary for evaluating likely VOC emission 
reductions, particularly, where, as in our Group II action (71 FR 
58745, October 5, 2006), our Group III action (72 FR 57215, October 9, 
2007), 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 IV product categories, 
EPA proposes to determine that CTGs for miscellaneous metal products 
coatings, plastic parts coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly 
coatings, fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, and miscellaneous 
industrial adhesives will be substantially as effective as national 
regulations in reducing VOC emissions from facilities located in ozone 
nonattainment areas.
    In each of the four sections below (miscellaneous metal products 
coatings and plastic parts coatings are addressed in a single CTG and 
are therefore addressed in the same section 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 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 five product categories are 
appropriate for inclusion on the CAA section 183(e) list in accordance 
with the factors and criteria that EPA used to develop the original 
list. See Consumer and Commercial Products: Schedule for Regulation, 60 
FR 15264 (March 23, 1995).

F. Availability of Documents

    We have prepared four draft CTG documents covering the five 
consumer and commercial product categories addressed in this action 
(miscellaneous metal products coatings and plastic parts coatings are 
addressed in a single CTG). Each of the draft CTGs addresses, among 
other things, RACT recommendations, cost impacts, and existing Federal, 
State and local VOC control strategies. In conjunction with the draft 
CTG for Auto and Light-Duty Truck Coating, we have also prepared a 
draft revision of the Automobile Topcoat Protocol (please see section 
III.B for a more detailed discussion). The draft CTG and the draft 
revision of the Automobile Topcoat Protocol are available for public 
comment and are contained in the respective dockets listed in the 
ADDRESSES section of this notice.

[[Page 40235]]

II. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

A. Industry Characterization

1. Source Category Description
    The miscellaneous metal products coatings category and the plastic 
parts coatings category refer to coatings that are applied to 
miscellaneous metal products and plastic parts. Miscellaneous metal 
products and plastic parts include, but are not limited to, metal and 
plastic components of the following types of products as well as the 
products themselves: Motor vehicle parts and accessories, bicycles and 
sporting goods, toys, recreational vehicles, extruded aluminum 
structural components, railroad cars, heavier vehicles,\7\ medical 
equipment, lawn and garden equipment, business machines, laboratory and 
medical equipment, electronic equipment, steel drums, industrial 
machinery, metal pipes, and numerous other industrial and household 
products (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ``miscellaneous 
metal and plastic parts''). The draft CTG applies to manufacturers of 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts that surface-coat the parts they 
produce. The draft CTG also applies to facilities that perform surface 
coating of miscellaneous metal and plastic parts on a contract basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Heavier vehicles includes all vehicles that meet the 
definition of the term ``other motor vehicles,'' as defined in the 
National Emission Standards for Surface Coating of Automobile and 
Light-Duty Trucks at 40 CFR 63.3176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings do not include 
coatings that are a part of other product categories listed under 
section 183(e) of the CAA and/or addressed by other CTGs. These other 
categories that are not part of the miscellaneous metal and plastic 
parts coatings categories include shipbuilding and repair coatings; 
aerospace coatings; wood furniture coatings; metal furniture coatings; 
large appliance coatings; auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings; 
flatwood paneling coatings; and paper, film, and foil coatings. Can 
coatings, coil coatings, and magnet wire coatings were not listed under 
section 183(e) of the CAA, but were addressed by earlier CTGs, and are 
also not included in the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings 
categories.
    Sealers, deadeners, transit coatings and cavity waxes applied to 
new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies, or body parts for new 
automobiles or new light-duty trucks are included in the miscellaneous 
metal and plastic parts coatings categories and are addressed in the 
draft CTG for miscellaneous metal products and plastic parts coatings. 
In the draft CTG, however, we seek comments on whether the use of these 
coatings in the production of new automobiles and new light-duty trucks 
should be included in the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 
coatings categories and addressed in the CTG for miscellaneous metal 
and plastic parts coatings, or in the auto and light-duty truck 
assembly coatings category and addressed in the CTG for auto and light-
duty truck assembly coatings.
    Miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings include several 
categories of primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings, typically 
defined by the coatings function. The types of coating technologies 
used in the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating 
industry include higher solids, waterborne, and powder coatings, as 
well as conventional solvent-borne coatings. The coatings provide a 
covering, finish, or functional or protective layer to the surface of 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts. They also provide a decorative 
finish to these miscellaneous metal and plastic parts.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
    The VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 
surface coatings are a result of evaporation of the VOC contained in 
many of the coatings and cleaning materials \8\ used in miscellaneous 
metal and plastic parts surface coating operations. The primary VOC 
emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings occur 
during coating application, flash-off, and coating curing/drying. Some 
VOC emissions also occur during mixing and thinning of the coatings. 
The VOC emissions from mixing and thinning operations 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In a previous notice, EPA stated that the cleaning 
operations associated with certain specified section 183(e) consumer 
and commercial product categories, including the miscellaneous metal 
products coatings category and the plastic parts coatings category, 
would not be covered by EPA's 2006 CTG for industrial cleaning 
solvents (71 FR 44522 and 44540, August 4, 2006). In the notice, EPA 
expressed its intention to address cleaning operations associated 
with these categories in the CTGs for these specified categories if 
we determine that a CTG is appropriate for the respective 
categories. Accordingly, the draft CTG for the miscellaneous metal 
products coatings category and the plastic parts coatings category 
addresses VOC emissions from cleaning operations associated with 
these two product categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary VOC emissions from the cleaning materials occur during 
cleaning operations, which include spray gun cleaning, paint line 
flushing, rework operations, and touchup cleaning at final assembly. 
VOC emissions from surface preparation (where miscellaneous metal and 
plastic parts 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.
    As mentioned above, the majority of VOC emissions from 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings occur from evaporation 
of solvents in the coatings during coating application. The transfer 
efficiency (the percent of coating solids deposited on the metal and 
plastic parts) 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 and plastic 
parts, 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 miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 
surface coating industry may be in the form of a liquid or powder. 
Liquid coatings 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 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 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.
    Many spray-applied coatings on metal parts are electrostatically 
applied. Electrostatic spray application can be done with both liquid 
and powder coatings. In electrostatic coating, an electrical attraction 
between the paint, which is positively charged, and the grounded metal 
enhances the amount of coating deposited on the surface. For liquid 
coatings, this coating method is more efficient than conventional air 
atomized spray, with transfer efficiency typically ranging from 60 to 
90 percent.
    Other liquid coating application methods used in the miscellaneous

[[Page 40236]]

metal and plastic parts surface coating industry include flow coating, 
roll coating, high volume/low pressure (HVLP) spray, electrocoating, 
autophoretic coating, and application by hand. These coating methods 
are described in more detail in the draft CTG.
    Spray-applied coatings are typically applied in a spray booth to 
capture paint overspray, remove solvent vapors from the workplace, and 
to keep the coating operation from being contaminated by dirt from 
other operations. In spray coating operations, the majority of VOC 
emissions occur in the spray booth.
    After coatings are applied, the coated miscellaneous metal and 
plastic parts and products are often baked or cured in heated drying 
ovens, but some are air dried, especially for some heat-sensitive 
plastic parts. For liquid spray and dip coating operations, the coated 
parts or products are typically first moved through a flash-off area 
after the coating application operation. The flash-off area 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 part or 
product moves through the flash-off area), and the distance between the 
application area and bake oven.
    After flash-off, the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts are 
usually cured or dried. For powder coatings on miscellaneous metal 
parts, the curing/drying step melts the powder and forms a continuous 
coating on the part 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.
    The VOC emissions from the coating process can be controlled and 
reduced through changes in coatings and application technology. Until 
the late 1970's, conventional solvent-borne coatings were used in the 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 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 miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating 
industry uses primarily higher solids solvent-borne coatings and 
waterborne coatings, as well as powder coatings on miscellaneous metal 
parts. Other alternative coatings include UV-cured coatings. These 
coatings are described in more detail in the CTG. When feasible, many 
coatings are applied by electrostatic spraying which, as mentioned 
above, has a higher transfer efficiency than the conventional air 
atomized spray. The combination of low-VOC coating type and 
electrostatic spraying 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.
    The most common approach to reduce emissions from miscellaneous 
metal and plastic parts coating operations is to use low-VOC content 
coatings, including powder coatings, higher solids solvent-borne 
coatings, and UV-cured coatings. More efficient coating application 
methods can also be used to reduce VOC emissions by reducing the amount 
of coating that is used in coating operations. Add-on controls may also 
be used to reduce VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic 
parts coatings and cleaning materials. In some cases, add-on controls 
are used where it is necessary or desirable to use high-VOC materials, 
but they are also used in combination with low-VOC coatings and/or more 
efficient coating application methods to achieve additional emission 
reductions.
    As previously mentioned, the majority of VOC emissions from spray 
coating operations occur in the spray booth. The VOC concentration in 
spray booth exhaust is typically low because a large volume of exhaust 
air is used to dilute the VOC emissions for safety reasons. Although 
VOC emissions in spray booth exhaust can be controlled with add-on 
controls, because of the large volume of air that must be treated and 
the low concentration of VOC, it is generally not cost-effective to do 
so. On the other hand, the wide availability and lower cost of low-VOC 
content coatings makes them a more attractive option than add-on 
controls for reducing VOC emissions during coating application. For 
those situations where an add-on control device can be justified for 
production or specific coating requirements, 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 or mix 
coatings containing VOC solvents, work practices (e.g., using closed 
storage containers) are used throughout the miscellaneous metal and 
plastic parts surface coating industry.
    Work practices are also widely used throughout the miscellaneous 
metal and plastic parts surface coating industry as a means of reducing 
VOC emissions from 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, low vapor pressure, or low boiling point 
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 miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 
surface coating industry.
3. Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Control Strategies
    There are five previous EPA actions that affect miscellaneous metal 
and plastic parts surface coating operations. These actions are 
summarized below, but are described in more detail in the actual 
proposed CTG.
     CTG for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products (1978).
     New Source Performance Standards for Surface Coating of 
Plastic Parts for Business Machines (1988).
     Alternative Control Techniques Document for Surface 
Coating of Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts 
(1994).
     National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (2004).
     National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (2004).
    In 1978, EPA issued a CTG document entitled ``Control of Volatile 
Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources Volume VI: Surface 
Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products'' (EPA-450/2-78-015) 
(1978 CTG) that provided RACT recommendations for controlling VOC 
emissions from miscellaneous metal part surface coating operations. The 
1978 CTG addressed VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal part coating 
lines, which include the coating application area, the flash-off area, 
and the curing/drying ovens. The 1978 CTG

[[Page 40237]]

did not cover can coating, coil coating, wire coating, auto and light 
duty truck coating, metal furniture coating, and large appliance 
coating, all of which were addressed by other CTGs. The 1978 CTG 
recommended RACT VOC content limits for five miscellaneous metal part 
surface coating categories. These categories included (1) coatings for 
air-dried or forced air-dried items, including parts too large or too 
heavy for practical size ovens and/or with sensitive heat requirements, 
for parts to which heat-sensitive materials are attached, and for 
equipment assembled prior to top coating for specific performance or 
quality standards; (2) clear coatings; (3) coatings for outdoor or 
harsh exposure or extreme performance characteristics; (4) powder 
coatings; and (5) all other coatings, including baked coatings, and the 
first coat applied on an untreated ferrous substrate. The recommended 
VOC content limits for these five categories were all expressed in the 
form of kg VOC per liter of coating, minus water and exempt 
compounds.\9\ The 1978 CTG did not address VOC emissions from cleaning 
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The list of exempt compounds that are considered to be 
negligibly photochemically reactive in forming ozone can be found in 
the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1988, EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) 
for the surface coating of plastic parts for business machines (40 CFR 
part 60 subpart TTT).\10\ Business machines include typewriters, 
electronic computers, calculating and accounting machines, telephone 
and telegraph equipment, photocopy machines, and other office machines 
not elsewhere classified. The NSPS established VOC emission limits for 
spray booths in four categories of coating operations (Prime coating, 
Color coating, Texture coating, and Touch-up Coating). All of these 
limits were in units of kg VOC per liter of coating solids applied to 
the part, which accounts for the transfer efficiency of the coating 
application equipment. The NSPS did not address cleaning operations or 
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 1988 NSPS applies to sources that commenced 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after January 8, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1994, EPA published ``Alternative Control Techniques Document: 
Surface Coating of Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine 
Plastic Parts'' (EPA-453/R-94-017, February 1994) (1994 ACT). The 1994 
ACT provides information on control techniques for VOC emissions from 
the surface coating of plastic parts for automotive/transportation and 
business machine/electronic products. It provides information on 
emissions, controls, control options, and costs that States can use in 
developing rules based on RACT, but presents only options in terms of 
coating reformulation control levels, and does not contain a 
recommendation on RACT. The 1994 ACT presented coating reformulation 
control levels for over 20 categories of coatings in terms of kg VOC 
per liter of coating, less water and exempt compounds. The 1994 ACT did 
not address VOC emissions from cleaning materials.
    Because the 1988 NSPS limits are expressed in terms of coating 
solids deposited and the 1994 ACT recommended limits are expressed in 
terms of VOC per gallon of coating, less water and exempt solvents, 
these limits cannot be compared directly for surface coating of 
business machine plastic parts without making an assumption for the 
transfer efficiency of the application equipment. If we assume a 
transfer efficiency of 40 percent, then the 1988 NSPS limits for 
business machine coating are less stringent than the most stringent 
control level in the 1994 ACT for comparable categories of coatings.
    In 2004, EPA promulgated the National Emissions Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts 
and Products, 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, which applies to metal part 
surface coating operations. In the same year, EPA also promulgated the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface 
Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP. 
These two NESHAP addressed organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 
emissions, from all activities at a facility that involve coatings, 
thinners, and cleaning materials used in metal part and plastic part 
surface coating operations. The two NESHAP regulate coating operations 
(including surface cleaning, coating application, and equipment 
cleaning); 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 NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts and products surface 
coating established organic HAP emission limitations for five 
categories of coatings (general use, high performance, magnet wire, 
rubber to metal bonding, and extreme performance fluoropolymer 
coatings). The NESHAP for plastic parts and products surface coating 
set organic HAP emission limitations for four categories of coatings 
(general use, automotive lamp, thermoplastic olefin substrates, and 
assembled on-road vehicles). In each NESHAP, coatings that do not meet 
one of the specialty category definitions are subject to the general 
use emission limitations. In demonstrating compliance with the HAP 
content limits for each category in both NESHAP, sources have to 
include the HAP emissions from cleaning in their emission calculations. 
Since these two NESHAP are both based on coating reformulation to lower 
the HAP content, it is not known how compliance has affected VOC 
emissions, if at all, since HAP could be replaced with non-HAP VOC in 
many coatings.
    In addition to the EPA actions mentioned above, at least 37 States 
and several local jurisdictions have specific regulations that control 
VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface 
coating operations. These States and local jurisdictions require one or 
more of the following measures: limits on the VOC content of coatings, 
requirements to reduce VOC emissions from cleaning operations, and 
requirements to use high transfer efficiency application equipment or 
methods to apply coatings. The State actions addressing miscellaneous 
metal and plastic parts surface coating are described in detail in the 
actual draft CTG.
    Almost all of the States that specifically address metal part 
coatings have adopted the categories and corresponding emission limits 
recommended in the 1978 CTG. However, 19 States have additional 
categories and limits, usually to address high performance 
architectural coatings, steel pail and drum coatings, or heavy duty 
truck coating.
    In 1992, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) developed a RACT 
guidance document for metal part surface coating operations that 
included separate VOC content limits for baked and air dried coatings. 
The ARB guidance contains RACT limits for general coatings and 15 
categories of specialty coatings. Coatings that do not meet the 
definition of one of the specialty categories are subject to the 
general coating limit. Compared to the 1978 CTG, which recommended 
separate limits for five categories, the 1992 ARB guidance has specific 
limits for more categories of specialty coatings that cannot meet the 
more stringent ``general use'' category limits. However, overall, the 
recommended VOC content limits in the 1992 ARB guidance are more 
stringent than the recommended limits in the 1978 CTG.

