![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Lithographic Printing Materials, Letterpress Printing Materials, Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, and Industrial Cleaning Solvents
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 150)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44521-44543]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04au06-31]
[[Page 44522]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 59
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0672; FRL-8204-9]
Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines
in Lieu of Regulations for Lithographic Printing Materials, Letterpress
Printing Materials, Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Flat Wood
Paneling Coatings, and Industrial Cleaning Solvents
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed determination and availability of draft
control techniques guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act), EPA proposes to determine that control techniques guidelines
documents (CTGs) will be substantially as effective as national
regulations in reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
in ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) nonattainment
areas from the following five product categories: Lithographic printing
materials, letterpress printing materials, flexible packaging printing
materials, flat wood paneling coatings, and industrial cleaning
solvents. Based on this determination, EPA may issue CTGs in lieu of
national regulations for these product categories. EPA has prepared
draft CTGs for the control of VOC emissions from each of the product
categories covered by this proposed determination. Once finalized,
these CTGs will provide guidance to the States concerning EPA's
recommendations for reasonably available control technology (RACT)-
level controls for these product categories. EPA further proposes to
take final action to list the five Group II consumer and commercial
product categories addressed in this notice pursuant to CAA section 183(e).
DATES: Comments: Written comments on the proposed determination must be
received by September 5, 2006, unless a public hearing is requested by
August 11, 2006. If a hearing is requested on the proposed
determination, written comments must be received by September 13, 2006.
We are also soliciting written comments on the draft CTGs and those
comments must be submitted within the comment period for the proposed
determination.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing concerning the proposed determination by August 11,
2006, we will hold a public hearing on August 14, 2006. The substance
of any such hearing will be limited solely to EPA's proposed
determination under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) that the CTGs for the five
Group II product categories will be substantially as effective as
regulations in reducing VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.
Accordingly, if a commenter has no objection to EPA's proposed
determination under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), but has comments on the
substance of a draft CTG, the commenter should submit those comments in
writing.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by applicable docket ID
number, by one of the following methods:
? Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
? E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
? Fax: (202) 566-1741.
? Mail: Comments concerning the Proposed Determination
should be sent to: Consumer and Commercial Products, Group II--
Determination to Issue Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of
Regulations, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0672.
Comments concerning any draft CTG should be sent to the applicable
docket, as noted below: Consumer and Commercial Products--Lithographic
Printing Materials and Letterpress Printing Materials, Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2006-0536; Consumer and Commercial Products--Flexible Packaging
Printing Materials, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0537; Consumer and
Commercial Products--Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0535; or Consumer and Commercial Products--Flat Wood Paneling
Coatings, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0538, Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Docket Center, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
? Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to the applicable docket. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10
a.m. at Building C on the EPA campus in Research Triangle Park, NC, or
at an alternate site nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral
testimony must contact Ms. Dorothy Apple, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-4487, fax number
(919) 541-3470, e-mail address: apple.dorothy@epa.gov, no later than
August 11, 2006. Persons interested in attending the public hearing
must also call Ms. Apple to verify the time, date, and location of the
hearing. If no one contacts Ms. Apple by August 11, 2006 with a request
to present oral testimony at the hearing, we will cancel the hearing.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
[[Page 44523]]
the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on
docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected
by the flooding and will remain the same.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the CAA
section 183(e) consumer and commercial products program, contact Mr.
Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce
Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number: (919) 541-5460, fax number (919) 541-3470, e-mail
address: moore.bruce@epa.gov. For further information on technical
issues concerning the proposed determinations and draft CTG for
lithographic printing materials and letterpress printing materials,
contact: Mr. Dave Salman, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and
Chemicals Group (E143-01), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number: (919) 541-0859, e-mail address:
salman.dave@epa.gov. For further information on technical issues
concerning the proposed determination and draft CTG for flexible
packaging printing materials, contact: Ms. Paula Hirtz, U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2618,
e-mail address: hirtz.paula@epa.gov. For further information on
technical issues concerning the proposed determination and draft CTG
for flat wood paneling coatings, contact: Mr. Lynn Dail, U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919)
541-2363, e-mail address: dail.lynn@epa.gov. For further information on
technical issues concerning the proposed determination and draft CTG
for industrial cleaning solvents, contact: Dr. Mohamed Serageldin, U.S.
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919)
541-2379, e-mail address: serageldin.mohamed@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Entities Potentially Affected by this
Action. The entities potentially affected by this action include
industrial facilities that use the respective consumer and commercial
products covered in this action as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of affected
Category NAICS code \1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flexible packaging printing 322221, 326112, Facilities that use
materials. 322223, rotogravure or
3265111, flexographic processes
322224, to print materials such
322225, 332999. as bags, pouches,
labels, liners, and
wraps using paper,
plastic film, aluminum
foil, metalized or
coated paper or film,
or any combination of
these materials.
Lithographic printing 323110......... Facilities engaged in
materials. lithographic printing
on individual sheets or
continuous rolls of
substrate material.
Letterpress printing 323119......... Facilities engaged in
materials. letterpress printing on
individual sheets or
continuous rolls of
substrate material.
Industrial cleaning solvents. various \2\.... Facilities engaged in
cleaning activities
associated with
manufacturing, repair,
and service operations
across a wide variety
of industry sectors.
Flat wood paneling coatings.. 321211, 321212, Facilities that apply
321219, 321999. protective, decorative,
or functional material
to any interior,
exterior, or hardboard
panel product.
Federal Government........... ............... Not affected.
State/local/tribal government ............... Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be affected by this
action, you should examine the applicable industry description in
sections II.A, III.A, IV.A, and V.A of this notice. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the appropriate EPA contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Industrial cleaning solvents are used in various
manufacturing, repair, and service operations that span many
industry sectors. A detailed list of affected industries and their
respective NAICS codes are presented in the draft CTG for industrial
cleaning solvents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparation of Comments. Do not submit information containing CBI
to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr.
Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, Attention: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0672, 0535,
0536, 0537, or 0538 (as applicable). Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on
the Worldwide
[[Page 44524]]
Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following
signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on the TTN's
policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the
following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.
Organization of This Document. The information presented in this
notice is organized as follows:
I. Background Information and Proposed Determination
A. The Ozone Problem
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
C. Significance of a CTG
D. General Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
E. Proposed Determination
F. Availability of Documents
II. Lithographic Printing Materials and Letterpress Printing Materials
A. Industry Characterization
B. Recommended Control Techniques
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
III. Flexible Packaging Printing Materials
A. Industry Characterization
B. Recommended Control Techniques
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
IV. Flat Wood Paneling Coatings
A. Industry Characterization
B. Recommended Control Techniques
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
V. Industrial Cleaning Solvents
A. Industry Characterization
B. Recommended Control Techniques
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
VI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
I. Background Information and Proposed Determination
A. The Ozone Problem
Ground-level ozone, a major component of smog, is formed in the
atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen in the presence
of sunlight. The formation of ground-level ozone is a complex process
that is affected by many variables.
Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of
human health effects, agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and
ecosystems. Acute health effects are induced by short-term exposures
(observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)),
generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion,
and by prolonged exposures to ozone (observed at concentrations as low
as 0.08 ppm), typically while individuals are engaged in moderate
exertion. Moderate exertion levels are more frequently experienced by
individuals than heavy exertion levels. The acute health effects
include respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise performance,
increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to
respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency room
visits, and pulmonary inflammation. Groups at increased risk of
experiencing such effects include active children, outdoor workers, and
others who regularly engage in outdoor activities, as well as those
with preexisting respiratory disease. Currently available information
also suggests that long-term exposures to ozone may cause chronic
health effects (e.g., structural damage to lung tissue and accelerated
decline in baseline lung function).
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
Under section 183(e) of the CAA, EPA conducted a study of VOC
emissions from the use of consumer and commercial products to assess
their potential to contribute to levels of ozone that violate the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and to
establish criteria for regulating VOC emissions from these products.
Section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to list for regulation those
categories of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC
emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial
products in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone
nonattainment areas), and to divide the list of categories to be
regulated into four groups. EPA published the initial list in the
Federal Register on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15264). In that notice, EPA
stated that it may amend the list of products for regulation, and the
groups of product categories, in order to achieve an effective
regulatory program in accordance with the Agency's discretion under CAA
section 183(e).
EPA has revised the list several times. See 70 FR 69759 (Nov. 17,
2005); 64 FR 13422 (Mar. 18, 1999). Most recently, in May 2006, EPA
revised the list to add one product category, portable fuel containers,
and to remove one product category, petroleum dry cleaning solvents.
See 71 FR 28320 (May 16, 2006). As a result of these revisions, Group
II of the list now comprises the five product categories that are the
subject of this action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pursuant to the court's order in Sierra Club v. EPA, 1:01-
cv-01597-PLF (D.C. Cir., March 31, 2006), EPA must take final action
on the product categories in Group II by September 30, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any regulations issued under section CAA 183(e) must be based on
``best available controls'' (BAC). CAA section 183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC
as ``the degree of emissions reduction that the Administrator
determines, on the basis of technological and economic feasibility,
health, environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the
application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes,
methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation,
product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for use,
consumption, storage, or disposal.'' CAA section 183(e) also provides
EPA with authority to use any system or systems of regulation that EPA
determines is the most appropriate for the product category. Under
these provisions, EPA has previously issued ``national'' regulations
for architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, autobody
refinishing coatings and consumer products.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 63 FR 48792 (September 11, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) further provides that EPA may issue a CTG
in lieu of a national regulation for a product category where the EPA
determines that the CTG will be ``substantially as effective as
regulations'' in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment
areas. The statute does not specify how EPA is to make this
determination, but does provide a fundamental distinction between
national regulations and CTGs. Specifically, for national regulations,
[[Page 44525]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 183(e) defines regulated entities as:
(i) * * * manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or
importers of consumer or commercial products for sale or
distribution in interstate commerce in the United States; or (ii)
manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers that
supply the entities listed under clause (i) with such products for
sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States.