[[Page 40238]]

    A total of 15 air pollution control Districts in California have 
established rules for metal part surface coating operations, but they 
do not all include the same categories and limits as the ARB RACT 
guidance. Among these Districts, the South Coast Air Quality Management 
District (SCAQMD) has adopted the most stringent VOC content limits for 
21 categories of metal parts coatings in SCAQMD Rule 1107 (South Coast 
Rule 1107). All of these limits, except the limits for four categories 
of air dried coatings (general use one component coatings, extreme high 
gloss, and one and two component high performance architectural 
component coatings), have been in place since the rule's 1996 amendment 
or earlier. Since the 1996 amendment, SCAQMD has further tightened the 
limits for these four categories of air dried coatings through 
subsequent amendments to Rule 1107.
    As an alternative to meeting VOC content limits, South Coast Rule 
1107 requires that, if add-on controls are used, the control system 
must capture at least 90 percent of the VOC emissions. Rule 1107 
further requires that the captured VOC emissions be reduced by at least 
95 percent or the VOC concentration at the outlet of the air pollution 
control device be no more than 5 ppm VOC by volume calculated as carbon 
with no dilution, and that the control system achieves at least 90 
percent capture. The add-on control requirements described above have 
been in place since the rule's 1996 amendment or earlier.
    In addition to SCAQMD Rule 1107, SCAQMD has also issued SCAQMD Rule 
1125 to regulate VOC emissions from steel pail and drum coating 
operations, whose coatings are included in the miscellaneous metal 
products coatings category listed under 183(e). SCAQMD Rule 1125 
establishes limits for interior and exterior coatings used on new and 
reconditioned drums and pails. At least four other Districts have 
specific limits for these surface coating operations in either their 
metal part surface coating rules or rules for metal container coating 
operations.
    For plastic part surface coating, 13 States have established rules 
to limit VOC emissions, and one State has issued a proposed rule. Seven 
of the State rules (Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New 
Hampshire, Tennessee, and Wisconsin) and the one proposed rule (Ohio) 
adopted the categories and control levels in the 1994 ACT for 
automotive and business machine plastic parts. The other six States 
(Arizona, California, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, and New York) have 
not adopted the control levels provided in the 1994 ACT. Instead, they 
have adopted limits for only one or two categories of plastic parts 
coatings. In some cases, these limits apply to all plastic parts 
coatings and are not limited to only automotive or business machine 
plastic parts. These limits are generally not as stringent as the most 
stringent control level in the 1994 ACT for comparable coating 
categories.
    Three California Air Quality Management Districts, including the 
SCAQMD, have rules containing emission limits for coating plastic 
parts. South Coast Rule 1145 (Plastic, Rubber, Leather, And Glass 
Coatings) has VOC content limits for 11 categories of coatings that can 
be applied to plastics. All of these limits, except the limits for four 
categories (general use one and two component coatings, electrical 
dissipating and shock free coatings, and optical coatings), have been 
in place since the rule's 1997 amendment or earlier. Since the 1997 
amendment, SCAQMD has further tightened the limits for the four 
categories identified above through subsequent amendments to Rule 1145.
    As an alternative to meeting VOC content limits, South Coast Rule 
1145 requires that, if add-on controls are used the control system must 
capture at least 90 percent of the VOC emissions. Rule 1145 further 
requires that the captured VOC emissions be reduced by at least 95 
percent or the VOC concentration at the outlet of the air pollution 
control device be no more than 5 ppm VOC by volume calculated as carbon 
with no dilution, and that the control system achieves at least 90 
percent capture. The add-on control requirements described above have 
been in place since 1997 or earlier.
    Several States (California, Arizona, Massachusetts, and New 
Hampshire) that limit the VOC content of the coatings used for 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coating have requirements to use 
specific types of high-efficiency coating application methods to 
further reduce VOC emissions. For example, in addition to limiting the 
VOC contents in the coatings, SCAQMD Rule 1107 requires the use of one 
of the following types of application equipment: Electrostatic 
application; flow coating; dip coating; roll coating; hand application; 
HVLP spray; or an alternative method that is demonstrated to be capable 
of achieving a transfer efficiency equal to or better than HVLP spray. 
Alternative methods must be approved by the District based on actual 
transfer efficiency measurements in a side-by-side comparison of the 
alternative method and an HVLP spray gun. Rules that regulate emissions 
from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating from at 
least nine other Districts are similar to SCAQMD Rule 1107 in that they 
also require that sources use methods that achieve high transfer 
efficiency.
    California and at least 11 other States have requirements to reduce 
VOC emissions from cleaning materials used in metal and plastic parts 
surface coating operations. At least 12 Districts in California 
regulate the VOC content of cleaning materials used in these surface 
coating operations. These regulations are aimed at reducing VOC 
emissions from cleaning materials by combining work practice and 
equipment standards with limits on the VOC content, boiling point, or 
composite vapor pressure of the solvent being used. Some District rules 
allow the use of add-on controls as an alternative to the VOC content/
boiling point/vapor pressure limits for cleaning materials. As 
mentioned above, several Districts have established work practice and 
equipment standards to minimize VOC solvent emissions. These standards 
include, for example, using closed containers for storing solvent and 
solvent containing wipes and rags, using enclosed and automated spray 
gun washing equipment, and prohibiting atomized spraying of solvent 
during spray gun cleaning. However, the cleaning material VOC content/
boiling point/vapor pressure limits, overall control efficiency 
requirements, and work practices vary by District.
    Among the other States, besides California, with cleaning material 
requirements, only Massachusetts limits the VOC content of solvents 
used for surface preparation, and none limit the VOC content, boiling 
point, or vapor pressure of solvents used for spray gun cleaning. 
Instead, they have established equipment standards and work practices, 
such as using enclosed spray gun washers and storing solvents and 
solvent containing rags and wipes in closed containers. For metal part 
surface coating operations, seven States require that VOC from 
equipment cleaning be considered in determining compliance with the 
emission limit for each coating category, unless the solvent is 
directed into containers that prevent evaporation into the atmosphere.

B. Recommended Control Techniques

    The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for reducing 
VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface 
coatings and associated cleaning materials. As explained in the draft 
CTG, we are

[[Page 40239]]

recommending these control options for miscellaneous metal and plastic 
parts surface coating operations that emit 6.8 kg VOC per day (VOC/day) 
(15 lb VOC/day or 3 tons per year (tpy)) or more before consideration 
of control. For purposes of determining whether a facility meets the 
6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) threshold, aggregate emissions 
from all miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating 
operations and related cleaning activities at a given facility are 
included.
    The draft CTG would not apply to facilities that emit below the 
threshold level because of the very small VOC emission reductions that 
would be achieved. The recommended threshold level is equivalent to the 
evaporation of approximately two 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 National Emission Inventory (NEI) data and the 2004 ozone 
nonattainment designations, facilities emitting below the recommended 
threshold level collectively emit less than four percent of the total 
reported VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 
surface coating facilities in ozone nonattainment areas. For these 
reasons, the draft CTG does not specify control for these low emitting 
facilities. This recommended threshold is also consistent with our 
recommendations in many previous CTGs.
    In addition, with respect to heavier vehicle \11\ bodies and body 
parts coatings, which are included in the Miscellaneous Metal Products 
and Plastic Parts coatings categories and are therefore covered by this 
draft CTG, we recommend certain flexibility in applying this draft CTG. 
Specifically, we recommend that States consider structuring their RACT 
rules to provide heavier vehicle coating facilities with the option of 
meeting the requirements for automobile and light-duty truck coating 
category in lieu of the requirements for the miscellaneous metal 
products coatings category or the plastic parts coatings category. 
Please see section III.B of this notice for a discussion of our reasons 
for this recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As previously mentioned, heavier vehicles refers to all 
vehicles that meet the definition of the term ``other motor 
vehicles,'' as defined in the NESHAP for Surface Coating of 
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks at 40 CFR 63.3176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Coatings
    The draft CTG provides flexibility by recommending three options 
for controlling VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic 
parts coatings: (1) VOC content limits for each coating category based 
on the use of low-VOC content coatings (expressed as kg VOC per liter 
(kg VOC/l) coating, less water and exempt compounds) and specified 
application methods to achieve good coating transfer efficiency; (2) 
emission rate limits (expressed as kg VOC/l of coating solids) based on 
the use of a combination of low-VOC coatings, specified application 
methods, and add-on controls; or (3) an overall control efficiency of 
90 percent for facilities that choose to use add-on controls instead of 
low-VOC content coatings and specified application methods. The first 
two options are expected to achieve equivalent VOC emission reductions. 
The third option provides facilities the flexibility to use a high 
efficiency add-on control in lieu of low-VOC coatings and specified 
application methods, especially when the use of high VOC coatings is 
necessary or desirable. The third option is expected to achieve an 
emission reduction at least as great as the first two options.
    For Option 1, we are recommending the VOC content limits and 
application method, as well as the exemptions, in the following 
regulations:
     South Coast AQMD's Rule 1107 (March 6, 1996) for Coating 
of Metal Parts and Products.
     South Coast AQMD's Rule 1125 (as amended January 13, 1995) 
for Metal Container, Closure, and Coil Coating.
     South Coast AQMD's Rule 1145 (February 14, 1997) for 
Plastic, Rubber, Leather, and Glass Coatings.
     Michigan Rule 336.1632 (as amended April 28, 1993) for 
Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds From Existing Automobile, Truck, 
and Business Machine Plastic Part Coating Lines.
    The limits in SCAQMD Rule 1125 and Michigan Rule 336.1632 have been 
in place since the amendments noted above for these rules. As mentioned 
above, SCAQMD has changed the limits for several categories in SCAQMD 
Rules 1107 and 1145 in subsequent amendments to these two rules. These 
new limits, however, have not been in place very long. We do not have 
information regarding the cost of implementing these new limits. We 
could not conclude that these limits are technologically and 
economically feasible and, therefore, reflect RACT for all affected 
facilities in ozone nonattainment areas nationwide. We are, therefore, 
not recommending the limits in SCAQMD Rules 1107 and 1145 promulgated 
subsequent to the amendments to these rules noted above.
    The recommended limits in SCAQMD rules described above are more 
stringent than the limits provided in other existing Federal, State, 
and local actions limiting VOC emissions from these coating categories. 
Because of the large size of the SCAQMD and the number of regulated 
sources, the facilities subject to these three SCAQMD rules are 
considered to be representative of the type of sources located in other 
parts of the country. The recommended limits have been or were in 
effect a long time (i.e., since 1997 or earlier). Therefore, we believe 
that these limits are technically and economically feasible for sources 
in other parts of the country and, therefore, have included them as our 
recommendations in the draft CTG.
    The Michigan rule is based on the control levels provided in the 
1994 ACT, which is more stringent than the 1988 NSPS for comparable 
coating categories for business machines. Michigan has a substantial 
number of sources subject to Rule 336.1632, and these sources' 
compliance with Michigan Rule 336.1632 shows that the VOC content 
limits in Michigan Rule 336.1632 are technically and economically 
feasible. The limits in the Michigan rule have been in effect since 
1993. Therefore, we recommend in the draft CTG the VOC content limits 
contained in Michigan Rule 336.1632.
    Specifically, for miscellaneous metal parts surface coatings, 
Option 1 in the draft CTG includes the VOC content limits in SCAQMD 
Rule 1107 (Coating of Metal Parts and Products, March 6, 1996), which 
sets separate limits for baked coatings and air-dried coatings for 21 
categories of coatings used on metal parts. Option 1 also includes four 
limits for drum, pail and lid coating in SCAQMD Rule 1125 (Metal 
Container, Closure, and Coil Coating Operations, as amended January 13, 
1995).
    For surface coating of plastic parts that are not part of 
automotive/transportation equipment or business machines, the draft CTG 
includes the VOC content limits in SCAQMD Rule 1145 (Plastic, Rubber, 
Leather, and Glass coatings) (February 14, 1997) for 11 categories of 
plastic parts coatings. These limits became effective January 1, 1998. 
As mentioned above, all but four of these limits are still in place.
    For surface coatings for automotive plastic parts and business 
machine plastic parts, Option 1 includes the VOC content limits in 
Michigan Rule 336.1632 (Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds from 
Existing Automobile, Truck, and Business Machine Plastic Part Coating 
Lines).

[[Page 40240]]

    As in the SCAQMD rule 1107, for metal parts coatings, we recommend 
in the draft CTG that only the recommended work practices, but not the 
recommended VOC limits and application methods, apply to the following 
types of coatings and coating operations: Stencil coatings; safety-
indicating coatings; magnetic data storage disk coatings; solid-film 
lubricants; electric-insulating and thermal-conducting coatings; 
coating application using hand-held aerosol cans; plastic extruded onto 
metal parts to form a coating. We also recommend that the recommended 
application methods not apply to touch-up coatings, repair coatings, 
and textured finishes, but we recommend that the recommended VOC limits 
and work practices apply to these coatings and coating operations.
    As in SCAQMD Rule 1145, we recommend in the draft CTG that the 
recommended application methods and work practices, but not the 
recommended VOC limits, apply to the following types of coatings and 
coating operations that are not for automotive/transportation equipment 
or business machines: Touch-up and repair coatings; stencil coatings 
applied on clear or transparent substrates; clear or translucent 
coatings; coatings applied at a paint manufacturing facility while 
conducting performance tests on the coatings; any individual coating 
category used in volumes less than 50 gallons in any one year, if 
substitute compliant coatings are not available, provided that the 
total usage of all such coatings does not exceed 200 gallons per year, 
per facility; reflective coating applied to highway cones; mask 
coatings that are less than 0.5 millimeter thick (dried) and the area 
coated is less than 25 square inches; or coatings that are less than 
0.5 millimeter thick (dried) and/or the area coated is more than 25 
square inches; EMI/RFI shielding coatings; heparin-benzalkonium 
chloride (HBAC)-containing coatings applied to medical devices, 
provided that the total usage of all such coatings does not exceed 100 
gallons per year, per facility; aerosol coating products; and airbrush 
operations using five gallons or less per year. We also recommend that 
the recommended application methods not apply to airbrush operations 
using 5 gallons or less per year of coating, but we recommend that the 
VOC limits and work practices apply to these operations.
    For automotive/transportation and business machine plastic part 
coating, we also recommend in the draft CTG that the recommended 
application methods and work practices, but not the recommended VOC 
limits, apply to the following types of coatings and operations: 
Texture coatings; vacuum metalizing coatings; gloss reducers; texture 
topcoats; adhesion primers; electrostatic preparation coatings; resist 
coatings; and stencil coatings. Further details of these 
recommendations, including tables of coating categories and limits, can 
be found in the draft CTG.
    The VOC emission rate limits in Option 2 (VOC per volume solids) 
were converted from the VOC content limits in Option 1 using an assumed 
VOC density of 7.36 lb/gallon (883 g/liter).
    The draft CTG also recommends the use of the following application 
methods to achieve good coating transfer efficiency when using low-VOC 
coatings under the first or second option: Electrostatic spray, HVLP 
spray, flow coat, roller coat, dip coat including electrodeposition, 
brush coat, or other coating application methods that are capable of 
achieving a transfer efficiency equivalent or better than that achieved 
by HVLP spraying. The draft CTG recommends the use of these application 
methods in conjunction with the use of low-VOC content coatings.
    Furthermore, the draft CTG recommends the following work practices 
for use with all three of the control options: (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. We recommend that, at a minimum, the 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 application, storage, mixing, and conveying equipment 
by ensuring that application equipment cleaning is performed without 
atomizing the cleaning solvent outside of an enclosure and all spent 
solvent is captured in closed containers.

C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques

    Based on the 2002 NEI database, we estimate that there are 3,925 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating facilities in the 
United States (U.S.). Using the April 2004 ozone nonattainment 
designations, we estimated that 2,539 of these facilities are in ozone 
nonattainment areas. Based on the 2002 NEI VOC emissions data, 1,296 of 
the 2,539 facilities in ozone nonattainment areas emitted VOC at or 
above the recommended 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) 
applicability threshold. These 1,296 facilities, in aggregate, emit an 
estimated 20,098 Mg/yr (22,108 tpy) of VOC, or an average of about 15.5 
Mg/yr (17.0 tpy) of VOC per facility.
    We have estimated the total annual control costs to be 
approximately $13.5 million based on the use of low-VOC coatings, and 
emission reductions will be about 35 percent. Since these recommended 
measures are expected to result in a VOC emissions reduction of 7,034 
Mg/yr (7,738 tpy), the cost-effectiveness is estimated to be $1,919/Mg 
($1,745/ton). The impacts are further discussed in the draft CTG 
document.
    We have concluded that the work practice recommendations in the 
draft CTG will result in a net cost savings. These work practices 
reduce the amount of cleaning materials used by decreasing the amount 
that evaporates and is therefore wasted. Similarly, the adoption of 
more efficient spray guns, as recommended in the CTG, will reduce 
coating consumption and will also result in net cost savings compared 
to conventional spray guns. However, because we cannot determine the 
extent to which these practices have already been adopted, we cannot 
quantify these savings. Therefore, these cost savings are not reflected 
in the above cost impacts.