Thus, under CAA section 183(e), a regulation for consumer or
commercial products is limited to the measures applicable to
manufacturers, processors, distributors, or importers of the solvents,
materials, or products supplied to the consumer or industry. CAA
section 183(e) does not authorize EPA to issue regulations that would
directly regulate end-users of these products. By contrast, CTG are
guidance documents that recommend RACT measures that States can adopt
and apply to the end users of products. This dichotomy (i.e., that EPA
cannot directly regulate end-users under CAA section 183(e), but can
address end-users through a CTG) created by Congress is relevant to
EPA's evaluation of the relative merits of a national regulation versus
a CTG.
C. Significance of CTG
CAA section 172(c)(1) provides that state implementation plans
(SIPs) for nonattainment areas must include ``reasonably available
control measures'' (RACM), including ``reasonably available control
technology'' (RACT), for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)
provides that States must revise their ozone SIPs to include RACT for
VOC sources covered by any CTG document issued after November 15, 1990,
and prior to the date of attainment. Those ozone nonattainment areas
that are subject to CAA section 172(c)(1) and submit an attainment
demonstration seeking more than five years from the date of designation
to attain must also meet the requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2) and
revise their ozone SIPs in response to any CTG issued after November
15, 1990, and prior to the date of attainment. Other ozone
nonattainment areas subject to CAA section 172(c)(1) may take action in
response to this guidance, as necessary to attain.
EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility, 44 FR 53761 (Sept. 17, 1979).'' In subsequent
Federal Register notices, EPA has addressed how states can meet the
RACT requirements of the Act. Significantly, RACT for a particular
industry is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering issues of
technological and economic feasibility.
EPA provides states with guidance concerning what types of controls
could constitute RACT for a given source category through issuance of a
CTG. The recommendations in the CTG are based on available data and
information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the
circumstances. States can follow the CTG and adopt State regulations to
implement the recommendations contained therein, or they can adopt
alternative approaches. In either event, States must submit their RACT
rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process. EPA
will evaluate the rules and determine, through notice and comment
rulemaking in the SIP process, whether they meet the RACT requirements
of the Act and EPA's regulations. To the extent a State adopts any of
the recommendations in a CTG into its State RACT rules, interested
parties can raise questions and objections about the substance of the
guidance and the appropriateness of the application of the guidance to
a particular situation during the development of the State rules and
EPA's SIP approval process.
We encourage States in developing their RACT rules to consider
carefully the facts and circumstances of the particular sources in
their States because, as noted above, RACT is determined on a case-by-
case basis, considering issues of technological and economic
feasibility. For example, a state may decide not to require 90 percent
control efficiency at facilities that are already well controlled, if
the additional emission reductions would not be cost-effective. States
may also want to consider reactivity-based approaches, as appropriate,
in developing their RACT regulations.\5\ Finally, if States consider
requiring more stringent VOC content limits than those recommended in
the draft CTGs, states may also wish to consider averaging, as
appropriate. In general, the RACT requirement is applied on a short-
term basis up to 24 hours.\6\ However, EPA guidance permits averaging
times longer than 24 hours under certain conditions.\7\ The EPA's
Economic Incentive Policy'' \8\ provides guidance on use of long-term
averages with regard to RACT and generally provides for averaging times
of no greater than 30 days. Thus, if the appropriate conditions are
present, States may consider the use of averaging in conjunction with
more stringent limits. Because of the nature of averaging, however, we
would expect that any State RACT Rules that allow for averaging also
include appropriate recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
in Ozone State Implementation Plans,'' 70 FR 54046 (September 13, 2005).
\6\ See, e.g., 52 FR at 45108, col. 2, ``Compliance Periods''
(November 24, 1987). ``VOC rules should describe explicitly the
compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit (e.g.,
instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules are silent on
compliance time, EPA will interpret it as instantaneous.''
\7\ Memorandum from John O'Connor, Acting Director of the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ``Averaging
Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits-SIP Revision Policy.''
\8\ ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,
January 2001,'' available at
http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/policy/search.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By this action, we are making available four draft CTGs that cover
the five product categories in Group II of the CAA section 183(e) list.
We are consolidating lithographic printing materials and letterpress
printing materials into one CTG document. These CTGs are guidance to
the States and provide recommendations only. A State can develop its
own strategy for what constitutes RACT for the Group II product
categories, and EPA will review that strategy in the context of the SIP
process and determine whether it meets the RACT requirements of the Act
and its implementing regulations.
Finally, CAA section 182(b)(2) provides that a CTG issued after
1990 specify the date by which a State must submit a SIP revision in
response to the CTG. In the draft CTGs at issue here, EPA provides that
States should submit their SIP revisions within one year of the date
that the CTGs are finalized.
D. General Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
CAA Section 183(e)(3)(C) authorizes EPA to issue a CTG in lieu of a
regulation for a category of consumer and commercial products if a CTG
``will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing [VOC]
emissions'' in ozone nonattainment areas. The statute does not specify
how EPA is to make this determination.
On July 13, 1999 (64 FR 37773), EPA issued a final determination
pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), concluding that CTGs for wood
furniture coatings, aerospace coatings, and shipbuilding and repair
coatings were substantially as
[[Page 44526]]
effective as national regulations in reducing emissions of VOC from
these products in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone. Recognizing
that the statute does not specify any criteria for making a
determination under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), EPA, in 1999 considered
several relevant factors, including: (1) The product's distribution and
place of use; (2) the most effective entity to target to control
emissions--in other words, whether it is more effective to achieve VOC
reductions at the point of manufacture of the product or at the point
of use of the product; (3) consistency with other VOC control
strategies; and (4) estimates of likely VOC emission reductions in
ozone nonattainment areas which would result from the regulation or
CTG. EPA believes that these factors are useful for evaluating whether
the rule or CTG approach would be best from the perspective of
implementation and enforcement of an effective strategy to achieve the
intended VOC emission reductions. As we consider other product
categories in the current and future phases of regulation under CAA
section 183(e), there may be other factors that are relevant to the CAA
section 183(e)(3)(C) determination for given product categories. EPA
believes that in making these determinations, no single factor is
dispositive. On the contrary, for each product category, we must weigh
the factors and make our determination based on the unique set of facts
and circumstances associated with each product category. For purposes
of making the determination, EPA analyzed the components of the draft
CTGs for the product categories at issue and compared the CTGs to the
types of controls and emission strategies possible through a
regulation. As we explained in 1999, it would be unreasonable for EPA,
in effect, to have to complete both the full rulemaking and full CTG
development processes before being able to make a determination under
CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) validly. EPA believes that for most product
categories, it is possible for the Agency to make a determination
between what a rule might reasonably be expected to achieve versus what
a CTG might reasonably be expected to achieve, without having to
complete the entire rulemaking and CTG processes. To conclude otherwise
would result in unnecessary wasting of limited time and resources by
the Agency and the stakeholders participating in the processes.
Moreover, such an approach would be directly contrary to CAA section
183(e)(3)(C), which authorizes EPA to issue a CTG in lieu of a
regulation if it determines that the CTG ``will be substantially as
effective as'' a regulation in reducing VOC emissions in ozone
nonattainment areas.
With regard to the five product categories at issue here, EPA notes
that it does not have reliable quantitative data that would enable it
to conduct a ton-by-ton comparison of the likely emission reductions
associated with a national regulation versus a CTG. Although we
conducted such a comparative analysis in 1999 for the product
categories of wood furniture coatings, aerospace coatings and
shipbuilding and repair coatings, (64 FR 37773, July 13, 1999), such
analysis is not necessary for evaluating likely VOC emission
reductions, particularly, where, as here, a CTG can achieve significant
emission reductions from end-users, which cannot be achieved through
regulation under CAA section 183(e).
E. Proposed Determination
Based on the factors identified above and the facts and
circumstances associated with each of the Group II product categories,
EPA proposes to determine that CTGs for lithographic printing
materials, letterpress printing materials, flexible packaging printing
materials, flat wood paneling coatings and industrial cleaning solvents
will be substantially as effective as national regulations in reducing
VOC emissions from facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas.
The following four sections address the five product categories
that comprise Group II of the CAA section 183(e) list. We address
lithographic printing materials and letterpress printing materials in
one section below. Although these are two distinct product categories
in the CAA section 183(e) list, offset lithographic printing and
letterpress printing have many similarities in terms of the types of
inks and cleaning materials used, the sources of VOC emissions and the
controls available to address those emissions. Based on these
similarities, EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to address the
categories together and to issue a single CTG that covers both product
categories.
In each of the product-category sections below, we provide a
general description of the industry, identify the sources of VOC
emissions associated with the industry, summarize the recommended
control techniques in the draft CTG and describe the impacts of those
techniques, and discuss the considerations supporting our proposed
determination under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) that a CTG will be
substantially as effective as a regulation in reducing VOC emissions in
ozone nonattainment areas from the product category at issue.
The specific subsections below that address our proposed
determination for each product category are organized into two parts,
each of which addresses two of the factors relevant to the CAA section
183(e)(1)(C) determination. The first part addresses whether it is more
effective to target the point of manufacture of the product or the
point of use for purposes of reducing VOC emissions and discusses
whether our proposed approach is consistent with state and local VOC
reduction strategies. The second part addresses the product's
distribution and place of use and discusses the likely VOC emission
reductions associated with a CTG, as compared to a regulation.