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

    In determining whether to issue a national rule or a CTG for the 
product categories of miscellaneous metal product and plastic parts 
surface coatings under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four 
factors identified above in section I.D in

[[Page 40241]]

light of the specific facts and circumstances associated with these 
product categories. Based on that analysis, we propose to determine 
that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a rule in achieving 
VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from miscellaneous 
metal product and plastic parts surface coating and associated cleaning 
materials.
    This section is divided into two parts. In the first part, we 
discuss our belief that the most effective means of achieving VOC 
emission reductions in these two CAA section 183(e) product categories 
is through controls at the point of use of the product (i.e., through 
controls on the use of coating and cleaning materials at miscellaneous 
metal and plastic parts surface coating facilities), and these controls 
can be accomplished only 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 these two product categories 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 these categories 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 these categories.
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 miscellaneous metal 
and plastic parts surface 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 coatings that are marketed as miscellaneous metal and 
plastic parts coatings. However, the effect of such national rule 
setting low-VOC content limits for miscellaneous metal and plastic 
parts surface coatings could be easily subverted because it could not 
guarantee that only those low-VOC content coating materials would be 
used for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating. Many 
coatings used in miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating 
operations are not specifically marketed by the supplier as coatings 
for specific products. Therefore, these facilities could purchase and 
use high-VOC specialty coatings materials for routine coating 
operations, and this practice would effectively nullify the 
reformulation actions of the manufacturers and suppliers of low-VOC 
coatings, resulting in no net change in VOC emissions in ozone 
nonattainment areas.
    By contrast, a CTG can affect the end-users of the coating 
materials and, therefore, can implement the control measures that are 
more likely to achieve the objective of reducing VOC emissions from 
these product categories in ozone nonattainment areas. As previously 
discussed, the draft CTG recommends three options for reducing VOC 
emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coatings: 
(1) VOC content limits that can be achieved through the use of low-VOC 
content coatings and specific application methods; (2) equivalent 
emission limits based on the use of a combination of low-VOC coatings, 
specific application methods, and add-on controls; and (3) an overall 
90 percent control efficiency should a facility choose to use add-on 
controls in conjunction with high-VOC content coatings. In addition, we 
recommend in the draft CTG that certain work practices be implemented 
in conjunction with any of the three control options described above to 
further reduce VOC emissions from coatings as well as controlling VOC 
emissions from cleaning materials. These recommended work practices 
have been shown to effectively reduce VOC beyond the level achievable 
using either low-VOC materials and specific application methods or add-
on controls. Given the significant reductions achievable through the 
use of these recommended control measures, the most effective entity to 
address VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 
surface coatings is the facility using the coatings.
    These control measures are consistent with existing EPA, State, and 
local VOC control strategies applicable to miscellaneous metal and 
plastic parts surface coating. As mentioned above, previous EPA actions 
and existing State and local regulations (in particular, the 
regulations in the majority of the California air Districts and in 
Michigan) that address miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface 
coating similarly call for VOC emission reduction through the use of 
low-VOC content materials, or the use of control devices in conjunction 
with high-VOC content coating materials. Some State and local VOC 
control strategies also include work practices and specific application 
methods.
    We cannot, however, issue a national rule directly requiring 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 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)(B), the 
regulated entities subject to a national rule would be the coating 
manufacturers and suppliers, not the miscellaneous metal and plastic 
parts surface coating facilities. By contrast, a CTG can reach the end-
users of the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings and, 
therefore, can implement the control recommendations for end-users that 
are identified above as more likely to achieve the objective of 
reducing VOC emissions from these product categories in ozone 
nonattainment areas. Accordingly, we are including these recommended 
control measures in the draft CTG that applies to miscellaneous metal 
and plastic parts 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 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating process: (1) 
Limiting the VOC content, boiling point, 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 miscellaneous metal and plastic 
parts surface coating operations provide low-VOC content or low vapor 
pressure (high boiling point) cleaning materials would suffer from the 
same deficiencies noted above with regard to the coatings. 
Specifically, nothing in a national rule that regulates manufacturers 
and suppliers of cleaning materials specified for use in miscellaneous 
metal and plastic parts surface coating operations would preclude the 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating industry from 
purchasing bulk solvents or other multipurpose cleaning

[[Page 40242]]

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.
    The more effective approach for reducing VOC emissions from 
cleaning materials used by miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 
surface coaters is to control the use of cleaning materials through 
work practices. The draft CTG recommends that miscellaneous metal and 
plastic parts surface coating facilities implement work practices to 
reduce VOC emissions from cleaning materials during surface coating 
operations. Examples of effective work practices are: Keeping solvents 
and used shop towels in closed containers; using enclosed spray gun 
cleaners and preventing the atomized spraying of cleaning solvent 
outside of an enclosure; minimizing spills of VOC-containing cleaning 
materials; cleaning up spills immediately; and conveying any VOC-
containing cleaning materials in closed containers or pipes. These work 
practices have proven to be effective in reducing VOC emissions.
    Given the significant VOC reductions achievable through the 
implementation of work practices, we conclude that the most effective 
entity to address VOC emissions from cleaning materials used in 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 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 miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating 
operations.
    We cannot, however, issue a rule requiring such work practices for 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating facilities 
because, pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(B), the 
regulated entities subject to a national rule would be the cleaning 
materials manufacturers and suppliers and not the miscellaneous metal 
and plastic parts surface coating facilities. By contrast, a CTG can 
address these coating facilities. Accordingly, we are including in the 
draft CTG these work practices that apply to miscellaneous metal and 
plastic parts surface coating facilities as the end-users of the 
cleaning materials.
    Based on the nature of the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 
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 
these product categories is through controls at the point of use of the 
products, (i.e., through controls on miscellaneous metal and plastic 
parts surface coaters). This strategy can be accomplished only 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 miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating 
operations. These two factors alone demonstrate that a CTG will be 
substantially as effective as a national regulation under CAA section 
183(e) in addressing VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic 
parts surface coatings and associated cleaning materials in ozone 
nonattainment areas.
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 miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coatings 
and associated cleaning materials.
    First, miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coatings and 
associated cleaning materials are used at commercial facilities in 
specific, identifiable locations. Specifically, these materials are 
used in commercial manufacturing facilities that apply surface coating 
to miscellaneous metal and plastic parts, 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 VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic 
parts surface 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 miscellaneous 
metal and plastic parts 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 
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating facilities. As 
described above, our recommendations in the draft CTG include the use 
of control devices, specific application methods, and work practices. 
The 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 coatings and 
cleaning materials, are far more effective if implemented directly at 
the point of use of the product through a CTG. For the reasons stated 
above, it is more effective to control the VOC emissions from coatings 
and cleaning materials used for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 
surface coating through a CTG than through a national regulation.
    Furthermore, the number of miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 
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 these product categories. We recommend the control 
measures described in the draft CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic 
parts surface coating facilities that emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/
day or 3 tpy) or more VOC. Based on the April 2004 ozone nonattainment 
designations, we estimate that 1,296 of the 2,539 miscellaneous metal 
and plastic parts surface coating facilities located in ozone 
nonattainment areas emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or 
more and are therefore addressed by our recommendations in the draft 
CTG. We estimate that 1,243 miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 
surface coating facilities would not be covered by the recommendations 
in the draft CTG. However, according to the 2002 NEI database, these 
1,243 facilities collectively emitted about 670 Mg/yr (740 tpy) of VOC, 
which is less than four percent of the total reported VOC (an average 
of about 0.5 Mg/yr (0.5 tpy) per facility) in ozone nonattainment 
areas. The fact that the CTG addresses

[[Page 40243]]

more than 96 percent of the VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and 
plastic parts surface coating facilities in ozone nonattainment areas 
further supports our conclusion that a CTG is more likely to achieve 
the intended VOC emission reduction goal for these product categories 
than a national rule.
    Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and 
circumstances associated with these product categories, we propose to 
determine that a CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface 
coating facilities will be substantially as effective as a national 
regulation.

III. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings

A. Industry Characterization

1. Source Category Description
    This category of consumer and commercial products includes the 
coatings that are applied to new automobile or new light-duty truck 
bodies, or body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks.\12\ 
These bodies or body parts may be made of metal or plastic. The large 
majority of these coatings are specifically formulated, marketed and 
sold for this end use and are applied at automobile or light-duty truck 
assembly plants. However, this CAA section 183(e) category also 
includes coatings applied at facilities that perform these coating 
operations on a contractual basis. This category does not include 
coatings used at plastic or composites molding facilities as described 
in the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP (40 
CFR part 63, subpart IIII). Automobile and light-duty truck coatings 
enhance a vehicle's durability and appearance. Some of the coating 
system characteristics that automobile and light-duty truck 
manufacturers test for include adhesion, water resistance, humidity 
resistance, salt spray resistance, color, gloss, acid etch resistance, 
and stone chip resistance. The primary coatings used are 
electrodeposition primer (EDP), primer-surfacer (including anti-chip 
coatings), topcoat (basecoat and clearcoat) and final repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Please see 40 CFR 63.3176 (the NESHAP for Surface Coating 
of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks) for the definitions of 
``automobiles'' and ``light-duty trucks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sealers, deadeners, transit coatings and cavity waxes used in the 
production of new automobiles and new light-duty trucks are included in 
the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings categories and are 
addressed in the draft CTG for miscellaneous metal products and plastic 
parts coatings. Adhesives, glass bonding primers and glass bonding 
adhesives used in the production of new automobiles and new light-duty 
trucks are included in the miscellaneous industrial adhesives product 
category and are addressed in the draft CTG for miscellaneous 
industrial adhesives. In the draft CTG, however, we seek comments on 
whether the use of these materials in the production of new automobiles 
and new light-duty trucks should instead be included in the auto and 
light-duty truck assembly coatings category and addressed in the CTG 
for auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings. In addition, in the 
draft CTG, we seek comments, including supporting VOC content 
information, on appropriate control recommendations specifically for 
the use of these materials in the production of new automobiles and new 
light-duty trucks if EPA were to include such use of these materials in 
the auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings category and address 
them in the CTG for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
    The VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty truck surface 
coating operations are primarily a result of evaporation of the VOC 
contained in the coatings and cleaning materials used in these 
operations.\13\ The primary VOC emissions from automobile and light-
duty truck surface coatings occur during coating application/flash-off 
and curing/drying of the coatings. The remaining emissions are mainly 
from mixing and/or thinning. The VOC emissions from mixing and thinning 
of coatings occur from displacement of VOC-laden air in containers used 
to mix coatings containing solvents (thinners) prior to coating 
application. The displacement of VOC-laden air can also occur during 
filling of containers and can be caused by changes in temperature, 
changes in barometric pressure, or agitation during mixing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In a previous notice, EPA stated that the cleaning 
operations associated with certain specified 183(e) consumer and 
commercial product categories, including automobile and light duty-
truck assembly coatings, would not be covered by EPA's 2006 CTG for 
industrial cleaning solvents (71 FR 44522 and 44540, August 4, 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 EPA determines that a CTG is 
appropriate for a respective category * * *. Accordingly, the draft 
CTG for auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings category 
addresses VOC emissions from cleaning operations associated with 
this product category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The VOC emissions from coating application occur when solvent 
evaporates from the coating as it is being applied to the vehicle part 
or body. The transfer efficiency (the percent of coating solids applied 
to the automobile or light-duty truck body or body part) of a coating 
application method affects the amount of VOC emitted during coating 
application. A coating application method that is more efficient in 
transferring coatings to the substrate will reduce the volume of 
coatings (and therefore solvents) needed per given amount of 
production; thus reducing VOC emissions.
    Before coatings are applied, the body of an automobile or light-
duty truck is assembled, anticorrosion operations are performed, and 
any plastic parts to be finished with the body are installed. A series 
of coatings are applied to protect the metal surface from corrosion and 
assure good adhesion of subsequent coatings. First, an EDP coating is 
applied to the body using a method in which a negatively charged 
automobile or light-duty truck body is immersed in a positively charged 
bath of waterborne EDP. The coating particles (resin and pigment) 
migrate toward the body and are deposited onto the body surface, 
creating a strong bond between the coating and the body to provide a 
durable coating. Once the coating application deposition is completed, 
the body is rinsed in a succession of individual spray and/or immersion 
rinse stations and then dried with an automatic air blow-off. Following 
the rinsing stage (including the automatic air blow-off), the deposited 
coating is cured in an electrodeposition curing oven.
    After curing, the body is further water-proofed by sealing spot-
welded joints of the body. After sealing, the body proceeds to the 
anti-chip booth where anti-chip coatings are applied to protect the 
vulnerable areas of the body. Next, a primer-surfacer coating is 
applied. The purpose of the primer-surfacer coating is to provide 
``filling'' or hide minor imperfections in the body, provide additional 
protection to the vehicle body, and bolster the appearance of the 
topcoats. Primer-surfacer coatings are applied by spray application in 
a water-wash spray booth. Following application of the primer-surfacer, 
the body is baked to cure the film, minimize dirt pickup, and reduce 
processing time.
    The next step of the coating process is the spray application of 
the topcoat, which usually consists of a basecoat (color) and a 
clearcoat. The purpose of the clearcoat is to add luster and durability 
to the vehicle finish and protect the total coating system against 
solvents, chemical agents, water,

[[Page 40244]]

weather, and other environmental effects.
    After the topcoat (i.e., a basecoat and a clearcoat) is applied, 
the automobile or light-duty truck body or body parts proceed to a 
flash-off area, where a certain level of solvent evaporation occurs. 
This step is designed to prevent bubble formation during curing in the 
bake oven. After flash-off, the automobile and light-duty truck bodies 
or body parts are then dried/cured in bake ovens.
    The amount of VOC emissions from the flash-off area depends on the 
type of coating used, how quickly the component or product moves 
through the flash-off area, and the distance between the application 
area and the bake oven. For liquid spray applications, it is estimated 
that 65-80 percent of the volatiles are emitted during the application 
and flash-off operations, and the remaining 20-35 percent from the 
curing/drying operation.
    After curing of the topcoat, the vehicle proceeds to final 
assembly. If necessary, the fully assembled vehicle proceeds to final 
repair, where coatings are applied and other operations are performed 
to correct damage or imperfections in the coating. The coatings applied 
during final repair are cured at a lower temperature than that used for 
curing primer-surfacer and topcoat. The lower cure temperature is 
necessary to protect heat-sensitive components on completely assembled 
motor vehicles.
    Until the 1970's, the majority of coatings used in the automobile 
and light-duty truck manufacturing industry were conventional solvent-
borne coatings, with high VOC content. Due to a combination of 
regulation at the State and Federal level, technology development and 
competitive factors, the industry has steadily moved to lower VOC 
content coatings. These alternative coatings include powder coatings, 
waterborne coatings, and higher solids coatings. The utilization of 
these alternative coatings in conjunction with efficient spray 
application equipment, such as electrostatic spray, is the primary 
method that is currently being used at auto and light-duty truck 
surface coating operations to reduce VOC emissions from the coatings. 
In addition, many facilities control the exhaust from their bake ovens. 
Some facilities have also employed partial spray booth controls by 
venting spray booth emissions, principally from automated spray zones, 
through an add-on control device such as an oxidizer or hybrid 
(concentrator followed by an oxidizer) control system.
    Powder anti-chip and primer-surfacer coatings are used at some 
automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants. Powder coating 
produces minimal amounts of VOC emissions. Powder coating is applied 
via powder delivery systems, which in most cases is an electrostatic 
spray. Because powder coatings are applied as dried particles, no VOC 
are released during the application operation. Depending on the powder 
formulation, some volatile emissions may occur when the powder is 
heated during the curing step. In any event, any volatile emissions 
from the heating of powder coatings would generally be much less than 
the volatile emissions from the heating of liquid coatings during the 
curing operations. Powder coating applications are best suited for long 
production runs of consistently sized parts without color changes.
    Waterborne coatings produce minimal VOC emissions primarily because 
a large portion of the VOC solvent carrier is replaced with water. 
Waterborne EDPs are used at almost every automobile and light-duty 
truck assembly plant. Waterborne primer-surfacer and waterborne 
basecoat are used at some automobile and light-duty truck assembly 
plants. Waterborne primer-surfacer and waterborne basecoat are applied 
by a combination of manual and automatic, and electrodeposition and 
non-electrodeposition spray techniques.
    Higher solids coatings contain more solids than ``conventional'' 
(pre-1980) coatings. These coatings reduce VOC emissions because they 
contain less VOC solvent per unit volume of solids than conventional 
solvent-borne coatings. Thus, a lesser amount of VOC emissions are 
released during coating preparation, application, and curing to deliver 
a given amount of coating solids. Higher solids primer-surfacer and 
basecoat are used at some automobile and light-duty truck assembly 
plants. Higher solids clearcoat is used at every automobile and light-
duty truck assembly plant. Higher solids primer-surfacer and basecoat 
are applied by a combination of manual and automatic, and 
electrodeposition and non-electrodeposition spray techniques.
    As previously mentioned, another source of VOC emissions from 
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations is cleaning 
materials. The VOC are emitted when solvents evaporate from the 
cleaning materials during use. Cleaning materials are used for several 
purposes, including the cleaning of spray guns, transfer lines (e.g., 
tubing or piping), tanks, and the interior of spray booths, and 
cleaning other unwanted materials from equipment related to coating 
operations. These cleaning materials are typically mixtures of organic 
solvents.
    Work practices are widely used throughout the automobile and light-
duty truck manufacturing industry to reduce VOC emissions from 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. Low-VOC content or low vapor 
pressure cleaning materials are used for certain cleaning activities. 
However, there is insufficient information available to correlate VOC 
content or vapor pressure to specific cleaning steps.
3. Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Control Strategies
    Three previous EPA actions addressed automobile and light-duty 
truck surface coating operations.
     CTG for Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, 
Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks (1977).
     New Source Performance Standard for Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations, 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM 
(1980).
     National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Surface Coating of Automobile and Light-Duty Trucks, 40 CFR 63, 
subpart IIII (2004).
    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). The 1977 CTG and subsequent implementation 
guidance provided RACT recommendations for controlling VOC emissions 
from automobile and light-duty trucks surface coating operations. These 
recommendations are summarized in Table 1.