Finally, we propose to find that these five product categories are
appropriate for inclusion on the CAA section 183(e) list in accordance
with the factors and criteria that EPA used to develop the original
list. See Consumer and Commercial Products: Schedule for Regulation, 60
FR 15264 (Mar. 23, 1995).
F. Availability of Documents
EPA has prepared four draft CTG documents covering the five
consumer and commercial products source categories addressed in this
action. Lithographic printing materials and letterpress printing
materials are included in one draft CTG document. Each of the draft
CTGs addresses, among other things, RACT recommendations, cost impacts,
and State and local regulations. These draft CTGs are available for
public comment and are contained in the respective dockets listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
II. Lithographic Printing Materials and Letterpress Printing Materials
A. Industry Characterization
Lithographic printing materials and letterpress printing materials
are two of the product categories in Group II of the section 183(e)
list. Not only are these distinct product categories, they are distinct
printing processes. Nevertheless, offset lithographic printing and
letterpress printing have many similarities in terms of the types of
inks and cleaning materials used, the sources of VOC emissions and the
controls available to address these emissions. Accordingly, for purposes
of simplifying the discussion in this notice, we have combined the
[[Page 44527]]
discussion of offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing.
1. Source Category Description
These categories of consumer and commercial products include the
inks and other associated materials used by offset lithographic
printers and letterpress printers.
Offset lithography is a planographic method of printing. The term
``planographic'' denotes that the printing and non-printing areas are
in the same plane on the surface of a thin metal lithographic plate. To
maintain the distinction between the areas on the lithographic plate,
the image area is rendered oil receptive, and the non-image area is
rendered water receptive.
Offset lithography is an indirect printing method; that is, ink is
not transferred directly to a substrate. Rather, ink is transferred
from the lithographic plate to a rubber-covered, intermediate
``blanket'' cylinder and then transferred from the blanket cylinder to
the substrate. The offset lithographic process is used for a broad
range of printing applications, including books, magazines,
periodicals, labels and wrappers, catalogs and directories, financial
and legal documents, business forms, advertising brochures, newspapers,
newspaper inserts, charts and maps, calendars, tickets and coupons,
greeting cards, and stamps.
Letterpress printing is a printing process in which the image area
is raised relative to the nonimage area and the paste ink is
transferred to the substrate directly from the image surface.
Letterpress printing is no longer an economically significant segment
of the printing market. Some newspapers, corrugated boxes and kraft
paper are still printed by letterpress.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
a. Offset Lithographic Printing
There are two types of offset lithography characterized by the
method in which the substrate is fed to the press. In sheet-fed
printing, individual sheets of paper or other substrate are fed to the
press. In web printing, continuous rolls of substrate material are fed
to the press and rewound or cut to size after printing. VOC emissions
from offset lithographic printing result from evaporation of components
of the inks, fountain solutions, and cleaning materials.
The inks used in offset lithographic printing are a source of VOC
emissions. The amount of VOC emitted varies depending on the type of
offset lithographic printing process.
Heatset web offset lithographic inks require heat to set the ink.
Heatset web inks may contain up to 45 weight percent VOC (ink oils). In
heatset web offset lithographic printing, 20 percent of the petroleum
ink oils and essentially all of the vegetable ink oils are retained in
the substrate and dry ink film. The remaining 80 percent of the
petroleum ink oil is volatilized in and then exhausted from the dryer.
Consequently, volatilized ink oils can be a significant source of VOC
emissions from heatset web offset lithographic printing operations.
Most heatset web offset lithographic printing dryers, however, are
equipped with control devices such as a thermal oxidizer, catalytic
oxidizer, or chiller condenser. These control devices significantly
reduce VOC emissions from heatset web offset lithographic printing.
Coldset web and sheet-fed offset lithographic inks dry by
absorption into the substrate or by oxidation. The petroleum ink oils
in sheet-fed and coldset web inks have higher boiling points than the
petroleum ink oils in heatset inks. Coldset web inks usually contain
below 35 percent weight VOC (ink oils). Most sheet-fed inks contain
below 25 weight percent VOC (ink oils). In sheet-fed and coldset web
offset lithographic printing, 95 percent of the petroleum ink oils and
essentially all of the vegetable oils are retained in the substrate and
dry ink film. As a result, VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset web
offset lithographic inks are very low.
Some radiation (ultra-violet and electron beam) cured offset
lithographic materials are also used. These materials do not contain
ink oils. Their VOC content and emissions are usually extremely low.
The second source of VOC emissions from offset lithographic
printing is the fountain solution used in conjunction with the inks.
Fountain solution is unique to lithography and is not used in other
printing processes.
Fountain solution is applied to the lithographic plate to render
the non-image areas unreceptive to ink. The on-press fountain solution
is typically a mixture of water and fountain solution concentrate. The
concentrate contains additives such as gum arabic or synthetic resins,
acids, and buffer salts to maintain the pH of the solution, and a
wetting agent or ``dampening aid'' to enhance the spreadability of the
fountain solution across the plate. The dampening aid reduces the
surface tension of the water as well as increases viscosity.
Fountain solutions can be the source of a significant portion of
the VOC emitted by offset lithographic printing operations.
Historically, alcohols such as isopropyl alcohol, n-propyl alcohol and
ethanol were used as the dampening aid. Over the past 20 years, many
printers have reduced their emissions from fountain solution by
reducing the alcohol content of the fountain solution or refrigerating
the fountain solution. In addition, many printers have further reduced
VOC emissions by switching to alcohol substitutes, most commonly
certain glycol ethers.
The third source of VOC emissions from offset lithographic printing
is cleaning materials. Cleaning materials are used to wash the
blankets, rollers, and outside of presses, and to remove residues of
excess ink between color changes. These materials are typically
mixtures of organic (often petroleum-based) solvents. Cleaning
materials can be the source of a significant portion of the VOC emitted
by lithographic printing operations. The keys to reducing VOC emissions
from offset lithographic printing cleaning materials are reducing the
composite vapor pressure of the material used and work practices. Low-
VOC content waterborne cleaning materials have been tested but have not
proven to be a satisfactory alternative.
b. Letterpress Printing
The VOC emissions from letterpress printing result from the
evaporation of components of the inks and cleaning materials. Fountain
solution is not used in letterpress printing. Letterpress inks are
similar to offset lithographic inks. They are paste inks containing
petroleum oils or vegetable oils. Both sheet-fed and web presses are
used for letterpress printing.
Sheet-fed letterpress presses use coldset inks. Most web
letterpress equipment use coldset inks. These letterpress inks are
similar in composition and behavior to sheet-fed and coldset web
lithographic inks. In sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress printing,
95 percent of the petroleum ink oils and essentially all of the
vegetable oils are retained in the substrate and dry ink film. As a
result, VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress inks
are very low.
There are also some heatset web letterpress printers. Heatset
letterpress ink is similar to heatset lithographic ink with 20 percent
of the petroleum ink oils and essentially all of the vegetable ink oils
retained in the substrate and dry ink film. The remaining ink oil is
volatilized in and then exhausted from the dryer. Heatset web letterpress
[[Page 44528]]
printing dryers may be equipped with control devices such as a thermal
oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, or chiller condenser. These control
devices would significantly reduce VOC emissions from heatset
letterpress printing.
The most significant source of VOC emissions in the letterpress
process is cleaning materials. Cleaning materials are used to wash the
rollers, plates and outside of presses. The cleaning materials used for
letterpress printing are similar to those used in lithographic
printing. These materials are typically mixtures of organic (often
petroleum-based) solvents. The keys to reducing VOC emissions from
letterpress printing cleaning materials are reducing the composite
vapor pressure of the material used and work practices.
3. State and Local Regulations
Seventeen States or local areas have VOC emission regulations for
offset lithographic printing operations. Five states or local areas
have regulations for letterpress printing operations. These rules
generally limit the alcohol or alcohol substitute content of fountain
solutions and the composite vapor pressure of cleaning materials, and
require control of heatset dryer exhaust. More detail on these rules is
provided in the draft CTG.
B. Recommended Control Techniques
The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for heatset
dryers, fountain solution and cleaning. The recommendations in the
draft CTG apply to offset lithographic printing operations or
letterpress printing operations that emit at least 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/
day) of VOC before consideration of control. The 15 lb/day level of
emissions has been the applicability threshold for many CTGs in the
past.\9\ For purposes of determining whether this applicability
threshold is met, emissions from all offset lithographic printing,
letterpress printing, and cleaning activities associated with offset
lithographic printing or letterpress printing at a given facility are
included. The only exception to this threshold relates to the add-on
control recommendations provided below for heatset web offset
lithographic printing operations and heatset web letterpress printing
operations, and that exception is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See. e.g., Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for
Reasonably Available Control Technology: Planning for Ozone
Nonattainment Pursuant to Title I of the Clean Air Act, dated June
1992 (establishing the 15 lb of VOC per day applicability threshold
for coating applications for eleven industries, including automobile
and light duty truck coating operations and coating of cans, coil,
paper, fabric, vinyl, metal furniture, large appliances, magnet
wire, miscellaneous metal parts, and flatwood paneling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Offset Lithographic Printing
In the draft CTG, the recommended level of control for VOC
emissions from exhaust from heatset web offset lithographic dryers is a
90 percent reduction in VOC for control equipment installed before
March 14, 1995. The draft CTG further recommends that control equipment
installed on or after March 14, 1995, achieve 95 percent efficiency.