[[Page 40245]]



  Table 1.--1977 CTG Recommended VOC Emission Limits for Automobile and
                    Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDP operation...........................  0.14 kg VOC/liter (1.2 lbs/
                                           gal) of coating, excluding
                                           water and exempt compounds,
                                           or 0.17 kg VOC/liter (1.4 lb
                                           VOC/gallon) of coating solids
                                           deposited.
Primer-surfacer (guide coat) operation..  1.8 kg VOC/liter (15.1 lb VOC/
                                           gallon) of coating solids
                                           deposited.
Topcoat operation.......................  1.8 kg VOC/liter (15.1 lb VOC/
                                           gallon) of coating solids
                                           deposited.
Final repair operation..................  0.58 kg VOC/liter (4.8 lbs/
                                           gal) of coating, excluding
                                           water and exempt compounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1980, EPA promulgated an NSPS for surface coating of automobile 
and light-duty trucks (40 CFR part 60 subpart MM). Due to the 
differences in emission limit formats, the NSPS and the 1977 CTG limits 
cannot be compared. The NSPS established the emission limits calculated 
on a monthly basis for each primecoat operation, guidecoat (primer-
surfacer) operation, and topcoat operation located in an automobile or 
light-duty truck assembly plant constructed, reconstructed, or modified 
after October 5, 1979 (Table 2). The NSPS does not apply to plastic 
body component coating operations or to all-plastic automobile or 
light-duty truck bodies coated on separate coating lines. The VOC 
emission limit for EDP primecoat operations depends on the solids 
turnover ratio (Rt). The solids turnover ratio is the ratio of total 
volume of coating solids added to the EDP system in a calendar month to 
the total volumetric design capacity of the EDP system.

           Table 2.--1980 NSPS VOC Emission Limits for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primecoat Operations (Non-EDP)......            0.17 kg VOC/liter (1.42 lb/gal) coating solids applied.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      When Rt = >=0.16:         When 0.040 <=Rt <0.160:  When Rt <0.040:
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primecoat Operations (EDP)..........  0.17 kg VOC/liter (1.42   0.17 x 3500.160-Rtkg     No VOC emission limit.
                                       lb/gal) coating solids    VOC/liter (0.17 x
                                       applied.                  3500.160	Rt x 8.34 lb/
                                                                 gal) coating solids
                                                                 applied.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidecoat Operations (including the             1.40 kg VOC/liter (11.7 lb/gal) coating solids applied.
 guide coat application, flash-off
 area, and oven).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topcoat Operations (including                   1.47 kg VOC/liter (12.3 lb/gal) coating solids applied.
 topcoat application, flash-off
 area, and oven).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2004, EPA promulgated the National Emissions Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobile and Light-Duty 
Trucks, 40 CFR, part 63, subpart IIII. The areas covered by the NESHAP 
include all the equipment used to apply coating to new automobile or 
light-duty truck bodies or body parts and to dry or cure the coatings 
after application; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which 
vehicle body coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored and 
mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for 
conveying vehicle body coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and 
all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and 
containers used to convey waste materials generated by an automobile 
and light-duty truck surface coating operation.
    The 2004 NESHAP for automobile and light-duty truck surface coating 
established organic HAP emission limitations calculated on a monthly 
basis for existing sources. More stringent limits apply to new sources, 
which are sources that commence construction after December 24, 2002. 
The limits for automobile and light-duty truck surface coating for 
existing and new sources are summarized in Table 3 below.

 Table 3.--2004 NESHAP HAP Emission Limits for Automobile and Light-Duty
                          Truck Surface Coating
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined primer-surfacer, topcoat,     0.060 kg organic HAP/liter of
 final repair, glass bonding primer,    coating solids deposited (0.50
 and glass bonding adhesive operation   lb/gal) for new or reconstructed
 plus all coatings and thinners,        affected sources.
 except for deadener materials and     0.132 kg organic HAP/liter of
 for adhesive and sealer materials      coating solids deposited (1.10
 that are not components of glass       lb/gal) for existing affected
 bonding systems, used in coating       sources.
 operations added to the affected
 source.
Combined EDP, primer-surfacer,         0.036 kg organic HAP/liter of
 topcoat, final repair, glass bonding   coating solids deposited (0.30
 primer, and glass bonding adhesive     lb/gal) for new or reconstructed
 operation plus all coatings and        affected sources.
 thinners, except for deadener         0.072 kg organic HAP/liter of
 materials and for adhesive and         coating solids deposited (0.60
 sealer materials that are not          lb/gal) for existing affected
 components of glass bonding systems,   sources.
 used in coating operations added to
 the affected source.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2004 NESHAP requires that facilities develop and implement a 
plan to minimize HAP emissions from cleaning operations for automobile 
and light-duty truck surface coating. The NESHAP also requires that 
facilities

[[Page 40246]]

utilize work practices to minimize organic HAP emissions from the 
storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, cleaning 
materials, and from handling waste materials generated by the coating 
operation.
    In addition to the EPA actions mentioned above, 14 States and 
California's Bay Area District, where the only automobile and light-
duty trucks manufacturing facility in California is located, have 
regulations that control VOC emissions from surface coating operations. 
These State RACT rules have VOC emission limits equivalent to the 1977 
CTG recommended limits or the NSPS limits.

B. Recommended Control Techniques

    The proposed CTG recommends: VOC emission limits for coating 
operations; work practices for storage and handling of coatings, 
thinners, and coating waste materials; and work practices for the 
handling and use of cleaning materials. The recommended VOC limits are 
based on 2006 and 2007 data from currently operating automobile and 
light-duty truck surface coating operations, and the work practices 
recommendations mirror those found in the NESHAP.
    During the development of the 2004 NESHAP, EPA identified 65 
automobile and light-duty truck assembly facilities operating in 1999. 
For the development of this CTG, The Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, an industry trade association representing the majority 
of these facilities, provided information from member companies and 
submitted this information to EPA. Non-member companies also provided 
information to EPA. Information was provided for 56 facilities. The 
information included VOC emission rates for EDP, primer-surfacer, and 
topcoat operations on a daily and monthly average for the calendar 
years 2006 and 2007. Most facilities also provided data showing maximum 
and minimum daily values, as well.
1. Applicability
    The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for reducing 
VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty truck surface coatings and 
cleaning materials. We are recommending that these control options 
apply to surface coating facilities that emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb 
VOC/day or 3 tpy) 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 two 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. This recommended threshold is also consistent with our 
recommendations in many previous CTGs.
    Although we do not believe that our recommendations are appropriate 
for auto and light-duty truck facilities that emit less than the 
applicability threshold recommended above, we believe that all auto and 
light-duty truck facilities emit at or above that level of VOC.
    The draft CTG also recommends that States consider structuring 
their RACT rules to provide facilities that coat bodies and/or body 
parts of heavy vehicles \14\ with the option of meeting either the 
State requirements for automobile and light-duty truck coating category 
or the requirements for miscellaneous metal products coatings category 
or the plastic parts coatings category. As mentioned in section II.B of 
this notice, heavy vehicle coatings are included in the Miscellaneous 
Metal Products and Plastic Parts Coatings categories under section 
183(e) and are therefore covered in the draft CTG for Miscellaneous 
Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. We note, however, that some 
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities also coat 
heavy vehicle bodies or body parts for heavier vehicles. The heavy 
vehicle bodies or body parts for heavier vehicles may be coated using 
the same equipment and materials that are used to coat automobile and 
light-duty truck bodies or body parts for automobiles and light-duty 
trucks. The permit requirements for the heavier vehicle portion of 
these combined use paint shops are often structured in the same way as 
permit requirements for automobile and light-duty truck paint shops. 
Also, some facilities that coat only heavier vehicle bodies or body 
parts for heavier vehicles have paint shops that are designed and 
operated in the same manner as paint shops that are used to coat 
automobile and light-duty truck bodies and body parts for automobiles 
and light-duty trucks. The permit requirements for these heavier 
vehicle paint shops are often structured in the same way as permit 
requirements for automobile and light-duty truck paint shops. In light 
of the above, providing heavier vehicle coating facilities with the 
option of meeting the State RACT requirements for the automobile and 
light-duty truck coating category in lieu of the requirements for 
Miscellaneous Metal Products or Plastic Parts categories will provide 
for the most consistency with existing permit requirements and simplify 
compliance demonstration requirements for these facilities. 
Furthermore, in light of the stringency of our recommended control 
measures in the draft Auto and Light-Duty Truck CTG, we believe that 
facilities that choose this alternative will achieve at least 
equivalent, if not greater, control of VOC emissions. For the reasons 
stated above, we recommend that States RACT rules provide heavier 
vehicle coating facilities the option of meeting either the State 
requirements for miscellaneous metals and plastic parts coatings or the 
requirements for auto and light-duty truck coatings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Heavy vehicles include all vehicles that are not 
automobiles or light-duty trucks, as those terms are defined at 40 
CFR 63.3176 (the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Automobiles and 
Light-Duty Trucks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Coatings

    The VOC emission limits recommended in the draft CTG are based on 
the data supplied by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers member 
companies and other manufacturers in 2008. These recommendations are 
more stringent than existing State RACT rules which are based on the 
1977 CTG or the NSPS limits.
    In conjunction with our recommended VOC emission limits for primer-
surfacer and topcoat, we recommend in the draft CTG that facilities 
follow the procedures and calculations in a draft revised ``Automobile 
Topcoat Protocol'' for determining the daily VOC emission rates of 
automobile and light-duty truck primer-surfacer and topcoat operations. 
In 1988, EPA published a document titled ``Protocol for Determining the 
Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Topcoat Operations'' (EPA-450/3-88-018). This document is 
commonly referred to as the Automobile Topcoat Protocol. The Automobile 
Topcoat Protocol provides procedures and calculations for determining 
the daily VOC emission rate of an automobile and light-duty truck 
topcoat operation. The 1988 protocol has been adopted into many State 
regulations and permits, and is also referenced in the National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of 
Automobile and Light-Duty Trucks, 40 CFR, part 63, subpart IIII. Most 
automobile and light-duty truck facilities use the 1988 protocol for 
both their topcoat and primer-surfacer operation.
    In conjunction with the draft CTG we have prepared a draft revision 
of the Automobile Topcoat Protocol. The draft

[[Page 40247]]

revised protocol includes new sections on accounting for control of 
spray booth emissions and instructions for applying the protocol to 
primer-surfacer operations. As mentioned above, we recommend in the 
draft CTG that facilities refer to the procedures and calculations in 
the draft revised protocol for determining the daily VOC emission rate 
of automobile and light-duty truck primer-surfacer and topcoat 
operations. We plan to issue the final revised protocol concurrently 
with the final CTG. After the final revised protocol has been issued, 
we plan to amend the NESHAP for Automobile and Light-Duty Trucks (40 
CFR part 63, subpart IIII) to replace the references to the 1988 
protocol with references to the revised protocol.
    The draft CTG recommends the following VOC emission limits to 
reduce VOC emissions from the coatings during the coating operations:
     EDP operations (including application area, spray/rinse 
stations, and curing oven): 0.084 kg VOC/liter of deposited solids (0.7 
lb VOC/gal deposited solids) on a monthly average basis.
     Primer-surfacer operations (including application area, 
flash-off area, and oven): 1.44 kg of VOC/liter of deposited solids 
(12.0 lbs VOC/gal deposited solids) on a daily average basis as 
determined by following the procedures in the draft revised Automobile 
Topcoat Protocol.
     Topcoat operations (including application area, flash-off 
area, and oven): 1.44 kg VOC/liter of deposited solids (12.0 lb VOC/gal 
deposited solids) on a daily average basis as determined by following 
the procedures in the draft revised Automobile Topcoat Protocol.
     Final repair: 0.58 kg VOC/liter of coating (4.8 lb VOC/
gallon of coating) less water and less exempt solvents.
    The categories reflect the current processes that are used at 
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities. In addition 
to the individual limits described above for primer-surfacer and 
topcoat operations, the draft CTG recommends that State RACT rules 
provide sources with the option of a single emission limit for combined 
primer-surfacer and topcoat operations because in many facilities these 
processes are becoming indistinguishable from each other. The 
recommended alternative limit for combined primer-surfacer and topcoat 
applications is as follows:
     Combination of primer-surfacer and topcoat operations: 
1.44 kg VOC/liter of deposited solids (12.0 lb VOC/gal deposited 
solids) on a daily average basis as determined by following the 
procedures in the draft revised Automobile Topcoat Protocol.
    All of the recommended emission limits described above reflect the 
combined use of low-VOC content coatings, effective application 
equipment, and control devices. Additionally, the CTG recommends work 
practices to reduce emissions from coating operations, such as covering 
open containers.
3. Cleaning Materials and Operations
    The draft CTG recommends work practices to reduce VOC emissions 
from cleaning materials used in automobile and light-duty truck 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 application, storage, mixing, and conveying equipment 
by ensuring that application equipment cleaning is performed without 
atomizing the cleaning solvent outside of an enclosure and that all 
spent solvent is captured in closed containers.
    The draft CTG also recommends that facilities develop and implement 
plans to minimize VOC emissions from cleaning operations and from 
purging of equipment associated with all coating operations for which 
the draft CTG recommends an emission limit. The draft CTG recommends 
that the plans specify the practices and procedures for minimizing VOC 
emissions from the following operations: Vehicle body wiping, coating 
line purging, flushing of coating systems, cleaning of spray booth 
grates, cleaning of spray booth walls, cleaning of spray booth 
equipment, and cleaning external spray booth areas. The recommended 
plan in the draft CTG is an enhancement of the plan required in the 
NESHAP, and not an entirely new plan. Most elements of the NESHAP plan, 
which is designed to reduce organic HAP emissions, are also effective 
in reducing VOC emissions and are therefore included in our work 
practice plan recommendation in the draft CTG.

C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques

    Auto and light-duty truck coating facilities have reduced the VOC 
emissions from their coating operations to comply with the NSPS, 
NESHAP, and State rules. The recommended VOC emission rates described 
above reflect the control measures that are currently being implemented 
by these facilities, which surpass requirements in the NSPS and State 
rules based on the 1977 CTG. Consequently, there is no additional cost 
to implement the draft CTG recommendations. For the same reason, we do 
not anticipate additional VOC emission reduction.
    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 reduces the amount of 
coatings and cleaning materials used by decreasing evaporation.

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 automobile and light-duty truck surface 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 automobile and light-duty truck surface coatings and associated 
cleaning materials.
    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 coatings 
and cleaning materials at automobile and light-duty truck surface 
coating facilities), and this control can be accomplished only 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

[[Page 40248]]

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 and therefore satisfy the criterion in section 
183(e)(3)(C) of being substantially as effective as regulations in 
reducing VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.
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 
and the strategies used to reduce these VOC emissions. There are two 
main sources of VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty truck 
surface coatings and associated cleaning materials: (1) Evaporation of 
VOC from coating application, drying, and curing; and (2) evaporation 
of VOC from cleaning of spray booths and application equipment. We 
address each of these sources of VOC emissions, in turn, below, as we 
discuss the CTG versus regulation approach.
    a. Coatings. As previously mentioned, VOC emissions from the 
coatings can be effectively controlled through the use of a combination 
of measures, including low-VOC content coatings, effective application 
equipment, add-on controls, and work practices. Pursuant to CAA section 
183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(B), the regulated entities subject to a 
national rule would be the coating manufacturers and suppliers, not the 
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities. The VOC 
content of automobile and light-duty truck coatings is within the 
control of the coating manufacturers and suppliers. A national rule 
regulating coating manufacturers and suppliers, therefore, could 
contain limits for the as-sold VOC content of automobile and light-duty 
truck coatings. However, the coating application equipment, add-on 
controls and work practices used at automobile and light-duty truck 
surface coating facilities are not within the control of the coating 
manufacturers and suppliers. A national rule regulating coating 
manufacturers and suppliers, therefore, could not require or otherwise 
ensure that automobile and light-duty truck coating facilities use 
improved application methods, add-on controls, or work practices to 
reduce VOC emissions.
    A CTG, on the other hand, affects the end-users of the coating 
materials and, therefore, can implement all of the control measures 
identified above. The draft CTG recommends emission limits for 
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations based on the 
combined effects of the use of low-VOC content coatings, improved 
transfer efficiency and add-on controls. The recommended emission 
limits reflect the same levels of coating VOC content that would be 
required by a national rule should we decide to issue a rule, plus 
additional VOC reductions through the use of efficient coating 
application and add-on controls. The draft CTG also recommends certain 
work practices to further reduce VOC emissions from the coatings used 
in automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations. Given 
the significant reductions achievable through the use of these 
recommended control measures, the most effective entity to address VOC 
emissions from automobile and light-duty truck surface coatings is the 
facility using the coatings.
    These control measures are consistent with existing EPA, State, and 
local emission control strategies applicable to automobile and light-
duty truck surface coating. Previous EPA actions and existing State and 
local regulations that address automobile and light-duty truck surface 
coating similarly considered the combined effect of the use of low-VOC 
content coatings, improved transfer efficiency, add-on controls, and 
work practices. Accordingly, we are including these recommended control 
measures in the draft CTG that applies to automobile and light-duty 
truck surface 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 the automobile 
and light-duty truck 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 could require that manufacturers of cleaning 
materials for automobile and light-duty truck surface coating 
operations provide low-VOC content or low vapor pressure cleaning 
materials. However, the effect of such a national rule could be easily 
subverted because it could not guarantee that only those low-VOC 
content or low vapor pressure cleaning materials would be used for 
cleaning associated with automobile and light-duty truck surface 
coating. Many cleaning materials used in automobile and light-duty 
truck surface coating operations are not specifically marketed by the 
supplier as cleaning materials specific for use at automobile and 
light-duty truck surface coating operations. Nothing in a national rule 
that specifically regulates manufacturers and suppliers of cleaning 
materials specified for use in automobile and light-duty truck surface 
coating operations would preclude the automobile and light-duty truck 
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.
    The more effective approach for reducing VOC emissions from 
cleaning materials used by automobile and light-duty truck surface 
coaters is to control the use of cleaning materials through work 
practices. The draft CTG recommends work practices to reduce VOC 
emissions from cleaning materials used in automobile and light-duty 
truck 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 application, storage, mixing, and conveying 
equipment by ensuring that application equipment cleaning is performed 
without atomizing the cleaning solvent outside of an enclosure and that 
all spent solvent is captured in closed containers. The draft CTG also 
recommends that facilities develop and implement plans to minimize VOC 
emissions from cleaning operations and from purging of equipment 
associated with all coating operations for which the draft CTG 
recommends an emission limit.
    Given the significant VOC reductions achievable through the 
implementation of work practices, we conclude that the most effective 
entity to address VOC

[[Page 40249]]

emissions from cleaning materials used in automobile and light-duty 
truck surface coating operations is the facility using the cleaning 
materials during surface coating operations. This recommendation is 
consistent with measures required by Federal, State and local 
jurisdictions for reducing VOC emissions from cleaning materials used 
in automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations and 
Federal rules for HAP cleaning.
    We cannot, however, issue a rule requiring such work practices for 
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities because, 
pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(B), the regulated 
entities subject to a national rule would be the cleaning materials 
manufacturers and suppliers and not the automobile and light-duty truck 
surface coating facilities. Accordingly, we are including these work 
practices in the draft CTG that applies to automobile and light-duty 
truck surface coating facilities as the end-users of the cleaning 
materials.
    Based on the sources of VOC emissions from the automobile and 
light-duty truck surface coating operations 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 
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities). This 
strategy can be accomplished only 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 
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations. 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 automobile and light-duty truck surface coatings and 
associated cleaning materials.
    First, automobile and light-duty truck surface 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 automobiles 
and light-duty trucks 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 automobile and 
light-duty truck surface coatings and associated cleaning materials. A 
CTG will achieve greater 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 coatings and cleaning 
materials at automobile and light-duty truck surface coating 
facilities. Specifically, the draft CTG recommends emission limits for 
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations based on the 
combined effects of the use of low-VOC content coatings, improved 
transfer efficiency, and add-on control devices. It also recommends 
work practices that would further reduce VOC emissions from coating 
operations as well as reducing VOC emissions from cleaning materials 
associated with the coating operations. These significant VOC 
reductions could not be obtained through a national regulation, because 
they require the implementation of measures by the end-user. For the 
reasons stated above, it is more effective to control VOC emissions 
from coatings and cleaning materials used for automobile and light-duty 
truck surface coating through a CTG than through a national regulation.
    The number of automobile and light-duty truck surface coating 
facilities affected by our recommendations in this draft CTG further 
supports our proposed determination pursuant to section 183(e)(3)(C) 
that a CTG would be substantially as effective as a rule in controlling 
VOC emissions for this product category. We recommend the control 
measures described in the draft CTG for automobile and light-duty truck 
surface coating facilities that emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 
tpy) or more VOC. Based on the April 2004 ozone nonattainment 
designations, we estimate that all of the automobile and light-duty 
truck surface coating facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas 
emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or more. Therefore, we 
expect that our recommendations in the draft CTG would apply to all 
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities in ozone 
nonattainment areas.
    Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and 
circumstances associated with this product category, we propose to 
determine that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national 
regulation for reducing VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty 
truck surface coatings and associated cleaning materials in ozone 
nonattainment areas.

IV. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials

A. Industry Characterization

1. Source Category Description
    This category of consumer and commercial products includes the 
materials used to manufacture fiberglass boats. Fiberglass is also 
known as fiber reinforced plastic (FRP). These materials are used to 
build all types and sizes of boats ranging from small kayaks, canoes, 
and rowboats, up to large yachts over 100 feet in length. The types of 
boats manufactured include both powerboats and sailboats, and most are 
for recreation. However, these materials are also used to build boats 
for commercial, government, and military uses.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
    The VOC emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing are a result 
of evaporation of the VOC contained in the laminating resins, gel 
coatings, and cleaning materials \15\ used to manufacture fiberglass 
boats. These VOC are primarily styrene and methyl methacrylate (MMA) 
added to resin and gel coats as diluents and cross linking agents. 
Boats made from FRP are typically manufactured in a process known as 
open molding. Separate molds are used for the boat hull, deck, and 
miscellaneous small FRP parts such as fuel tanks, seats, storage 
lockers, and hatches. The parts are built on or inside the molds using 
glass roving, cloth, or

[[Page 40250]]

mat that is saturated with a thermosetting liquid resin such as 
unsaturated polyester or vinylester resin. The liquid resin is mixed 
with a catalyst before it is applied to the glass, which causes a 
cross-linking reaction between the resin molecules. The catalyzed resin 
hardens to form a rigid shape consisting of the plastic resin 
reinforced with glass fibers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As noted above, in a previous notice, EPA stated that the 
cleaning operations associated with certain specified section 183(e) 
consumer and commercial product categories, including fiberglass 
boat manufacturing, would not be covered by EPA's 2006 CTG for 
industrial cleaning solvents (71 FR 44522 and 44540, August 4, 
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 EPA determines that a CTG is 
appropriate for the respective categories. Accordingly, the draft 
CTG for the fiberglass boat manufacturing category addresses the VOC 
emissions from cleaning operations associated with this product 
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Processes. The FRP boat manufacturing process generally follows 
the following production steps:
    (1) Before each use, the molds are cleaned and polished and then 
treated with a mold release agent that prevents the part from sticking 
to the mold.
    (2) The open mold is first spray-coated with a pigmented polyester 
resin known as a gel coat. The gel coat will become the outer surface 
of the finished part. The gel coat is mixed with a catalyst as it is 
applied with a spray gun so that it will harden. The gel coat is 
applied to a thickness of about 18 mils (0.018 inches).
    (3) After the gel coat has hardened, the inside of the gel coat is 
coated with a thin ``skin'' coat of polyester resin and short glass 
fibers and then rolled with a metal or plastic roller to compact the 
fibers and remove air bubbles. The skin coat fibers are randomly 
oriented and form a layer about 90 mils (0.09 inches) thick that is 
intended to prevent distortion of the gel coat (known as ``print 
through'') from the subsequent layers of fiberglass and resin.
    (4) After the skin coat has hardened, additional glass 
reinforcement in the form of chopped fibers and woven fiberglass cloth 
is applied to the inside of the mold and saturated with catalyzed 
polyester resin. The resin is usually applied with either mechanical 
spray or flow coating equipment, or by hand using a bucket and brush or 
paint-type roller.
    (5) The saturated fabric is then rolled with a metal or plastic 
roller to compact the fibers and remove air bubbles.
    (6) More layers of woven glass or glass mat and resin are applied 
until the part is the desired thickness; the part is then allowed to 
harden while still in the mold. The final thickness of the part, for 
example, may be about 0.25 inches for the hull of a small motorboat, up 
to one or two inches thick for the hull of a large yacht.
    (7) After the resin has cured, the part is removed from the mold 
and the edges are trimmed to the final dimensions.
    (8) The different FRP parts of the boat are assembled using more 
fiberglass and resin, adhesives, or mechanical fasteners.
    (9) Flotation foam is typically injected into closed cavities in 
the hulls of smaller boats to make the boat unsinkable and capable of 
floating if swamped.
    (10) After the assembly of the hull is complete, the electrical and 
mechanical systems and the engine are installed along with carpeting, 
seat cushions, and other furnishings and the boat is prepared for 
shipment.
    (11) Some manufacturers paint the topsides of their boats to obtain 
a superior finish or paint the bottoms to prevent marine growth.
    (12) Larger boats generally also require extensive interior 
woodwork and cabin furnishings to be installed.
    Resins and gel coats are also used to produce the prototypes and 
molds (or ``tools'') that are used in manufacturing fiberglass boats. 
These ``tooling'' resins and gel coats are different from production 
materials and are specially formulated for greater strength, hardness, 
and dimensional stability compared to production materials.
    b. Sources of VOC Emissions. The primary VOC emissions from 
fiberglass boat manufacturing are styrene and MMA released during resin 
and gel coat application and curing, as well as emissions from 
evaporation of the VOC contained in the materials used during cleaning 
activities, such as spray gun cleaning and cleaning of other equipment. 
VOC emissions from cleaning and polishing molds, resin and gel coat 
storage and handling, and waste storage and handling are small. There 
are no wastewater streams associated with fiberglass boat manufacturing 
that may produce VOC emissions.
    As mentioned above, although small, some VOC emissions occur during 
the handling and storage of resin and gel coat. These VOC emissions 
occur from displacement of VOC-laden air in containers used to store 
and mix materials before 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 during resin and gel coat 
application. The resins contain styrene, which acts as a solvent and a 
cross-linking agent. Gel coats contain both styrene and MMA; MMA also 
acts as a solvent and cross-linking agent. A fraction of each compound 
evaporates during resin and gel coat application and curing. Not all of 
the styrene and MMA evaporate because a majority of these compounds are 
bound in the cross-linking reaction between polymer molecules in the 
hardened resin or gel coat and become part of the finished product.
    The fraction of VOC that is emitted from resin and gel coat 
materials is dependent on several factors, including the initial VOC 
content of the material, the application method, and the thickness of 
the part or layer that is curing. VOC emission rates are usually 
expressed in terms of lb VOC emitted per ton of material applied (lb/
ton). VOC evaporation from gel coats is higher than from resins because 
gel coats are applied in thinner coats, which increases evaporation. 
When material is applied in thicker layers, the overlying material 
impedes evaporation from the underlying material, so a higher fraction 
is bound up during the cross linking reactions before it has a chance 
to evaporate.
    Higher VOC materials also tend to emit a higher fraction of the VOC 
than lower VOC materials. Therefore, lowering the VOC content of the 
resin or gel coat has a two-fold effect: First, it decreases the amount 
of VOC that could be emitted, and second, a smaller fraction of the VOC 
that is present is emitted to the atmosphere.
    The type of application equipment used also affects the fraction of 
VOC that is emitted. Spray application equipment that atomizes the 
resin as it is applied creates droplets with a high surface-to-volume 
ratio, which increases the amount of VOC that evaporates during 
application. Non-atomizing application methods minimize the surface 
area during application and reduce VOC emission rates. These non-
atomizing methods include resin flow coaters, which create consolidated 
streams of resin (like a shower head) instead of atomized droplets, and 
pressure fed resin rollers that apply resin directly onto the part. 
Non-atomized application is not currently feasible for gel coat 
application and gel coat is currently spray-applied in almost all 
cases. The only exception is gel coat that may be applied with a brush 
or roller to the interior areas of finished boats where the cosmetic 
appearance is not as critical as on the exterior.
    Resin and gel coat application equipment requires solvent cleaning 
to remove uncured resin or gel coat when not in use. If the equipment 
is not flushed and cleaned after each use, the resin or gel coat will 
catalyze inside and on the exterior of the application equipment within 
a few minutes.
    c. Controls. Reducing VOC emissions from fiberglass boat 
manufacturing materials is achieved primarily by reducing the VOC 
content of the materials (resin and gel coat) and by switching to non-
atomizing resin application methods. Industry and EPA-sponsored testing 
has experimentally

[[Page 40251]]

measured the amount of VOC that is emitted, and equations have been 
developed to predict the VOC emission rates (lb VOC/ton of material 
applied) for different materials and application methods.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This testing was done in conjunction with the development 
of the NESHAP for boat manufacturing (40 CFR 63, subpart VVVV) and 
the NESHAP for reinforced plastic composite manufacturing (40 CFR 
63, subpart WWWW). The equations that were developed were 
incorporated into both of these final NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The different resins and gel coats can be reformulated to achieve 
varying levels of lowered VOC contents, depending on their use in boat 
manufacturing. Because reducing the VOC content reduces emissions by 
two interacting mechanisms (reducing the amount of VOC available to be 
emitted and by reducing the fraction of VOC that is emitted), VOC 
emission reduction is not linearly related to VOC content. For example, 
reformulating a laminating resin from 40 percent VOC, by weight, to 35 
percent VOC, achieves a 28 percent VOC emission reduction if the resin 
is spray-applied.
    Changing resin application methods can also reduce VOC emissions. 
For example, switching from spray application to nonatomizing 
application of a resin with 35 percent styrene achieves a 41 percent 
emission reduction. If both styrene content and application method are 
changed to reduce emissions, the reductions can be greater than 
changing just resin styrene content or application method alone. For 
example, changing from a spray-applied resin with 40 percent styrene, 
to one with 35 percent styrene that is applied with nonatomizing 
technology can achieve a 58 percent emission reduction.
    Currently nonatomizing technology is feasible for applying 
production and tooling resins only. Gel coats must still be applied 
with atomizing spray guns, so VOC reductions from gel coat can only be 
achieved through use of low-VOC gel coats. The control methods for 
reducing VOC emissions from resin and gel coat application are 
described in more detail in the draft CTG.
    Another method to reduce VOC emissions is the use of closed 
molding. Closed molding is the name given to fabrication techniques in 
which reinforced plastic parts are produced between the halves of a 
two-part mold or between a mold and a flexible membrane, such as a bag. 
There are four types of closed molding methods that are being used in 
fiberglass boat manufacturing: Vacuum bagging, vacuum-assisted resin 
transfer molding, resin transfer molding, and compression molding with 
sheet molding compound. Closed molding processes as they are currently 
practiced cannot reduce emissions during gel coat or skin coat 
application because these steps must still use conventional open 
molding techniques. However, closed molding can be used to reduce VOC 
emissions from the subsequent laminating steps after the gel coat and 
skin coat layers have been applied. Closed molding is generally 
applicable to making a large number of small parts, such as hatches and 
locker doors, or small numbers of high performance boat hulls and 
decks, but it is not feasible to replace open molding at all types of 
boat manufacturers. However, one major fiberglass boat manufacturer has 
developed a patented closed molding process that has replaced open 
molding for the hulls of many of its smaller (17 to 22 feet long) 
powerboats.
    The majority of VOC emissions from open molding with resin and gel 
coat occur in an open shop environment, although some gel coat spraying 
for smaller parts may be done in a spray booth. The volume of air 
exhausted from the open shop or from spray booths is typically high, 
and the VOC concentration is typically low. Therefore, it is generally 
not cost-effective to use add-on controls to reduce VOC emissions from 
fiberglass boat manufacturing. Because of the wide availability and 
lower cost (compared to add-on controls) of low-VOC content materials 
and alternative application equipment/methods, these materials and 
application equipment/methods are used instead to reduce VOC emissions 
from fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities. In addition, work 
practices (e.g., using closed mixing containers) are used throughout 
the fiberglass boat manufacturing industry to reduce VOC emissions from 
containers used to mix manufacturing materials containing VOC. These 
work practices are described in the draft CTG.
    To control VOC emissions from cleaning materials, water-based 
emulsifiers with low-VOC contents, as well as organic solvents (e.g., 
dibasic esters) with low vapor pressures, are used.
3. Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Control Strategies
    There are two previous EPA actions that address fiberglass boat 
manufacturing.
     Assessment of VOC Emissions from Fiberglass Boat 
Manufacturing (1990).
     National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Boat Manufacturing (2001).
    In 1990, we completed an ``Assessment of VOC Emissions from 
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing'' (EPA/600/S2-90/019). This document 
characterized the fiberglass boat manufacturing industry and its 
processes, assessed the extent of VOC emissions from this industry, and 
evaluated various control options. The assessment described open 
molding and discussed types of closed molding in use at the time. The 
assessment determined that acetone (no longer considered a VOC) and 
styrene were the two VOCs primarily emitted from the industry, and the 
major sources of emissions were resin and gel coat application, and 
evaporation of solvents during cleanup.
    The 1990 document discussed process changes and add-on controls to 
reduce emissions. Specifically, the 1990 document recommended 
substituting the high-VOC resins and gel coats that were commonly used 
at that time with low-VOC resins and gel coats and vapor suppressed 
resins. The document discussed add-on controls but considered such 
controls not economically feasible for use in boat manufacturing due to 
high exhaust flow rates and low VOC concentrations. The document also 
recommended using water-based emulsifiers and low vapor pressure 
dibasic ester compounds for equipment cleaning.
    The second action was the 2001 NESHAP for boat manufacturing (40 
CFR Part 63, subpart VVVV). The 2001 NESHAP applies to fiberglass boat 
manufacturers using the processes and materials listed below:
     All open molding operations, including pigmented gel coat, 
clear gel coat, production resin, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat;
     All closed molding resin operations;
     All resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning; and
     All resin and gel coat mixing operations.
    The 2001 NESHAP regulates the total HAP content in the materials 
used in each regulated operation. Specifically, the 2001 NESHAP sets a 
HAP content limit for each regulated open molding resin and gel coat 
operation. For each regulated open molding resin operation, the NESHAP 
established separate HAP content limits for atomized and nonatomized 
resin application methods. For closed molding operations, no limits 
apply to the resin application operation if it meets the specific 
definition of closed molding provided in the NESHAP. If a molding 
operation does not meet the definition of closed molding that is 
provided in the