These levels of control can be achieved by thermal oxidizers, catalytic
oxidizers and chiller condensers. In light of technological
improvements, add-on controls installed on or after March 14, 1995 can
achieve 95 percent VOC reduction. To accommodate situations where the
inlet VOC concentration is so low that a 90 or 95 percent reduction may
not be achievable, an outlet concentration alternative is also recommended.
The above recommended levels of control apply only to heatset web
offset lithographic printing operations with potential to emit from the
dryers of at least 25 tpy of VOC combined from heatset inks and
carryover of alcohol substitutes (fountain solution) and low vapor
pressure automatic blanket wash materials, before consideration of
controls. We are recommending the 25 tpy threshold for add-on controls
for heatset ink printers because the limited information currently
available to us suggests that controls for small printers may be more
costly for a given amount of emission reduction. In the 1993 draft CTG,
EPA examined the cost of controlling heatset dryer emissions from four
different size model plants. Annual ink oil emissions, before control,
from the dryers at these facilities were approximately 25, 50, 100 and
200 tons per year (tpy). The cost-effectiveness of controlling these
ink oil emissions was estimated to range from $1,300 per ton at the
largest model facility to $2,300 per ton at the smallest model facility
(1990 dollars). In 2005 dollars, this equates to $1,800 per ton at the
largest model facility and $3,100 per ton at the smallest model
facility. More recently, EPA learned of a heatset web offset
lithographic book printing facility with potential to emit 26 tpy of
VOC from ink and alcohol substitute (fountain solution) carryover,
before control, from the dryers on five heatset web offset lithographic
presses. Book printing tends to have much lighter coverage and lower
dryer exhaust VOC concentration than other types of heatset printing
(e.g., magazine printing). In this case the VOC concentration of the
dryer exhaust was very low. A 2004 state BACT analysis for this
facility did not require the installation of control equipment. The
cost per ton of controlling heatset dryer emissions was estimated by
the facility to be $15,500 per ton which is significantly higher than
that estimated for the smallest model facility in the 1993 draft CTG.
We recognize that we have limited information on small heatset web
facilities and the costs of controlling VOCs emitted from the dryers at
these smaller sources. To allow us to assess the cost of controlling
dryer emissions at small heatset web facilities and the appropriateness
of the 25 tpy threshold for controlling dryer exhaust from heatset web
printers, we request information on the mass of ink oil emissions and
mass of alcohol substitute and automatic blanket wash carryover before
control, dryer exhaust rates, and other relevant operating parameters
for facilities with potential to emit from heatset dryers up to 100
tpy. We would also welcome information on the experience of smaller
facilities in controlling their dryer emissions, including any
alternative control approaches, and the cost of such controls.
No limits or controls are recommended for VOC emissions from sheet-
fed and coldset web offset lithographic inks. In sheet-fed and coldset
web offset lithographic printing, 95 percent of the petroleum ink oils
and essentially all of the vegetable oils are retained in the substrate
and dry ink film. As a result, VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset
web offset lithographic inks are already very low.
The recommended level of control for VOC emissions from fountain
solution for heatset web printing is 1.6 percent alcohol (by weight) in
the fountain or equivalent. The draft CTG recommends three different
approaches for achieving this recommended level of control. The first
approach involves reducing the alcohol content to 1.6 percent alcohol
or less (by weight). The second approach involves using 3 percent
alcohol or less (by weight) in the fountain solution provided the
fountain solution is refrigerated to below 60 [deg]F (15.5 [deg]C). The
third approach involves using 5 percent alcohol substitute or less (by
weight) and no alcohol in the fountain solution.
The recommended level of control for VOC emissions from fountain
solution for sheet-fed printing is equivalent to 5 percent alcohol (by
weight) in the fountain or equivalent The draft CTG recommends three
different approaches for achieving this recommended level of control.
The first approach involves reducing the alcohol content to 5.0
[[Page 44529]]
percent alcohol or less (by weight). The second approach involves using
8.5 percent alcohol or less (by weight) in the fountain solution
provided the fountain solution is refrigerated to below 60[deg]F
(15.5[deg] C). The third approach involves using 5 percent alcohol
substitute or less (by weight) and no alcohol in the fountain solution.
The recommended level of control for VOC emissions from fountain
solution for coldset web is 5 percent alcohol substitute or less (by
weight) and no alcohol in the fountain solution.
For all types of offset lithographic printing, the draft CTG
recommends the use of cleaning materials with a VOC composite partial
pressure less than 10 mm Hg at 20 [deg]C, and that cleaning materials
and used shop towels be kept in closed containers. The draft CTG also
recommends an allowance for limited, 209 or 418 liters (55 or 110
gallons) per year, use of higher vapor pressure cleaning materials. We
request comments on the appropriate size for this allowance and
additional information on the specific cleaning activities which
require the use of higher vapor pressure cleaning materials.
2. Letterpress Printing
The recommended level of control for VOC emissions from exhaust
from heatset letterpress dryers is a 90 percent reduction in VOC for
control equipment installed before March 14, 1995. The draft CTG
further recommends that new control equipment installed on or after
March 14, 1995, be required to achieve 95 percent efficiency. These
levels of control can be achieved by thermal oxidizers, catalytic
oxidizers, and chiller condensers. In light of technological
improvements, add-on controls installed after March 14, 1995 can
achieve 95 percent VOC reduction. To accommodate situations where the
inlet VOC concentration is low, an outlet concentration alternative is
also recommended.
The above recommended levels of control apply only to heatset web
letterpress printing operations with potential to emit from the dryers
of at least 25 tpy of VOC combined from heatset inks and carryover of
automatically applied low vapor pressure cleaning materials, before
consideration of controls. For the reasons explained above, we are
recommending the 25 tpy threshold for add-on controls for heatset ink
letterpress printers because the limited information currently
available to us suggests that controls for small heatset printers may
be more costly for a given amount of emission reduction. Because we
have limited information on small heatset web letterpress facilities
and the costs of controlling VOCs emitted from the dryers at these
smaller sources, we request additional information on these facilities.
The type of information we are requesting is specified above in the
discussion concerning add-on controls for heatset web offset
lithographic printers.
No limits are recommended for VOC emissions from sheet-fed and
coldset letterpress inks. In sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress
printing, 95 percent of the petroleum ink oils and essentially all of
the vegetable oils are retained in the substrate and dry ink film. As a
result, VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress inks
are already very low.
The draft CTG recommends the use of letterpress cleaning materials
with a VOC composite partial pressure less than 10 mm Hg at 20 [deg]C,
and that cleaning materials and shop used towels be kept in closed
containers. The document also recommends an allowance for limited, 209
or 418 liters (55 or 110 gallons) per year, use of higher vapor
pressure cleaning materials. We request comments on the appropriate
size for this allowance and additional information on the specific
cleaning activities which require the use of higher vapor pressure
cleaning materials.
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
In the 1993 draft CTG, EPA estimated baseline emissions from the
offset lithographic printing industry in ozone nonattainment areas,
based on 1990 data, to be 820,000 tons per year (with 62,000 tpy coming
from ink, 631,000 tpy from fountain solution and 126,000 tpy from
cleaning.) Commenters on the 1993 draft CTG asserted that the alcohol
content (17 percent) used to generate this estimate was too high and
that the assumed ratio of fountain solution usage to ink usage was also
too high. Baseline emissions from fountain solution may have been
overestimated in 1993 by a factor of 2 to 3. This would reduce industry
wide baseline emissions to between 400,000 to 500,000 tpy. As for
letterpress printers, we have limited emissions data information for
this industry. Based on available information, we estimate that VOC
emissions from the letterpress printing industry as of 1990 were about
28,000 tons per year.
Based on VOC emissions data and April 2006 ozone nonattainment
designations, EPA estimates that 6,700 offset lithographic printing
facilities and 2,200 letterpress printing facilities would be affected
by the draft CTG. We estimate the cost effectiveness of the recommended
control techniques for offset lithographic printing to be $2,000/ton of
VOC removed for heatset web dryers and $850/ton of VOC removed for
cleaning materials. A cost savings is estimated for fountain solution.
We estimate the cost effectiveness of the recommended control
techniques for letterpress heatset web dryers and letterpress printing
cleaning materials to be similar to the cost effectiveness for offset
lithographic heatset dryers and offset lithographic printing cleaning
materials.
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as
Effective as a Regulation
In determining whether to issue a national rule or a CTG for the
product categories of lithographic printing materials and letterpress
printing materials under section 183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four
factors identified above in Section I.D in light of the specific facts
and circumstances associated with these product categories. Based on
that analysis, we propose to determine that a CTG will be substantially
as effective as a rule in achieving VOC emission reductions in ozone
nonattainment areas from lithographic printing materials and
letterpress printing materials.
As noted above, this section is divided into two parts. In the
first part, we discuss our belief that the most effective means of
achieving VOC emission reductions in these two categories is through
controls at the point of use of the product (i.e., through controls on
printers), and this can only be accomplished through a CTG. We further
explain that the approaches in the draft CTG are consistent with
existing effective state and local VOC strategies. In the second part,
we discuss how the distribution and place of use of the products in
each of these categories also support the use of a CTG. We further
explain that there are control approaches for these two categories that
result in significant VOC emission reductions and that such reductions
could only be obtained by controlling the use of the product through a
CTG. Such reductions could not be obtained through a regulation under
section 183(e) because the controls affect the end-user, which cannot
be a regulated entity under section 183(e)(1)(C). Accordingly, for
these reasons and the reasons described more fully below, we believe
that a CTG will achieve greater VOC emission reductions than a rule for
these two categories.
[[Page 44530]]
1. The Most Effective Entity To Target for VOC Reductions and
Consistency With State and Local VOC Strategies
To evaluate the most effective entity to target for VOC reductions,
it is important to first identify the primary sources of VOC emissions.