[[Page 40252]]

NESHAP, then it must comply with the applicable emission limits for 
open molding. The emission limitations in the 2001 NESHAP are described 
in more detail in the actual CTG document.
    A manufacturer can demonstrate compliance with the 2001 NESHAP by 
either (1) demonstrating compliance with the individual HAP content 
limit for each type of open molding operation, (2) averaging emissions 
among resin and gel coat operations using equations provided in the 
NESHAP that would estimate the emissions from each operation, or (3) 
using an add-on control device. Even though add-on controls are not 
used for fiberglass boat manufacturing, this last option was included 
in case feasible control technology became available. Compliance with 
each HAP content limit in the first option can be demonstrated by using 
only compliant materials within a regulated operation, or demonstrating 
compliance based on the weighted-average HAP content for all materials 
used within an operation.
    In addition to the resin and gel coating open molding operations 
which, as described above, are subject to HAP content limits, other 
operations are subject to either work practice requirements or HAP 
content limits in the 2001 NESHAP. These operations include resin and 
gel coat mixing operations in containers, and routine resin and gel 
coat application equipment cleaning operations.
    Very few State and local regulations exist that apply to VOC 
emissions from the fiberglass boat manufacturing industry. The existing 
State and local regulations apply to all fiberglass manufacturing 
operations, and do not distinguish fiberglass boat manufacturing from 
the manufacturing of other products made from fiberglass. The SCAQMD 
has the most comprehensive regulation, but it is not as stringent as 
the 2001 NESHAP. Since styrene and MMA are the primary VOC from resin 
and gel coat and are also HAP, the HAP limits in the NESHAP and the VOC 
limits in State and local rules can be compared directly. Specifically, 
SCAQMD Rule 1162 (Polyester Resin Operations) contains VOC content 
limits for specific types of resins, gel coats, and cleaning solvents. 
Furthermore, SCAQMD Rule 1162 requires that all resins be applied with 
nonatomizing techniques, such as resin rollers, flow coaters, or hand 
layup. SCAQMD Rule 1162 also requires that gel coat be applied with 
high efficiency spray equipment, such as HVLP, air assisted airless, or 
electrostatic spray. The San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Bay Area 
Districts also have rules covering these operations, but tend to be 
less stringent than SCAQMD Rule 1162. State rules for Maryland and the 
Chicago area of Illinois also limit the VOC content of resins and gel 
coats, but these are also less stringent than the 2001 NESHAP. These 
State and local rules are summarized in more detail in the draft CTG.

B. Recommended Control Techniques

    The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for reducing 
VOC emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. As 
explained in the draft CTG, we are recommending these control options 
for the fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities that emit 6.8 kg VOC/
day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or more.
    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 two gallons of styrene per day, or the 
spray application of about 150 lbs of resin. Such a level is considered 
to be an incidental level of material usage that could be expected even 
in facilities that perform only boat repair and maintenance, where only 
small amounts of material are used each day, rather than manufacturing. 
Furthermore, based on the 2002 NEI data and the 2004 ozone 
nonattainment designations, facilities emitting below the recommended 
threshold level collectively emit less than four percent of the total 
reported VOC emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing 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 
VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) threshold, aggregate emissions from 
all fiberglass boat manufacturing and related cleaning activities at a 
given facility are included.
1. Resin and Gel Coat
    Based on a review of the 2001 NESHAP, and the current State and 
local requirements discussed above, we are recommending VOC content 
limits and alternative VOC emission rate limits for resin and gel coats 
used in open molding operations. The VOC content limits are paired with 
specific methods (either atomized or non-atomized) for resin 
application.
    The CTG provides flexibility by recommending the same options for 
meeting the VOC limits as provided in the 2001 NESHAP for meeting the 
HAP emission limits. To meet the recommended open molding resin and gel 
coat limits, the CTG recommends three options: (1) Achieving the 
individual VOC content limit through the use of low-VOC materials, 
either by using only low-VOC materials within a covered operation 
(listed in the CTG), or by averaging the VOC contents for all materials 
used within an operation on a weight-adjusted basis; (2) meeting 
numerical emission rate limits, which would enable a facility to 
average emissions among different operations using equations to 
estimate emission rates from each operation based on the material and 
application method; or (3) using add-on controls to achieve a numerical 
VOC emission rate that is determined for each facility based on the mix 
of application methods and materials used at that facility.
    Our recommended VOC content limits under Option 1 are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        The recommended
                                        And this        maximum weighted
       For this material--        application method--    average VOC
                                                        content (weight
                                                          percent) is
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production resin................  Atomized (spray)...                 28
Production resin................  Nonatomized                         35
                                   (nonspray).
Pigmented gel coat..............  Any method.........                 33
Clear gel coat..................  Any method.........                 48
Tooling resin...................  Atomized (spray)...                 30
Tooling resin...................  Nonatomized                         39
                                   (nonspray).
Tooling gel coat................  Any method.........                 40
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 40253]]

    As mentioned above, a facility may show that a relevant content 
limit is met by averaging the VOC contents for all materials used 
within an operation on a weight-adjusted basis. To facilitate this 
option, the draft CTG provides an equation for determining the weighted 
average VOC content for a particular open molding resin or gel coat 
material.
    The emission reductions that are achieved using the emissions 
averaging option (Option 2) and the add-on control option (Option 3) 
are equivalent to the emission reductions that are achieved meeting the 
VOC content limits (Option 1). Options 2 and 3 use emission factor 
equations to convert the VOC content limits in Option 1 into equivalent 
emission rates that a facility would otherwise achieve by using the low 
VOC materials for specific application methods and operations.
    A facility could use emission averaging (Option 2) or add-on 
controls (Option 3) for all open molding operations or only for some of 
the operations. Operations that a facility decides not to include in 
Options 2 or 3 would need to use Option 1. For filled resins (i.e., 
resins to which fillers are added to acheive certain physical 
propderties), the CTG includes an adjustment factor that would allow 
filled resins to use any of the three options recommended above.
2. Mixing Drums and Cleaning Materials
    To control VOC emissions from mixing drums, the draft CTG 
recommends that resin and gel coat mixing drums have covers with no 
visible gaps, and that these covers be kept in place at all times 
except when depositing or removing materials, or inserting or removing 
mixing equipment. This is the same practice required by the 2001 
NESHAP, and is the most stringent control option that is technically 
and economically feasible. We do not recommend the use of covers for 
smaller containers because they are typically only used for small hand 
application operations that require an open container.
    The draft CTG also recommends that materials used for routine resin 
and gel coat application equipment cleaning must contain no more than 
5.0 percent VOC by weight, or must have a composite vapor pressure no 
greater than 0.50 mm Hg at 68 degrees F. These limits for cleaning 
materials are based on the properties of water-based emulsifiers and 
dibasic esters that are used as alternatives to conventional cleaning 
solvents, and are the basis for the equipment cleaning requirements in 
the 2001 NESHAP. Therefore, the same cleaning materials used to comply 
with the 2001 NESHAP will meet the recommendations in this CTG.
    As mentioned above, both the work practice and the cleaning 
material VOC limit recommendations in the draft CTG are based on the 
2001 NESHAP, which are more stringent than the requirements in other 
State and local actions. Based on the implementation of these measures 
by all major source fiberglass boat manufacturers, we believe that 
these control measures are technically and economically feasible for 
reducing VOC emissions from these cleaning materials and have therefore 
included them as our recommendations in the draft CTG.

C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques

    Based on the 2002 NEI database, we estimate that there are 223 
fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities in the U.S. Using the April 
2004 ozone nonattainment designations, 91 of these facilities are in 
ozone nonattainment areas. Based on the 2002 NEI VOC emissions data, we 
estimated that 67 of the 91 facilities in ozone nonattainment areas 
emitted VOC at or above the recommended 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day 
or 3 tpy) VOC emissions applicability threshold. These 67 facilities, 
in aggregate, emit about 1,452 Megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (1,601 tons 
per year (tpy)) of VOC per year, or an average of about 22 Mg/yr (24 
tpy) of VOC per facility.
    The draft CTG recommends the use of low-VOC content resin and gel 
coats for each type of open molding operation, based on the 2001 
NESHAP. This recommendation also includes the use of covers to further 
reduce VOC emissions from mixing drums and the use of low-VOC and low-
vapor pressure cleaning materials. Those facilities that are major 
sources of HAP are already complying with the 2001 NESHAP and have 
already adopted these control measures. Therefore, we do not anticipate 
additional VOC emission reductions from these major source facilities. 
Because the 2001 NESHAP does not apply to area sources (i.e., sources 
that are not major sources of HAP), we assume that area source 
fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities are not currently implementing 
the measures provided in the 2001 NESHAP and recommended in the draft 
CTG. We estimate that 23 area source fiberglass boat manufacturing 
facilities are located in ozone nonattainment areas and meet the 
applicability threshold recommended in the draft CTG, and that these 
facilities emit, in aggregate, 104 Mg/yr (115 tpy) of VOC.
    For implementing the 2001 NESHAP, the EPA estimated a cost of 
$3,600 per ton of HAP reduced, in 2001 dollars, or about $4,200 in 2007 
dollars. Nearly all of the HAP that are reduced by the NESHAP are 
styrene and MMA, and styrene and MMA also account for nearly all of the 
VOC emitted from the processes addressed by the recommendations in the 
draft CTG. Therefore, we expect that the cost to reduce HAP and VOC are 
nearly equal.
    However, we expect that the cost of reducing VOC through the 
measures recommended in the draft CTG would be substantially lower than 
the cost of reducing HAP through the 2001 NESHAP for several reasons. 
First, the NESHAP is now fully implemented at major sources of HAP, and 
resin, gel coat, and cleaning materials that are compliant with the 
2001 NESHAP are readily available to all sizes of facilities. Second, 
the industry has experienced a shift to non-atomized resin application 
methods that are required to comply with the 2001 NESHAP. This shift 
has occurred at all sizes of facilities because of the productivity and 
economic benefits of using non-atomizing methods over conventional 
atomizing methods. Therefore, with respect to those facilities that are 
not subject to the 2001 NESHAP, we expect that most, if not all, are 
already using the materials and methods recommended by the draft CTG. 
We therefore expect that these facilities would incur little, if any, 
increased costs if required by a State RACT rule to implement the 
approaches recommended in the draft CTG. We estimate that the total 
cost for the 23 facilities to implement the recommended measures in the 
draft CTG would be substantially less than $168,000 in 2007 dollars. 
The impacts are further discussed in the draft CTG document.

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 fiberglass boat manufacturing materials 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 
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials.
    This section is divided into two parts. In the first part, we 
discuss our belief

[[Page 40254]]

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 resin, gel coat, and cleaning 
materials at fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities), and this 
control can be accomplished only 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 fiberglass boat 
manufacturing: (1) evaporation of VOC from resins and gel coats; 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. Resin and Gel Coat Materials. A national rule could contain 
limits for the as-sold VOC content of resin and gel coat materials that 
are marketed for use in fiberglass boat manufacturing. However, the 
effect of such a rule could be easily subverted because it could not 
guarantee that fiberglass boat manufacturers would use only low-VOC 
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. There is a broad diversity of 
resin and gel coat materials used in boat manufacturing. Many resin and 
gel coat materials used in fiberglass boat manufacturing are also used 
to manufacture other fiberglass products and are not specifically 
marketed by the supplier as materials for fiberglass boat 
manufacturing. Therefore, fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities 
could purchase and use high-VOC resins and gel coats not specified for 
use in fiberglass boat manufacturing. This practice would effectively 
nullify the reformulation actions of the manufacturers and suppliers of 
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, resulting in no net change in 
VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.
    By contrast, a CTG can affect the end-users of the coating 
materials in the fiberglass boat manufacturing industry and, therefore, 
can 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 
VOC content limits for fiberglass boat manufacturing operations that 
can be achieved through the use of either low-VOC content resins and 
gel coats or add-on controls. In addition, the recommendations in the 
draft CTG include the use of covers on mixing drums to further reduce 
VOC emissions from resin and gel coat materials. These practices have 
been shown to effectively reduce VOC emissions beyond the levels 
achievable using low-VOC materials. These work practices would also 
reduce emissions beyond the levels achievable using an add-on control 
device since the emissions points that are affected by the work 
practices, such as mixing drums, would not be located in the enclosure 
that is vented to the control device. Given the significant reductions 
achievable through the use of these recommended control measures, the 
most effective entity to address VOC emissions from fiberglass boat 
manufacturing is the facility using the VOC-containing materials.
    The recommended control measures are consistent with existing EPA, 
State, and local VOC control strategies applicable to fiberglass boat 
manufacturing. As mentioned above, previous EPA actions and existing 
State and local regulations (in particular, the regulations in the 
majority of the California air Districts that address fiberglass boat 
manufacturing) similarly call for VOC emission reduction through the 
use of low-VOC content materials. Some also include work practices and 
specific application methods. We cannot, however, issue a national rule 
directly requiring fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities to use low-
VOC content materials 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 material manufacturers and suppliers, not 
the fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities. By contrast, a CTG can 
reach the end-users of fiberglass boat manufacturing materials and, 
therefore, can implement the control recommendations for these 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 fiberglass boat manufacturing 
facilities as the end-users of the resin and gel coat materials.
    b. Application Equipment Cleaning Materials. The most common method 
to control VOC emissions associated with the application equipment 
cleaning materials used in the fiberglass boat manufacturing process is 
to limit the VOC content or VOC vapor pressure of the cleaning 
materials. A national rule requiring that manufacturers of cleaning 
materials for fiberglass boat manufacturing operations to 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 resin 
and gel coat materials. Specifically, nothing in a national rule that 
specifically regulates manufacturers and suppliers of cleaning 
materials specified for use in fiberglass boat manufacturing operations 
would preclude the fiberglass boat manufacturing 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.
    The more effective approach for reducing VOC emissions from 
application equipment cleaning materials is to control the types of 
cleaning materials. The draft CTG recommends that fiberglass boat 
manufacturing facilities use low-VOC or low vapor pressure cleaning 
materials. Given the significant VOC reductions achievable through the 
use of low-VOC or low vapor pressure cleaning materials, we conclude 
that the most effective entity to address VOC emissions from cleaning 
materials used in fiberglass boat manufacturing operations is the 
facility using the cleaning materials. This recommendation is 
consistent with measures required by State and local jurisdictions for 
reducing VOC emissions from cleaning materials used

[[Page 40255]]

in fiberglass boat manufacturing operations.
    We cannot, however, issue a rule requiring the use of low-VOC 
application equipment cleaning materials for fiberglass boat 
manufacturing 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 
fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities. Accordingly, we are including 
the recommendation to use low-VOC cleaning materials in the draft CTG 
that applies to fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities as the end-
users of the cleaning materials.
    Based on the nature of the fiberglass boat manufacturing 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 fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities), and such 
controls can be implemented only through a CTG. The recommended 
controls described in the draft CTG are also consistent with effective 
existing EPA, State, and local VOC control strategies for fiberglass 
boat manufacturing operations. These two factors alone demonstrate that 
a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national regulation under 
CAA section 183(e) in addressing VOC emissions from this product 
category in ozone nonattainment areas.
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 fiberglass boat manufacturing.
    First, fiberglass boat manufacturing resins and gel coats and 
associated cleaning materials are used at commercial facilities in 
specific, identifiable locations. Specifically, these materials are 
used in commercial facilities that build fiberglass boats 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 fiberglass boat 
manufacturing and associated cleaning materials. For the reasons 
described above, we believe that a national rule limiting the VOC 
content in the resin, gel coat and cleaning materials used in 
fiberglass boat manufacturing 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 resin, gel coat, and cleaning materials at fiberglass 
boat manufacturing facilities. Specifically, the draft CTG can provide 
for the use of low-VOC materials, specific application methods, and 
work practices. The 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 
contents of the resin, gel coat, and cleaning materials used in 
fiberglass boat manufacturing, are far more effective if implemented 
directly at the point of use of these materials. For the reasons stated 
above, it is more effective to control the VOC contents of the resin, 
gel coat, and cleaning materials used for fiberglass boat manufacturing 
through a CTG than through a national regulation.
    Furthermore, the number of fiberglass boat manufacturing 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. We recommend the control measures described in the draft CTG 
for fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities that emit 6.8 kg VOC/day 
(15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or more VOC. Based on the April 2004 ozone 
nonattainment designations, we estimate that 67 of the 91 fiberglass 
boat manufacturing facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas emit 
6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or more and are therefore 
addressed by our recommendations in the draft CTG. There are 24 
fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities that would not be covered by 
the recommendations in the draft CTG. According to the 2002 NEI 
database, these 24 facilities collectively emitted less than 12.7 Mg/yr 
(14 tpy) of VOC, which is less than one percent of the total reported 
VOC (1,465 Mg/yr (1,615 tpy)) in ozone nonattainment areas. The fact 
that the CTG addresses more than 99 percent of the VOC emissions from 
fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities in ozone nonattainment areas 
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 fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities will 
be substantially as effective as a national regulation.

V. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

A. Industry Characterization

1. Source Category Description
    The miscellaneous industrial adhesives product category includes 
adhesives (including adhesive primers used in conjunction with certain 
types of adhesives) used at a wide variety of industrial manufacturing 
and repair facilities that operate adhesives application processes.
    The miscellaneous industrial adhesives product category does not 
include adhesives that are addressed by CTGs already issued for 
categories listed under CAA Section 183(e) or by earlier CTGs. These 
include the CTGs issued under Section 183(e) for aerospace coatings; 
metal furniture coatings; large appliance coatings; flat wood paneling 
coatings; paper, film, and foil coatings; offset lithographic printing 
and letterpress printing; and flexible package printing. Coil coating, 
fabric coating, and rubber tire manufacturing were not listed under CAA 
Section 183(e); however, they were the subject of earlier CTGs which 
address adhesives used in those processes. In addition, the 
miscellaneous industrial adhesives category does not include adhesives 
and adhesive primers that are subject to the National Volatile Organic 
Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products, 40 CFR part 59, 
subpart C.
    Adhesives, glass bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives 
applied to new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies, or body parts 
for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks are included in the 
miscellaneous industrial adhesives product category and are

[[Page 40256]]

addressed in the draft CTG for miscellaneous industrial adhesives. In 
the draft CTG, however, we seek comments on whether the use of these 
materials in the production of new automobiles and new light-duty 
trucks should be included in the miscellaneous industrial adhesives 
product category and addressed in the CTG for miscellaneous industrial 
adhesives, or in the auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings 
category.
    Adhesives are used for joining surfaces in assembly and 
construction of a large variety of products. Adhesives allow for faster 
assembly speeds, less labor input, and more ability for joining 
dissimilar materials than other fastening methods. The largest use of 
adhesives is for manufacture of pressure sensitive tapes and labels. 
Other large industrial users are automobile manufacturing, packaging 
laminating, and shoe construction. Although there are a wide variety of 
adhesives formulated from a multitude of synthetic and natural raw 
materials, all adhesives can be generally classified as solution/
waterborne, solvent-borne, solventless or solid (e.g., hot melt 
adhesives), pressure sensitive, or reactive (e.g., epoxy adhesives and 
ultraviolet-curable adhesives). Adhesives can also be generally 
classified according to whether they are structural or nonstructural. 
Structural adhesives are commonly used in industrial assembly processes 
and are designed to maintain product structural integrity.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
    The VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives are a 
result of evaporation of the solvents contained in many of the primers, 
adhesives and cleaning materials \17\ during adhesive application and 
drying processes, as well as during surface preparation and cleaning 
processes associated with adhesives application. The primary VOC 
emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives occur during 
application, flash-off, and drying. In many cases, the emissions from 
application and flash-off are removed from these areas with localized 
ventilation systems. A lesser amount of emissions occur as the adhesive 
dries. Essentially all of the remaining VOC in the organic solvent 
contained in the adhesives is emitted during the drying process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In a previous notice, EPA stated that the cleaning 
operations associated with certain specified section 183(e) consumer 
and commercial product categories, including the miscellaneous 
industrial adhesives category, would not be covered by EPA's 2006 
CTG for industrial cleaning solvents (71 FR 44522 and 44540, August 
4, 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. Accordingly, the draft 
CTG for the miscellaneous industrial adhesives addresses VOC 
emissions from cleaning operations associated with this product 
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some VOC emissions also occur during mixing of the adhesives. The 
VOC emissions from mixing operations occur from displacement of VOC-
laden air in containers used to mix adhesives before 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 primary VOC emissions from the cleaning materials occur during 
cleaning operations, which include application equipment cleaning and 
line flushing. VOC emissions from surface preparation (where products 
and materials are primed and/or cleaned prior to adhesive application), 
adhesive storage and handling, and waste/wastewater operations (i.e., 
handling waste/wastewater that may contain residues from both adhesives 
and cleaning materials) are small.
    As mentioned above, the majority of VOC emissions from 
miscellaneous industrial adhesives occur from evaporation of solvents 
in the adhesives during application. The transfer efficiency (the 
percent of adhesive solids deposited on the material or product) of an 
adhesive application method affects the amount of VOC emissions during 
adhesive application. The more efficient an adhesive application method 
is in transferring adhesives to the material or product, the lower the 
volume of adhesives (and therefore solvents) needed per given amount of 
production. High transfer efficiency results in lower VOC emissions.
    Miscellaneous industrial adhesives may be in the form of a liquid 
or aerosol product. Liquid adhesives 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 a substrate into a coating bath. 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.
    Many spray applied adhesives are electrostatically applied. In 
electrostatic application, an electrical attraction between the 
adhesive, which is positively charged, and the grounded substrate 
enhances the amount of adhesive deposited on the surface. For liquid 
adhesives, this application method is more efficient than conventional 
air atomized spray, with transfer efficiency typically ranging from 60 
to 90 percent.
    Spray applied adhesives are typically applied in a spray booth to 
capture adhesive overspray, to remove solvent vapors from the 
workplace, and to keep the application operation from being 
contaminated by dirt from other operations. In spray application 
operations, the majority of VOC emissions occur in the spray booth.
    Other liquid adhesive application methods used in adhesive 
application operations include flow coating, roll coating, HVLP spray, 
electrocoating, autophoretic coating, and application by hand. These 
application methods are described in more detail in the draft CTG.
    After application, the adhesives may be baked or cured in heated 
drying ovens to speed drying, but many are air dried, especially for 
some heat-sensitive substrates. The amount of VOC emitted depends on 
the type of adhesive used, the speed of the application line (i.e., how 
quickly the substrate moves through the flash-off area), and the 
distance between the application area and bake oven (if used).
    The VOC emissions from the adhesive application process can be 
reduced through changes in adhesive formulations and application 
technology. Add-on controls may also be used to reduce VOC emissions 
from miscellaneous industrial adhesives and cleaning materials. In some 
cases, add-on controls are used where it is necessary or desirable to 
use high-VOC materials, but they are also used in combination with low-
VOC adhesives and/or more efficient application methods to achieve 
additional emission reductions.
    The trend in control technology for solvent-borne adhesives is not 
to control emissions from the adhesives, but rather to replace them 
with low VOC adhesives, some of which can perform as well as solvent-
borne adhesives. Since the late 1970s, adhesive formulations that 
eliminate or reduce the amount of solvent in the formulations have been 
increasing, thus reducing VOC emissions per unit amount of adhesive 
used.
    Various types of low solvent adhesive include waterborne, hot-melt, 
solventless two-component, and radiation-cured adhesives. Hot-melt 
adhesives are the most widely used of these alternative processes.

[[Page 40257]]

    The combination of low-VOC adhesive type and an application method 
with high transfer efficiency, is also an effective measure for 
reducing VOC emissions. Not only are VOC emissions reduced by using 
adhesives with low VOC content, the use of an application method with 
high transfer efficiency, such as electrostatic spraying, lowers the 
volume of adhesives needed per given amount of production, thus further 
reducing the amount of VOC emitted during the adhesive application 
process.
    As mentioned above, the majority of VOC emissions from spray 
application operations occur in the spray booth. The VOC concentration 
in spray booth exhaust is typically low because a large volume of 
exhaust air is used to dilute the VOC emissions for safety reasons. 
Although VOC emissions in spray booth exhaust can be controlled with 
add-on controls, it is generally not cost effective to do so, due to 
the large volume of air that must be treated and the low concentration 
of VOC. On the other hand, the wide availability and lower cost of low-
VOC content adhesives makes them a more attractive option. For those 
situations where an add-on control device can be justified for 
production or specific adhesive requirements, thermal oxidation and 
carbon adsorption are most widely used. The draft CTG contains a 
detailed discussion of these and other available control devices.
    To control VOC emissions from containers used to store or mix 
adhesives containing VOC solvents, work practices (e.g., using closed 
storage containers) are implemented at facilities that apply 
miscellaneous industrial adhesives. Work practices are also widely used 
at these facilities as a means of reducing VOC emissions from 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, 
low vapor pressure, or low boiling point cleaning materials. However, 
little information is available regarding the effectiveness of the use 
of these types of cleaning materials at miscellaneous industrial 
adhesive application processes.
3. Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Control Strategies
    There are no previous EPA actions that address miscellaneous 
industrial adhesive application operations. However, many California 
air pollution control districts have adhesives regulations in place, 
and some States are currently developing regulations.
    In 1998, the California ARB issued a guidance document that 
includes ARB's determination of RACT and best available retrofit 
control technology (BARCT) for Adhesives and Sealants. The 1998 ARB 
document presented RACT and BARCT for controlling VOC emissions from 
the commercial and industrial application of adhesives and sealants. 
The ARB RACT determination prescribes VOC emission limits for various 
industrial adhesives and sealants and was developed based on eight 
existing California air pollution control district rules for adhesives 
and sealants that were in effect in 1998. Those eight districts 
included Bay Area (BAAQMD), El Dorado County (EDCAPCD), Placer County 
(PCAPCD), Sacramento Metropolitan (SMAQMD), South Coast (SCAQMD), 
Ventura County (VCAPCD), Yolo-Solano (YSAQMD), and San Diego County 
(SDCAPCD).
    The ARB based the majority of its RACT determination on limits 
already in effect in SCAQMD, BAAQMD, and VCAPCD, and concluded that the 
VOC limits for adhesives and sealants presented in its RACT 
determination were achievable and cost-effective. Furthermore, the ARB 
stated in its RACT determination that most of the adhesive and sealant 
products being sold in 1998 were already compliant with the VOC limits 
that were determined to be RACT.
    Since the development of the ARB RACT determination, five 
additional California air pollution control districts have adopted 
rules based on the ARB RACT standards.
    In 2007, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) issued a Model Rule 
for Adhesives and Sealants. The model rule was based almost entirely on 
the 1998 California ARB RACT determination. The model rule is designed 
for adoption by member states with compliance dates by 2009. To date, 
only Maryland has adopted an adhesives rule based on the OTC model 
rule. Maine and New Jersey are either currently considering adopting or 
are in the process of adopting the model rule.
    Some states regulate VOC emissions from adhesives as part of their 
regulations for specific surface coating operations.
    As discussed above, a total of 13 air pollution control districts 
in California have established rules for adhesives. The various 
district adhesives rules do not all contain the same categories and 
limits as the ARB RACT guidance. Where the categories are the same or 
similar among these District rules, the SCAQMD rule (i.e., Rule 1168) 
generally has the most stringent VOC content limits. If add-on controls 
are used, SCAQMD Rule 1168 requires that the system control at least 80 
percent of the VOC emissions. Several California air Districts require 
the use of specific types of high-efficiency adhesive application 
methods to further reduce VOC emissions. For example, in addition to 
limiting the VOC contents in the adhesives, SCAQMD Rule 1168 requires 
the use of one of the following types of application equipment: 
Electrostatic application; flow coating; dip coating; roll coating; 
hand application; high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray; or an 
alternative method that is demonstrated to be capable of achieving a 
transfer efficiency equal to or better than 65 percent. At least seven 
other California District rules that regulate emissions from adhesives 
similarly require that sources use specified application methods that 
achieve high transfer efficiency.
    At least eight California Districts and Maryland regulate cleaning 
materials used in adhesive application processes. These regulations 
require a combination of work practice, equipment standards, and limits 
on the VOC content, boiling point, or composite vapor pressure of the 
solvent. Some California District rules allow the use of add-on 
controls as an alternative to the VOC content/boiling point/vapor 
pressure limits for cleaning materials. The work practice and equipment 
standards that have been adopted by California Districts include, for 
example, using closed containers for storing solvent and solvent 
containing wipes and rags, using enclosed and automated spray gun 
washing equipment, and prohibiting atomized spraying of solvent during 
spray gun cleaning. However, the cleaning material VOC content/boiling 
point/vapor pressure limits, overall control efficiency requirements, 
and work practices vary among the District rules.

B. Recommended Control Techniques

    The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for reducing 
VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives and associated 
cleaning materials. As explained in the draft CTG, we are recommending 
these control options for facilities with miscellaneous industrial 
adhesive application processes that emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day) 
or more before consideration of control. For purposes of determining 
whether a facility meets the 6.8-kg/day (15-lb/day) threshold, 
aggregate emissions from all miscellaneous industrial adhesive 
application operations and related

[[Page 40258]]

cleaning activities at a given facility are included.
    The draft CTG would not apply to facilities that emit below the 
threshold level because of the very small VOC emission reductions that 
would 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 adhesives. 
Furthermore, based on the 2002 NEI data and the 2004 ozone 
nonattainment designations, facilities emitting below the recommended 
threshold level collectively emit less than 6 percent of the total 
reported VOC emissions from facilities with miscellaneous adhesive 
application operations in ozone nonattainment areas. For these reasons, 
the draft CTG does not specify control for these low emitting 
facilities. This recommended threshold is also consistent with our 
recommendations in many previous CTGs.
1. Adhesives
    The draft CTG provides facilities flexibility by recommending 
various options for controlling VOC emissions. The draft CTG recommends 
specific VOC emission limits based on application processes (i.e., the 
types of adhesives and substrates). The draft CTG offers two options 
for achieving the recommended emission limits: (1) Through the use of 
low-VOC content adhesives and specified application methods with good 
adhesive transfer efficiency; or (2) through the use of a combination 
of low-VOC adhesives, specified application methods, and add-on 
controls. As an alternative to the emission limits, the draft CTG 
recommends an overall control efficiency of 85 percent. This 
alternative provides facilities the operational flexibility to use high 
efficiency add-on controls instead of low-VOC content adhesives and 
specified application methods, especially when the use of high VOC 
adhesives is necessary or desirable for product efficacy. We expect the 
85 percent control efficiency recommendation to result in VOC emission 
reduction that is equivalent to or exceed the reduction from our 
recommended emission limits. Both the emission limits and the control 
efficiency recommendations in the draft CTG reflect what we have 
concluded to be reasonably achievable VOC control measures for 
miscellaneous industrial adhesives based on our review of Maryland's 
adhesives rule, the OTC model rule, and the various California air 
district rules.
    The following VOC emission limits are recommended in the draft CTG 
for general and specialty adhesive application processes and for 
adhesive primer application processes:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     VOC emission limit
                                                   ---------------------
                                                      (g/l)     (lb/gal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Adhesive Application Processes:
    Fiberglass....................................        200        1.7
    Flexible vinyl................................        250        2.1
    Metal.........................................         30        0.3
    Porous Material (Except Wood).................        120        1.0
    Rubber........................................        250        2.1
    Wood..........................................         30        0.3
    Other Substrates..............................        250        2.1
Specialty Adhesive Application Processes:
    Ceramic Tile Installation.....................        130        1.1
    Contact Adhesive..............................        250        2.1
    Cove Base Installation........................        150        1.3
    Floor Covering Installation (Indoor)..........        150        1.3
    Floor Covering Installation (Outdoor).........        250        2.1
    Floor Covering Installation (Perimeter Bonded         660        5.5
     Sheet Vinyl).................................
    Metal to Urethane/Rubber Molding or Casting...        850        7.1
    Multipurpose Construction.....................        200        1.7
    Plastic Solvent Welding (ABS).................        400        3.3
    Plastic Solvent Welding (Except ABS)..........        500        4.2
    Sheet Rubber Lining Installation..............        850        7.1
    Single-Ply Roof Membrane Installation/Repair          250        2.1
     (Except EPDM)................................
    Structural Glazing............................        100        0.8
    Thin Metal Laminating.........................        780        6.5
    Tire Retreading...............................        100        0.8
    Waterproof Resorcinol Glue....................        170        1.4
Adhesive Primer Application Processes:
    Automotive Glass Adhesive Primer..............        700        5.8
    Plastic Adhesive Primer.......................        250        2.1
    Plastic Solvent Welding Adhesive Primer.......        650        5.4
    Single-Ply Roof Membrane Adhesive Primer......        250        2.1
    Other Adhesive Primer.........................        250        2.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recommended VOC emission limits are expressed as mass of VOC 
per volume of adhesive or adhesive primer, excluding water and exempt 
compounds.\18\ For general application processes where an adhesive is 
used to bond dissimilar substrates together, then the applicable 
substrate category with the highest VOC emission limit is recommended 
as the limit for such application. For example, in an application 
process where an adhesive is used to bond flexible vinyl to metal, the 
recommended VOC emission limit is 250 g/l (2.1 lb/gal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The list of exempt compounds that are considered to be 
negligibly photochemically reactive in forming ozone can be found in 
the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our recommended limits are based on the limits in the OTC model 
rule. As previously mentioned, the emission limits in the OTC rule were 
California ARB RACT standards, which were