There are three main sources of VOC emissions from offset lithography:
(1) Evaporation of VOC from the inks; (2) evaporation of VOC from the
fountain solution; and (3) evaporation of VOC from the cleaning
materials. VOC emissions associated with letterpress printing stem from
inks and cleaning materials only; fountain solutions are not used in
letterpress printing. We address each of these sources of VOC emissions,
in turn, below, as we discuss the CTG versus regulation approach.
a. Inks
A national rule could contain limits for the as-sold VOC content of
offset lithographic inks and letterpress inks, but given the nature of
the offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing processes,
this would result, in little, if any, reduction in VOC emissions.
Inks are a significant source of VOC emissions from heatset web
offset lithographic printing and heatset web letterpress printing. In
these processes, heat is applied in a dryer to set the inks. As a
result of the heating process, about 80 percent of the petroleum ink
oil (VOC) is volatilized in the dryer. The remaining 20 percent of
petroleum ink oil and all of the vegetable ink oil is retained in the
substrate and dry ink film. Since the vegetable ink oil does not
volatilize in the dryer, the amount of vegetable ink oil that can be
used in heatset inks is very limited. If there is too much vegetable
oil in a heatset ink, the ink will not dry properly.
Control devices, such as thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, or
chiller condensers, can achieve a 90 percent or greater reduction in
VOC emissions from heatset dryers. In light of the significant
reductions in VOC emissions obtained with such devices, existing State
and local regulations that address offset lithography require the use
of controls on heatset dryer exhaust. The same controls are equally
applicable to heatset letterpress dryers.
We could not require such control devices at printers through a
national rule, because, pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and
(e)(3)(A), the regulated entities subject to a national rule would be
the ink manufacturers and suppliers, not the printers. The draft CTG
applies to printers, as the end users of the inks, and specifically
recommends limiting emissions by requiring printers to install and
operate control devices on heatset dryers.
Although both a national rule and a CTG could, in theory, achieve
some reduction in VOC emissions from heatset web inks by requiring
minimum vegetable oil content or limiting the ratio of petroleum oil to
vegetable oil, we do not believe that such an approach is appropriate
for addressing the emissions associated with these inks. As noted
above, only very limited amounts of vegetable oil can be used in
heatset inks. As a result, only a small emission reduction could be
achieved, and we believe that this emission reduction--whether pursued
through a rule or CTG--would not be cost-effective. Accordingly, the
draft CTG does not contain restrictions on vegetable oil content. Given
the significant reductions achievable through use of add-on control
devices and the limited reductions that would be achieved by a national
rule for heatset inks, the most effective entity to regulate VOC
emissions associated with heatset web offset lithographic inks and
heatset letterpress inks is the printer.
The VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset web lithographic inks
and sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress inks are inherently very low.
First, these inks are lower VOC-content inks than heatset web inks.
Second, 95 percent of the petroleum ink oil and essentially all of the
vegetable ink oil in sheet-fed and coldset web lithographic inks and
sheet-fed and coldset web letterpress inks do not evaporate and are
retained in the substrate and dry ink film. Because only a small
percentage of the sheet-fed and coldset web lithographic and
letterpress ink oils evaporate, VOC emissions associated with these
inks are small.
Although both a national rule and a CTG could, in theory, achieve
some reduction in VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset web inks by
requiring a minimum vegetable oil content or limiting the ratio of
petroleum oil to vegetable oil, we do not believe that such an approach
is appropriate for addressing the limited emissions associated with
these inks. Only a small emission reduction could be achieved, and we
believe that this emission reduction--whether pursued through a rule or
a CTG--would not be cost-effective. There are therefore no restrictions
on vegetable oil content in the draft CTG.
In addition, there are no cost-effective control devices to address
VOC emissions from sheet-fed and coldset web lithographic and
letterpress printers because the emissions that occur from these
processes are diffuse and spread over a large area. Such emissions
stand in contrast to those associated with heatset offset web
lithographic inks and heatset letterpress inks, as the petroleum oils
in those inks volatilize in a dryer and can be controlled in a cost-
effective manner because they are emitted in a more concentrated form
from a discrete source. Thus, the draft CTG, while a viable approach
for addressing VOC emissions associated with heatset web inks with add-
on controls, does not contain any add-on control recommendations for
sheet-fed and coldset web inks because of the absence of any cost-
effective control devices.
b. Fountain Solutions \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ This section addresses offset lithographic printing only
because fountain solutions are not used in letterpress printing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fountain solutions contain alcohol or alcohol substitutes, which
are VOCs. Fountain solutions are generally purchased in the form of
fountain solution concentrate from vendors serving offset lithographic
printers. The printers--the end-users of the fountain solution--buy the
concentrate and dilute it with water to make ``press-ready'' fountain
solution. The more the concentrate is diluted, the lower the VOC
content of the press-ready fountain solution and the fewer VOC
emissions result.
A national rule requiring fountain solution concentrate
manufacturers and suppliers to package the fountain solution
concentrate with less VOC would not be an effective means of addressing
VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. In this regard, we could,
in theory, require the manufacturer or supplier to sell only pre-
diluted fountain solution with a specified amount of VOC content. The
effect of such a rule could be easily subverted, however, because the
rule would not, in any way, affect the actions of the end-user of the
fountain solution, i.e., the printers. In particular, printers can
purchase alcohol or alcohol substitutes from a variety of sources and
add these to the pre-diluted fountain solution concentrate, which would
effectively nullify the reformulation actions of the manufacturer and
supplier, resulting in no net change in VOC emissions in ozone
nonattainment areas. By contrast, a CTG can reach the users of the
product and can therefore implement controls or practices by the user
that are more likely to achieve the intended VOC emission reduction goal.
In addition, printers purchase fountain solution concentrate with
the intention of diluting the solution with
[[Page 44531]]
water, as appropriate, for the particular printing at issue. Thus, a
regulation requiring dilution of the fountain solution concentrate by
the manufacturer would be redundant of the actions that will be taken
by the printers. The only result of such a national regulation would be
increased shipping costs for printers. Shipping costs would increase
because diluting the fountain solution concentrate would increase the
volume of material to be shipped to the printers.
A national rule also, in theory, could prohibit fountain solution
manufacturers and suppliers from selling fountain solution concentrates
which contain alcohol or alcohol substitutes. Similar to the
reformulation strategy described above, the net effect of such a rule
could be easily nullified by actions of the printers, because nothing
precludes the printers from purchasing alcohol or alcohol substitutes
from vendors that would not be subject to the section 183(e)
regulation. Moreover, most offset lithographic printing requires some
alcohol or alcohol substitute in the fountain solution, so prohibiting
alcohol or alcohol substitutes in fountain solution concentrate would
be impractical.
Although a national rule could, in theory, prohibit the sale of all
alcohol and alcohol substitutes regardless of specified end use for
purposes of reducing VOC emissions from the offset lithographic and
letterpress printing industries, such an approach is unreasonable and
impractical, as it would preclude the use of alcohol in all contexts
just to obtain VOC reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from two
limited product categories. A more effective approach is to target
reductions through controls on the end-user, the printers, through a
CTG. Specifically, the draft CTG recommends limiting the on-press VOC
(alcohol or alcohol substitute) content of fountain solutions, or
refrigerating the fountain solution to reduce evaporation of VOC. These
approaches are consistent with approaches already taken by State and
local authorities, and they have proven effective in reducing VOC
emissions.
c. Cleaning Materials
There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated
with the cleaning materials used in the offset lithographic printing
process and the letterpress printing process: (1) Limiting the
composite vapor pressure of the cleaning materials, and (2)
implementing work practices governing the use of the product. A
national rule affecting lithographic cleaning material and letterpress
cleaning material manufacturers that limits the composite vapor
pressure of VOC in the cleaning materials sold suffers from the same
deficiencies noted above with regard to fountain solutions.
Specifically, although lithographic printers and letterpress printers
generally purchase cleaning materials from vendors serving their
respective industry, nothing in a national rule governing manufacturers
would preclude them from purchasing bulk solvents or other multipurpose
cleaning materials from other vendors. The general availability of bulk
solvents or multipurpose cleaning materials from vendors that would not
be subject to the regulation would directly undermine the effectiveness
of the regulation.
A national rule also could, in theory, limit the composite vapor
pressure of all cleaning materials and all solvents sold regardless of
specified end use, which would ensure that only low composite vapor
pressure materials are available for lithographic printing and
letterpress printing. Such an approach is unreasonable and impractical.
Cleaning materials and solvents are sold for multiple different
commercial and industrial purposes. Reducing the vapor pressure of all
materials merely to achieve VOC emission reduction from two limited
product categories, could preclude the use of such materials in many
important, legitimate contexts.
The more effective approach for obtaining VOC reductions from
cleaning materials used by offset lithographic printers and letterpress
printers is to control the use of such materials by the printers
through a CTG. The draft CTG recommends limiting the composite vapor
pressure of offset lithographic and letterpress cleaning materials.
With the CTG, the composite vapor pressure restrictions would apply to the
printer regardless of the source of the cleaning materials and solvents.
Significantly, we could not impose work practices through a section
183(e) rule. Work practices, by their nature, are directed at the end-
user of the product. The draft CTG recommends work practices such as
keeping shop towels in closed containers. This measure alone results in
significant reductions in VOC cleaning emissions, when used in
conjunction with low composite vapor pressure cleaning materials. These
reductions would not be possible through a section 183(e) regulation
because, by statute, such regulations do not apply to the end-user.
Finally, the approaches recommended in the CTG are consistent with
approaches taken by States and localities for cleaning materials, and
these approaches have proven effective in reducing VOC emissions.
Based on the nature of the offset lithographic printing and
letterpress printing processes, the sources of significant VOC
emissions from those processes, and the available strategies for
reducing such emissions, the most effective means of achieving VOC
emission reductions from these product categories is through controls
at the point of use of the products, (i.e., through controls on
printers), and this can only be accomplished through a CTG. The
approaches described in the draft CTG are also consistent with
effective state and local VOC control strategies. These two factors
alone demonstrate that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a
national regulation.
2. The Product's Distribution and Place of Use and Likely VOC Emission
Reductions Associated With a CTG Versus a Regulation
The factors described in the above section, taken by themselves,
weigh heavily in favor of the CTG approach. The other two factors
relevant to the section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only further confirm
that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national regulation
for offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing products.
First, the products described above are used at commercial printing
facilities in specific, identifiable locations. This stands in contrast
to other consumer products, such as architectural coatings, that are
widely distributed and used by innumerable small users (e.g.,
individual consumers in the general public). Because the VOC emissions
are occurring at commercial printing facilities, implementation and
enforcement of controls concerning the use of products are feasible and
therefore the nature of the product's place of use further counsels in
favor of the CTG approach.
Second, a CTG will achieve equal or greater emission reduction than
a national rule for each source of VOC emissions from offset
lithographic printing and letterpress printing. In total, the CTG will
achieve greater emission reductions because, as explained above, there
are certain control strategies, applicable to the end-user of the
product, that achieve significant VOC reductions. In particular, a CTG
will achieve a significant reduction of VOC emissions (90 percent or
greater) from heatset inks through the use of control devices on dryers
used in heatset web offset lithographic printing and heatset web
[[Page 44532]]
letterpress printing. A CTG also provides for work practices associated
with cleaning materials. The VOC reductions associated with these
measures could not be obtained through a national regulation because
they require the implementation of measures by the end-user.
In addition, there are certain strategies that arguably could be
implemented through rulemaking, but are far more effective if
implemented directly at the point of use of the product. For the
reasons described above, it is more effective to control the alcohol or
alcohol-substitutes content of fountain solution concentrate and the
composite vapor pressure of cleaning materials through a CTG, than a
regulation.
Furthermore, the number of sources affected by a CTG, as compared
to the number of sources in nonattainment areas does not change our
conclusion that the CTG would, in total, achieve greater VOC emission
reductions than a rule. Based on the April 2006 designations, we
estimate that 6,700 offset lithographic printing facilities, and 2,200
letterpress printing facilities would be affected by the draft CTG. We
further estimate that there are 30,500 offset lithographic printing
facilities and 11,000 letterpress printing facilities located in ozone
nonattainment areas. Although there is a large difference between the
number of facilities affected by the CTG, as compared to the number of
facilities in nonattainment areas, the facilities not covered by the
CTG are predominantly small sheet-fed printing facilities that, as
demonstrated above, are inherently low VOC emitters.
Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and
circumstances associated with these product categories, we propose to
determine that a CTG for offset lithographic printing and letterpress
printing will be substantially as effective as a national regulation.
III. Flexible Packaging Printing Materials
A. Industry Characterization
1. Source Category Description
Flexible packaging refers to any package or part of a package the
shape of which can be readily changed. Flexible packaging includes, but
is not limited to, bags, pouches, labels, liners, and wraps utilizing
paper, plastic, film, aluminum foil, metalized or coated paper or film,
or any combination of these materials. Printing, coating, laminating,
and the use of adhesives, primers, and varnishes may all be performed
on or in-line with a flexible packaging printing press, and these
activities are included in the source category.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
The primary source of VOC emissions from the flexible packaging
printing industry is evaporation of components of the printing inks,
coatings, adhesives and cleaning materials.
About 80 percent of flexible packaging printing is performed using
rotogravure processes. Gravure printing is a printing process in which
an image (type and art) is etched or engraved below the surface of a
plate or cylinder. Rotogravure package printing uses a wide variety of
different ink systems, including solvent systems (using aromatic,
aliphatic and oxygenated hydrocarbon solvent-borne inks), and
waterborne inks. VOC are contained in the printing inks, coatings,
adhesives and cleaning materials.
In flexographic printing, the image is raised above the printing
plate, and the image carrier is made of rubber or other elastomeric
materials. The major applications of flexographic printing are flexible
and rigid packaging; tags and labels; newspapers, magazines, and
directories; and paper towels, tissues, etc. Flexographic inks include
both waterborne and solvent-based systems. Solvents used must be
compatible with the rubber or polymeric plates; thus, aromatic solvents
are not used. VOC are contained in the printing inks, coatings,
adhesives and cleaning materials.
There are two approaches to reducing VOC emissions from the inks,
coatings and adhesives used in the flexible packaging printing
industry. The first approach includes improving existing capture and/or
control systems or adding control systems where none are in use. The
second approach, focusing on pollution prevention, is to substitute
lower VOC content or VOC-free inks, coatings and adhesives for higher
VOC content materials presently in use. The controls employed are
influenced by the type of inks, coatings and adhesives used, the
printing process being used, the substrate, and performance
requirements for the end product.
Capture systems in use include combinations of dryer exhausts,
floor sweeps, hoods, and total enclosures. Pressroom ventilation air
can also be exhausted to a control device. Capture efficiencies can
vary widely; the differences in efficiency contribute much more to the
variation in overall efficiencies than the choice of control device.
Control devices in use include carbon adsorbers, thermal oxidizers, and
catalytic oxidizers.
Many facilities in the packaging rotogravure and flexographic
printing industries use waterborne inks. These inks typically contain a
small proportion of alcohols or glycol ethers which function to reduce
surface tension and improve flow characteristics. Waterborne inks are
being used successfully for printing on paper packaging and for
printing on non-absorbent packaging substrates such as plastics,
aluminum, and laminates.
Use of waterborne inks for rotogravure printing is increasing;
however, problems still limit their use at press speeds above 1,000
feet per minute. Their use may require redesign of the system (e.g.,
changes in ink formulation, cylinder engraving, press operation, and
dryer design) for rotogravure flexible packaging printing. While use of
waterborne inks reduces or eliminates VOC emissions, their higher
surface tension and slower drying rate continue to be obstacles to
their expanded use.
There is widespread use of waterborne inks in flexographic
printing. Most of these facilities have no control devices, and may
have converted from solvent-borne to waterborne materials to avoid the
need to install control devices to comply with VOC regulations.
Flexographic printing is more easily adapted to the use of waterborne
materials, and may not require redesign of the system.
Flexible packaging producers print on many different substrates
within the same facility. Low-VOC inks are not available to meet all of
the performance requirements of the products produced at these facilities
or for all substrates in all of the colors required by some facilities.
3. State and Local Regulations
At least 34 States and several more local agencies have regulations
that control VOC emissions from rotogravure and flexographic printing
for flexible packaging. The majority of these agencies have adopted
control levels consistent with the 1978 RACT levels of 65 percent
overall control for rotogravure, 60 percent overall control for
flexography, or use of inks, coatings and adhesives with less than or
equal to 25 percent by volume VOC in their volatile fraction, more than
60 volume percent solids less water, or less than 0.5 kg of VOC per kg
of solids. More recently issued regulations for flexible package
printing operations are more stringent than the recommendations found
in the 1978 CTG. These regulations have overall control efficiency
requirements ranging from 66 percent to 85 percent.
[[Page 44533]]
B. Recommended Control Techniques
The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for flexible
packaging printing (inks, coatings and adhesives) and cleaning. The
recommendations in the draft CTG apply to flexible packaging printing
operations that emit at least 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) of VOC before
consideration of control. This level of emissions has been the
applicability threshold for many CTG in the past. For purposes of this
threshold, emissions from all flexible packaging printing and cleaning
activities associated with flexible packaging printing at a given
facility are included. The only exception to this threshold relates to
the control recommendations provided below for emissions from inks,
coatings and adhesives, and that exception is described below.
1. Inks, Coatings and Adhesives
More recently installed presses are capable of achieving greater
capture efficiencies than older presses. For presses first installed
prior to March 14, 1995, the draft CTG recommends an overall capture
and control efficiency of 70 percent for flexible packaging printers.
Alternative ``as-applied'' ink, coating and adhesive limits of 0.5 kg
of VOC/kg of solids applied (0.5 lb of VOC/lb of solids applied) or
0.10 kg of VOC/kg of materials applied (0.10 lb of VOC/lb of materials
applied) are also recommended.
For presses installed on or after March 14, 1995, the draft CTG
recommends an overall capture and control efficiency of 80 percent for
flexible packaging printers. Alternative ``as-applied'' ink, coating
and adhesive limits of 0.5 kg VOC/kg of solids applied (0.5 lb of VOC/
lb of solids applied) or 0.10 kg VOC/kg of materials applied (0.10 lb
of VOC/lb of materials applied) are also recommended.
The above recommended levels of control apply only to flexible
packaging printing operations with potential to emit at least 25 tpy of
VOC from inks, coatings and adhesives combined before consideration of
controls. We are recommending the 25 tpy threshold because not all
flexible packaging facilities can use low VOC content inks, coatings
and adhesives, and because the limited information currently available
to us suggests that add-on controls for small printers may be more
costly for a given amount of emission reduction.
Based on available information, we estimate that for a press
exhausting approximately 5,800 cubic feet per minute, operating 2000
hours per year, and achieving 70 percent capture efficiency, the VOC
emission reduction achieved by add-on controls would range from 30 to
60 megagrams (Mg) (33 to 66 tons) per year and the cost effectiveness
would range from $1,400/Mg to $3,100/Mg ($1,300/ton to 2,800/ton)
depending on the average hourly solvent use rate. At lower solvent use
rates, the cost per ton of emission controlled would likely be higher.