[[Page 40259]]

based on numerous California District rules and adopted by other 
California District rules. Furthermore, the OTC model rule is intended 
for adoption by States. In light of the above, we consider the limits 
in the OTC model rule to be representative of what sources in 
nonattainment areas nationwide can achieve technically and economically 
and have therefore adopted these VOC limits as our recommendations in 
the draft CTG.
    As in Maryland's adhesive rule and the OTC model rule, we recommend 
in the draft CTG that the following types of specialty adhesive 
application processes be exempt from VOC content limits: Adhesives or 
adhesive primers being tested or evaluated in any research and 
development, quality assurance, or analytical laboratory; adhesives or 
adhesive primers used in the assembly, repair, or manufacture of 
aerospace or undersea-based weapon systems; adhesives or adhesive 
primers used in medical equipment manufacturing operations; and 
cyanoacrylate adhesive application processes.
    As mentioned above, we recommend the use of low-VOC adhesives in 
conjunction with application methods that achieve good adhesive 
transfer efficiency. Specifically, we recommend the following 
application methods: Electrostatic spray, HVLP spray, flow coat, roller 
coat, dip coat including electrodeposition, brush coat, or other 
adhesive application methods that are capable of achieving a transfer 
efficiency equivalent or better than that achieved by HVLP spraying.
    A further explanation of the emission limits and control efficiency 
recommendations described above can be found in the draft CTG.
    In addition to the recommended control measures described above, 
the draft CTG recommends the following work practices to further reduce 
VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives: (1) Store all 
VOC-containing adhesives, adhesive primers, and adhesive-related waste 
materials in closed containers; (2) ensure that mixing and storage 
containers used for VOC-containing adhesives, adhesive primers, and 
adhesive-related waste materials are kept closed at all times except 
when depositing or removing these materials; (3) minimize spills of 
VOC-containing adhesives, adhesive primers, and adhesive-related waste 
materials; and (4) convey adhesives, adhesive primers, and adhesive-
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. We recommend that, at a minimum, all of the 
work practices be included: (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 application, storage, mixing, and conveying equipment 
by ensuring that application equipment cleaning is performed without 
atomizing the cleaning solvent and all spent solvent is captured in 
closed containers.

C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques

    Based on the 2002 NEI database, we estimate that there are 1,048 
facilities in the U.S. that operate miscellaneous adhesive application 
processes. Using the April 2004 ozone nonattainment designations, we 
estimated that 720 of these facilities are in ozone nonattainment 
areas. Based on the 2002 NEI VOC emissions data, 180 of the 720 
facilities in ozone nonattainment areas emitted VOC at or above the 
recommended 6.8-kg/day (15-lb/day) applicability threshold. These 180 
facilities, in aggregate, emit an estimated 4,428 Mg/yr (4,881 tpy) of 
VOC, or an average of about 24.6 Mg/yr (27.1 tpy) of VOC per facility. 
As previously mentioned, the emissions from these facilities represent 
less than 6 percent of the total reported VOC emissions from facilities 
that operate miscellaneous adhesives application operations in ozone 
nonattainment areas.
    As mentioned above, the draft CTG recommends the emission limits in 
the OTC model rule. The OTC limits were based on California ARB RACT 
standards, which were based on eight California Districts' adhesives 
rules and have been adopted by other California Districts and Maryland. 
Accordingly, for purposes of estimating the cost effectiveness of our 
recommendations in the draft CTG, we assume that facilities in 
California and Maryland are already meeting the recommended emission 
limits. For facilities in nonattainment areas outside of California and 
Maryland, we have estimated the total annual control costs of using 
low-VOC adhesives to be approximately $603,997, and emission reductions 
will be about 64 percent. These recommended measures are expected to 
result in a VOC emissions reduction of 2,070 Mg/yr (2,281 tpy), and the 
cost-effectiveness is estimated to be $292/Mg ($265/ton). The impacts 
are further discussed in the draft CTG document.
    We have concluded that the work practice recommendations in the 
draft CTG will result in a net cost savings. These work practices 
reduce the amount of cleaning materials used by decreasing the amount 
that evaporates and is therefore wasted. Similarly, the adoption of 
more effective application methods, such as electrostatic spray and 
other methods recommended in the draft CTG, will reduce adhesive 
consumption and result in net cost savings compared to conventional 
spray guns. However, because we cannot determine the extent to which 
these practices have already been adopted, we cannot quantify these 
savings. Therefore, these cost savings are not reflected in the above 
cost impacts.

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 
miscellaneous industrial adhesive product category 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 miscellaneous 
industrial adhesive application operations and associated cleaning 
materials.
    This section is divided into two parts. In the first part, we 
discuss our conclusion that the most effective means of achieving VOC 
emission reductions in this CAA section 183(e) product category is 
through controls at the point of use of the products, (i.e., through 
controls on the use of adhesive and cleaning materials at miscellaneous 
industrial adhesive application operations), and these controls can be 
accomplished only 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 product 
in this product category also supports the use of a CTG. We also 
discuss the likely VOC emission reductions associated with a CTG, as

[[Page 40260]]

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 these categories.
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 miscellaneous 
industrial adhesive application operations: (1) Evaporation of VOC from 
adhesives; and (2) evaporation of VOC from cleaning materials. We 
address each of these sources of VOC emissions, in turn, below, as we 
discuss the CTG versus regulation approach.
a. Adhesives
    A national rule would contain limits for the as-sold VOC content of 
adhesives that are marketed as miscellaneous industrial adhesives. 
However, the effect of such national rule setting low VOC content 
limits for miscellaneous industrial adhesives could be easily subverted 
because a section 183(e) rule could not require that a facility use 
only those low-VOC content adhesive materials that are specifically 
marketed for miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations. 
Many adhesives used in miscellaneous industrial adhesive application 
operations are not specifically marketed by the supplier as adhesives 
for specific products. Therefore, these facilities could purchase and 
use high-VOC specialty adhesives materials for routine application 
operations, and this practice would effectively nullify the 
reformulation actions of the manufacturers and suppliers of low-VOC 
adhesives, resulting in no net change in VOC emissions in ozone 
nonattainment areas.
    By contrast, a CTG can affect the end users of the adhesive 
materials and, therefore, can implement the control measures that are 
more likely to achieve the objective of reducing VOC emissions from 
this product category in ozone nonattainment areas. Our recommended 
control options in the draft CTG include, among other things, the use 
of application methods with high adhesives transfer efficiency and add-
on controls. In addition, we recommend that certain work practices be 
implemented to further reduce VOC emissions from adhesives as well as 
controlling VOC emissions from cleaning materials. Given the 
significant reductions achievable through the use of these recommended 
control measures, the most effective entity to address VOC emissions 
from miscellaneous industrial adhesives is the facility using the 
adhesives.
    These control measures are consistent with existing State and local 
VOC control strategies applicable to miscellaneous industrial 
adhesives. Existing State and local regulations (in particular, the 
regulations in Maryland and the majority of the California air 
Districts) that address miscellaneous industrial adhesive application 
operations similarly call for VOC emission reduction through the use of 
low-VOC content materials, or the use of control devices in conjunction 
with high-VOC content adhesive materials. Some State and local VOC 
control strategies also include work practices and specific application 
methods.
    We cannot, however, issue a national rule directly requiring 
miscellaneous industrial adhesive application facilities to use low-VOC 
content adhesives, control devices, specific application methods, or 
work practices because, pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and 
(e)(3)(B), the regulated entities subject to a national rule would be 
the adhesive manufacturers and suppliers, not the miscellaneous 
industrial adhesive application facilities. By contrast, a CTG can 
reach the end users of the miscellaneous industrial adhesives and, 
therefore, can implement the control recommendations for end users that 
are identified above as more likely to achieve the objective of 
reducing VOC emissions from these product categories in ozone 
nonattainment areas. Accordingly, we are including these recommended 
control measures in the draft CTG that applies to miscellaneous 
industrial adhesive application facilities as the end users of the 
adhesives materials.
b. Cleaning Materials
    There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated 
with the cleaning materials used in the miscellaneous industrial 
adhesive application process: (1) Limiting the VOC content, boiling 
point, 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 miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations 
provide low-VOC content or low vapor pressure (high boiling point) 
cleaning materials would suffer from the same deficiencies noted above 
with regard to the adhesives. Specifically, nothing in a national rule 
that specifically regulates manufacturers and suppliers of cleaning 
materials specified for use in adhesive application operations would 
preclude 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 such regulation would directly undermine the 
effectiveness of such a national regulation.
    The more effective approach for reducing VOC emissions from 
cleaning materials used by miscellaneous industrial adhesive 
application facilities is to control the use of cleaning materials 
through work practices. The draft CTG recommends that miscellaneous 
industrial adhesive application facilities implement work practices to 
reduce VOC emissions from cleaning materials during application 
operations. Examples of effective work practices are: Keeping solvents 
and used shop towels in closed containers; using enclosed spray gun 
cleaners and preventing the atomized spraying of cleaning solvent; 
minimizing spills of VOC-containing cleaning materials; cleaning up 
spills immediately; and conveying any VOC-containing cleaning materials 
in closed containers or pipes. These work practices have proven to be 
effective in reducing VOC emissions.
    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 
miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations is the 
facility using the cleaning materials during these operations. This 
recommendation is consistent with measures required by State and local 
jurisdictions for reducing VOC emissions from cleaning materials used 
in miscellaneous industrial adhesives application operations.
    We cannot, however, issue a rule requiring such work practices for 
miscellaneous industrial adhesive application facilities because, 
pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(B), the regulated 
entities subject to

[[Page 40261]]

a national rule would be the cleaning materials manufacturers and 
suppliers and not the miscellaneous industrial adhesive application 
facilities. By contrast, a CTG can address these application 
facilities. Accordingly, we are including in the draft CTG these work 
practices that apply to miscellaneous industrial adhesive application 
facilities as the end users of the cleaning materials.
    Based on the nature of the miscellaneous industrial adhesive 
application 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 control at the point of use of the product, 
(i.e., through controls on miscellaneous industrial adhesive 
application facilities). This strategy can be accomplished only through 
a CTG. The recommended approaches described in the draft CTG are also 
consistent with effective existing State and local VOC control 
strategies for other 183(e) product categories. These two factors alone 
demonstrate that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national 
regulation under CAA section 183(e) in addressing VOC emissions from 
miscellaneous industrial adhesives and associated cleaning materials in 
ozone nonattainment areas.
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 miscellaneous industrial adhesives and associated 
cleaning materials.
    First, miscellaneous industrial adhesives and associated cleaning 
materials are used at manufacturing facilities in specific, 
identifiable locations. Specifically, these materials are used in 
industrial manufacturing facilities that apply adhesives to various 
materials, as described in section V.A. This stands in contrast to 
other consumer products, such as architectural coatings, which are 
widely distributed and used by innumerable small users (e.g., 
individual consumers in the general public). Because the VOC emissions 
are occurring at industrial 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 VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives 
and associated cleaning materials. For the reasons described above, we 
believe that a national rule limiting the VOC content in adhesives and 
cleaning materials used in miscellaneous industrial adhesive 
application 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 that are applicable to the end-users of the adhesives and 
cleaning materials at miscellaneous industrial adhesive application 
facilities. As described above, our recommendations in the draft CTG 
include the use of control devices, specific application methods, and 
work practices. The 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, and as previously explained, strategies that 
arguably could be implemented through rulemaking, such as limiting the 
VOC content in adhesives and cleaning materials, are far more effective 
if implemented directly through a CTG at the point of product use. For 
the reasons stated above, it is more effective to control the VOC 
emissions from adhesives and cleaning materials used for miscellaneous 
industrial adhesive application through a CTG than through a national 
regulation.
    Furthermore, the number of miscellaneous industrial adhesives 
application 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 these product categories. We recommend the control 
measures described in the draft CTG for miscellaneous industrial 
adhesive application facilities that emit 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) or 
more VOC. Based on the April 2004 ozone nonattainment designations, we 
estimate that 180 of the 720 miscellaneous industrial adhesive 
application 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. We estimate that 540 miscellaneous 
industrial application facilities would not be covered by the 
recommendations in the draft CTG. However, according to the 2002 NEI 
database, these 540 facilities collectively emitted about 239 Mg/yr 
(264 tpy) of VOC, which is less than 6 percent of the total reported 
VOC (an average of about 0.44 Mg/yr (0.49 tpy) per facility) in ozone 
nonattainment areas. The fact that the CTG addresses more than 94 
percent of the VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesive 
application facilities in ozone nonattainment areas further supports 
our conclusion that a CTG is more likely to achieve the intended VOC 
emission reduction goal for these product categories 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 miscellaneous industrial adhesive application 
facilities will be substantially as effective as a national regulation.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, small

[[Page 40262]]

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 rule 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. We are proposing to take 
final action to list the five Group IV consumer and commercial product 
categories addressed in this notice for purposes of CAA section 183(e) 
of the CAA. This listing action alone does not impose any regulatory 
requirements. We are also proposing to determine that, for the five 
product categories at issue, a CTG will be substantially as effective 
as a national regulation in achieving VOC emission reductions in ozone 
nonattainment areas. This proposed determination means 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 this proposed determination, we are also taking comment 
on the draft CTGs for these five product categories. When finalized, 
these CTGs will be guidance documents. EPA does not directly regulate 
any small entities through the issuance of a CTG. Instead, EPA issues 
CTGs to provide States with guidance on developing appropriate 
regulations to obtain VOC emission reductions from the affected sources 
within certain nonattainment areas. EPA's issuance of a CTG does 
trigger an obligation on the part of certain States to issue State 
regulations, but States are not obligated to issue regulations 
identical to the EPA's CTG. States may follow the 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 EPA's action on each 
State's State Implementation Plan. Thus, States retain discretion in 
determining to what degree to follow the CTGs.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
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.
    This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector because the rule imposes 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 rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that 
this rule contains 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 (EO) 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, 
August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to 
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is 
defined in the EO to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in EO 13132. The CAA establishes the relationship between 
the Federal Government and the States, and this action does not impact 
that relationship. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the 
spirit of EO 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA 
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and 
local officials.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 13175, entitled ``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.'' This proposed rule 
does not have Tribal implications, as specified in EO 13175. This 
listing action and proposed determination do not have a substantial 
direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, in that it imposes no 
regulatory burden on tribes. Furthermore, it does 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

[[Page 40263]]

implementing the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this rule.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it does not establish an envioronmental standards 
intended to mitigate 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 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when the Agency 
does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does 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 (February 16, 1994)) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment.
    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

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

    Dated: July 3, 2008.
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 will be substantially as effective as regulations in 
reducing volatile organic compound emissions in ozone nonattainment 
areas:
    (a) Wood furniture coatings;
    (b) Aerospace coatings;
    (c) Shipbuilding and repair coatings;
    (d) Lithographic printing materials;
    (e) Letterpress printing materials;
    (f) Flexible packaging printing materials;
    (g) Flat wood paneling coatings;
    (h) Industrial cleaning solvents;
    (i) Paper, film, and foil coatings;
    (j) Metal furniture coatings;
    (k) Large appliance coatings;
    (l) Miscellaneous metal products coatings;
    (m) Plastic parts coatings;
    (n) Auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings;
    (o) Fiberglass boat manufacturing materials; and
    (p) Miscellaneous industrial adhesives.

[FR Doc. E8-15722 Filed 7-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