We recognize that we have limited information on small flexible
packaging printing facilities and the cost of add-on controls to reduce
VOCs emitted from inks, coatings and adhesives at these smaller
sources. To allow us to assess the cost of controlling emissions from
inks, coatings and adhesives at small flexible packaging printing
facilities and the appropriateness of the 25 tpy threshold for
recommending control of these emissions, we request information on the
mass of VOC emissions from inks, coatings and adhesives before control,
dryer exhaust rates, press utilization rates and other relevant
operating parameters for these smaller facilities. We would also
welcome information on the experience of smaller facilities in
controlling these emissions, including any alternative control
approaches, and the cost of such controls.
2. Work Practices for Cleaning Materials
The draft CTG recommends work practice requirements to ensure that
all cleaning materials are stored in closed containers; spills are
minimized; cleaning materials are conveyed from one location to another
in closed containers or pipes; and emissions of VOC are minimized
during cleaning of equipment. The draft CTG also recommends that used
shop towels be stored in closed containers.
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
EPA estimates that there are a total of 219 facilities located in
ozone nonattainment areas (based on April 2006 designations). Based on
VOC emissions data, EPA estimates that there are approximately 100
facilities in ozone nonattainment areas that would be affected based on
the 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) VOC emissions applicability threshold.
Nonattainment area VOC emissions (based on April 2006 designations)
are estimated to range from 8,636 to 16,364 Mg/yr (9,500 to 18,000
tpy). Many facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas are already
meeting the control levels recommended in the draft CTG. These
facilities may be using capture and control systems or low VOC content
inks, coatings and adhesives. The costs for facilities using higher VOC
materials that are not currently controlled and will be subject to RACT
for the first time will vary depending on the flow rate, hourly solvent
use rate, and operating hours. Although we do not have sufficient
information for the industry as a whole to estimate the costs of the
recommended control approaches, we have information on certain sources
from which we can estimate the likely emissions reductions and costs
for a typical source subject to control for the first time.
As noted above, on a relatively small flexible packaging press
exhausting approximately 5,800 cubic feet per minute, operating 2000
hours per year, and achieving 70 percent capture efficiency, we
estimate the VOC emission reduction to range from 30 to 60 megagrams
(Mg) (33 to 66 tons) per year and the cost effectiveness to range from
$1,400/Mg to $3,100/Mg ($1,300/ton to $2,800/ton) depending on the
average hourly solvent use rate. Increasing the hourly solvent use
rate, annual operating hours, or capture efficiency of this size press
would increase the annual VOC emission reduction and improve the cost
effectiveness. Larger presses with proportionately larger hourly
solvent use rates would also have larger annual VOC emission reductions
and better cost effectiveness than smaller presses.
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as
Effective as a Regulation
In determining whether to do a national rule or a CTG for the
flexible packaging printing materials category, we evaluated the
factors noted above in Section I.D of this notice in light of the
specific facts and circumstances associated with this product category.
Given the nature of the flexible packaging printing process, the
sources of VOC emissions from this process and the available strategies
for reducing VOC emissions from this process, we propose to determine
that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a rule in achieving
VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from the flexible
packaging printing materials product category.
1. The Most Effective Entity To Target for VOC Reductions and
Consistency With State and Local VOC Strategies
To evaluate the most effective entity to target for VOC reductions,
it is important to first identify the primary sources of VOC emissions.
There are two main sources of VOC emissions from flexible package
printing: (1) Evaporation of VOC from inks, coatings,
[[Page 44534]]
and adhesives; and (2) evaporation of VOC from cleaning materials. We
address each of these sources of VOC emissions, in turn, below, as we
discuss the CTG versus regulation approach.
a. Inks, Coatings, and Adhesives
While there is already significant use of low-VOC inks, coatings
and adhesives, not all flexible packaging printing can be done with
low-VOC content materials. In addition, in some cases where low-VOC
content materials could be used for some or all of the products
produced by a particular printer, there can be significant equipment
costs associated with switching to low-VOC content materials. For
example, in order to switch from solvent-borne materials to waterborne
materials, a rotogravure printer would need to re-engrave all of its
rotogravure cylinders. In other cases significant modifications may
need to be made to dryers.
A national rule could, in theory, limit the as-sold VOC content of
inks, coatings and adhesives used for specific purposes in flexible
packaging printing. This would in essence be specifying which print
work must be done with waterborne or other low-VOC content materials
and which print work may be done with solvent-borne materials. During
the development of the national emission standard for hazardous air
pollutants for the printing and publishing industry, we identified many
inks, coatings and adhesives with low hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
content; however, we were unable to identify specific print work that
could always be performed with low HAP content materials. Similarly,
given the wide variety of flexible packaging products; the wide variety
of combinations of substrates, inks, coatings and adhesives used to
make these products; the wide variety of products that may be printed
on an individual press; and the wide variation in the capabilities of
individual presses, we do not believe that we would be able to identify
specific print work that could always be performed with waterborne or
other low-VOC content materials. As a result, we do not believe we
could create an effective national rule which specified which print
work must be done with waterborne or other low-VOC content materials
and which print work may be done with solvent-borne materials.
Alternatively, a national rule could contain limits for the as-sold
VOC content of broad categories of flexible packaging printing inks,
coatings, and adhesives, but given the nature of the flexible package
printing process, this would result in little, if any, reduction in VOC
emissions. For example, a national rule could categorize inks by their
chemistry into waterborne inks, other low-VOC content inks, and
solvent-borne inks and set VOC content limits for each category. Such a
rule would not restrict the type of work that could be conducted with
each type of ink. Structuring a rule in this fashion would not result
in significant reductions in VOC emissions because solvent-borne inks,
which are the primary source of VOC emissions, would still be allowed
to have high VOC content, and a national rule would not require
printers to use add-on controls in conjunction with these high VOC
content materials. It is more effective to address the emissions
associated with solvent-borne inks at the point of use through a CTG.
Indeed, control devices, such as thermal oxidizers, catalytic
oxidizers, or carbon adsorbers, can achieve significant reductions in
VOC emissions from high VOC content inks, coatings and adhesives.
Existing State and local regulations that address flexible packaging
printing authorize the use of high VOC content materials in conjunction
with control devices or the use equivalent low-VOC content materials.
We could not require control devices at printers through a national
rule, because, pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the
regulated entities subject to a national rule would be the ink, coating
and adhesive manufacturers and suppliers, not the printers. The draft
CTG applies to printers, as the end users of the inks, coatings and
adhesives, and specifically recommends limiting emissions by requiring
printers to install and operate control devices or to use equivalent
low-VOC content materials. Given the significant reductions achievable
through use of add-on control devices, the most effective entity to
regulate to address VOC emissions associated with flexible packaging
inks, coatings and adhesives is the printer.
b. Cleaning Materials
There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated
with the cleaning materials used in the flexible packaging printing
process: (1) Limiting the composite vapor pressure of the cleaning
materials and (2) implementing work practices governing the use of the
product.
A national rule affecting flexible packaging printing cleaning
material manufacturers that limits the composite vapor pressure of VOC
in the cleaning materials sold would suffer from the same deficiencies
noted above with regard lithographic printing fountain solutions and
lithographic printing and letterpress printing cleaning materials.
Specifically, although flexible packaging printers may purchase
cleaning materials from vendors serving their respective industry,
nothing in a national rule governing manufacturers would preclude them
from purchasing bulk solvents or other multipurpose cleaning materials
from other vendors. The general availability of bulk solvents or
multipurpose cleaning materials from vendors that would not be subject
to the regulation would directly undermine the effectiveness of the
regulation.
A national rule also could, in theory, limit the composite vapor
pressure of all cleaning materials and all solvents sold regardless of
specified end use, which would ensure that only low composite vapor
pressure materials are available for flexible packaging printing. Such
an approach is unreasonable and impractical. Cleaning materials and
solvents are sold for multiple different commercial and industrial
purposes. Reducing the vapor pressure of all cleaning materials and
solvents merely to achieve VOC emission reduction from flexible
packaging printing, would preclude the use of such materials in many
important, legitimate contexts.
The more effective approach for obtaining VOC reductions from
cleaning materials used by flexible packaging printers is to control
the use of such materials by the printers through a CTG. The draft CTG
recommends limiting the composite vapor pressure of flexible packaging
cleaning materials. With the CTG, the composite vapor pressure
restrictions would apply to the printer regardless of the source of the
cleaning materials and solvents.
Significantly, we could not impose work practices through a CAA
section 183(e) rule. Work practices, by their nature, are directed at
the end-user of the product. The draft CTG recommends work practices
such as keeping shop towels in closed containers. This measure alone
results in significant reductions in VOC cleaning emissions, when used
in conjunction with low composite vapor pressure cleaning materials.
These reductions would not be possible through a CAA section 183(e)
regulation because, by statute, such regulations do not apply to the
end-user. Finally, the approaches recommended in the CTG are consistent
with approaches taken by States and localities for cleaning materials,
and these approaches have proven effective in reducing VOC emissions.
Based on the nature of the flexible packaging printing process, the
sources of significant VOC emissions from this
[[Page 44535]]
process, and the available strategies for reducing such emissions, the
most effective means of achieving VOC emission reductions from this
product category is through controls at the point of use of the
products, (i.e., through controls on printers), and this can only be
accomplished through a CTG. The approaches described in the draft CTG
are also consistent with effective state and local VOC control
strategies. These two factors alone demonstrate that a CTG will be
substantially as effective as a national regulation.
2. The Product's Distribution and Place of Use and Likely VOC Emission
Reductions Associated With a CTG Versus a Regulation
The factors described in the above section, taken by themselves,
weigh heavily in favor of the CTG approach. The other two factors
relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only further
confirm that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national
regulation for flexible packaging printing products.
First, the products described above are used at commercial printing
facilities in specific, identifiable locations. This stands in contrast
to other consumer products, such as architectural coatings, that are
widely distributed and used by innumerable small users (e.g.,
individual consumers in the general public). Because the VOC emissions
are occurring at commercial printing facilities, implementation and
enforcement of controls concerning the use of products are feasible and
therefore the nature of the product's place of use further counsels in
favor of the CTG approach.
Second, as described above, a CTG will achieve equal or greater
emission reductions than a national rule for each source of VOC
emissions from flexible packaging printing. In total, the CTG will
achieve greater emission reductions because, as explained above, there
are certain control strategies, applicable to the end-user of the
product, that achieve significant VOC reductions. In particular, the
only mechanism by which to achieve the significant VOC reductions
associated with installing add-on controls, which is one of the
recommended approaches for addressing VOC emissions from inks,
coatings, and adhesives, is through a CTG. The VOC reductions
associated with work practices similarly can only be achieved through a
CTG as it affects the end-user. Although a regulation could impose low
VOC content restrictions for inks, coatings, and adhesives, and vapor
pressure limits for cleaning materials, we believe, for the reasons
described above, that it is far more effective to control these
materials at the point of use, rather than the point of manufacture.
Furthermore, the number of sources affected by a CTG, as compared
to the number of sources in nonattainment areas does not change our
conclusion that the CTG would, in total, achieve greater VOC emission
reductions than a rule. Based on the April 2006 designations, we
estimate that approximately 100 flexible packaging printing facilities
in ozone nonattainment areas would meet the applicability criteria in
the CTG (i.e., 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day)) VOC emissions. We further
estimate that there are 219 flexible packaging printing facilities
located in ozone nonattainment areas. Although the CTG would apply only
to about half of the facilities in ozone nonattainment areas, the
facilities that are not covered by the CTG are, by themselves, low VOC
emitters in that they emit less than 15 lb VOC per day (which is less
than 2.5 tpy).
Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and
circumstances associated with this product category, we propose to
determine that a CTG for flexible packaging printing will be
substantially as effective as a national regulation.
IV. Flat Wood Paneling Coatings
A. Industry Characterization
1. Source Category Description
Flat wood paneling coatings include, but are not limited to,
paints, stains, sealers, topcoats, basecoats, primers, enamels, inks
and adhesives used in the manufacture of flat wood paneling. The
coatings provide a protective or decorative layer to paneling products
used in interior and exterior construction of residential, commercial
and institutional buildings. These paneling products can be classified
into three main product types: decorative interior panels, exterior
siding, and tileboard.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
The primary VOC emissions from flat wood paneling surface coating
operations occur during coating application and drying/curing of the
coatings. The remaining emissions are primarily from mixing and/or
thinning and cleaning operations. In most cases, VOC emissions from
surface preparation, storage, handling, and waste/wastewater operations
are relatively small.
After being coated by any of the conventional wet coating
operations (such as spray coating, roll coating, or dip coating), the
flat wood paneling products are cured using heated dryers. This step
removes any remaining volatiles from the coating so that the surface of
the flat wood paneling product meets the hardness, durability, and
appearance requirements of the customer.
The industry currently uses primarily waterborne coatings, although
some products (e.g., tileboard and fire-resistant paneling) still
require solvent-borne coatings to provide adequate water, weather, and
fire resistance. Quick drying time is another important reason why
manufacturers use solvent-borne coatings, especially when fast line
speeds are used. Solvent-borne coatings contain higher amounts of VOC
materials so they evaporate more readily than water and the products
take less time to cure in the ovens. Curing time is an important
variable because the applied coating must be dry, hard, and cool prior
to packaging, otherwise the products have the potential to stick
together when stacked, causing defects or rejected material.
Decorative interior panels require multiple coating layers and
coating steps. Production speeds of 30 to 35 boards per minute require
the use of solvents that evaporate without leaving cure blisters and
without leaving residual solvent in the coating film or substrate.
Exterior siding products must have coatings able to withstand extreme
and long-term weather conditions and resist ultra-violet radiation.
These performance requirements impact the amount of VOC emitted from
the coating of exterior siding. Tileboard is a premium interior wall
paneling product made of hardboard that is used in high moisture areas
of the home such as kitchens and bathrooms. Tileboard has more
stringent product performance requirements compared to standard
interior wall paneling.
Common techniques to reduce emissions include use of low-VOC
coatings and operation of add-on control devices where low-VOC
materials cannot be used due to performance requirements calling for
solvent-borne coatings. In addition, emissions from cleaning operations
can be reduced through use of work practices such as keeping cleaning
solvents and shop towels in covered containers.
3. State and Local Regulations
At least 28 State and local jurisdictions have regulations that
control VOC emissions from surface coating operations that include flat
wood paneling. Most of these regulations are general surface coating
[[Page 44536]]
rules; a few are specific to flat wood paneling. In addition to the
State and local requirements, there are two previous EPA actions that
affect surface coating operations for flat wood paneling. In 1978, EPA
issued a CTG document (EPA-450/2-78-032) that provided RACT
recommendations for controlling VOC emissions from this industry. In
2003, EPA promulgated national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) covering surface coating of wood building products.
See 68 FR 31746 (May 28, 2003). The 1978 CTG and the 2003 NESHAP are
further discussed in the current draft CTG document.
Almost all of the jurisdictions that specifically address flat wood
paneling have based their rules on the old 1978 CTG. However, there are
two jurisdictions in California that have requirements specific to flat
wood paneling that are more current than the 1978 CTG. In the Placer
County California Air Pollution Control District, VOC emissions from
flat wood paneling operations in a nonattainment area are limited to
250 g VOC/l (2.1 lb VOC/gal) of coating (excluding water) or the
overall control device efficiency must be at least 90 percent.
The California South Coast AQMD defines flat wood paneling as
``interior wood panels and exterior wood siding, which include, by way
of illustration and not limitation, redwood, cedar or plywood stocks,
plywood panels, particle boards, composition hard boards, and any other
panels or siding constructed of solid wood or a wood-containing
product.'' The emissions limit established by the South Coast rule is
identical to the emission limit established by Placer County,
California and also covers exterior siding, which the Placer County
rule does not.
B. Recommended Control Techniques
The draft CTG provides flexibility by recommending either low-VOC
materials or, as an option, add-on controls as an alternative to low-
VOC materials. The low-VOC materials recommendations include an
emissions limit of 250 g VOC/l (2.1 lb VOC/gal) of material (minus
water). An equivalent limit, expressed as units of weight of VOC per
volume of solids in all coatings would be 350 grams of VOC per liter
solids (2.9 lb of VOC per gal of solids). Or, alternatively, a facility
could choose to use add-on control equipment to meet an overall control
efficiency of 90 percent. These control options would apply to surface
coatings, inks, and adhesives applied to all types of flat wood paneling.
The draft CTG also recommends work practice standards. The work
practice plan must include steps to ensure that VOC emissions are
minimized from mixing operations, storage tanks and other containers,
and handling operations for coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and
waste materials. Examples of work practice standards include: Storing
all VOC coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials in closed
containers, minimizing spills of VOC containing coatings, thinners,
cleaning up spills immediately, conveying any coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials in closed containers or pipes, closing mixing
vessels which contain VOC coatings and other materials except when
specifically in use, and minimizing emissions of VOC during cleaning of
storage, mixing, and conveying equipment.
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
EPA estimates that there are a total of 24 flat wood paneling
facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas (based on April 2006
designations). Based on VOC emissions data, all of the 24 facilities in
ozone nonattainment areas would be affected considering the 6.8 kg/day
(15 lb/day) VOC emissions applicability threshold. This level of
emissions has been the applicability threshold for many CTG in the
past. For purposes of this threshold, aggregate emissions from all flat
wood paneling coating operations and cleaning activities associated
with flat wood paneling coating at a given facility are included.
These facilities emit about 4,400 Mg (4,000 tons) of VOC per year.
The cost effectiveness estimates vary according to the type of flat
wood paneling. Based on studies conducted as part of development of the
Placer County and South Coast regulations, the cost effectiveness is
estimated at $4,400 per ton of VOC for exterior siding and $1,900 per
ton of VOC for interior paneling and tileboard. Due to the higher
estimated cost for a given amount of emission reductions from exterior
siding, and because exterior siding is not covered by the 1978 CTG and
by several current State rules based on that CTG, EPA solicits comments
on whether it is appropriate to exclude exterior siding from
applicability of the draft CTG. As discussed above, the draft CTG
recommends three alternatives, plus work practices, for reducing VOC
emissions from these operations. Two of the alternatives focus on use
of low-VOC coatings that are readily available. For those facilities
that choose to use high-VOC coatings, they may choose to employ the
third alternative, the use of add-on controls. From information in the
NEI database, there is no indication that any of the 24 facilities
currently have add-on controls, but may be using low-VOC coatings for
compliance with any existing State or local requirements.
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as
Effective as a Regulation
In determining whether to develop a national rule or a CTG for the
product category of flat wood paneling coatings under CAA section
183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four factors identified above in Section
I.D in light of the specific facts and circumstances associated with
this product category. Based on that analysis, we propose to determine
that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a rule in achieving
VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from flat wood
paneling coatings.
This section is divided into two parts, each of which addresses two
of the factors relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) determination.
In the first part, we determine that the most effective means of
achieving VOC emission reductions in this category is through controls
at the point of use of the product, (i.e., through controls on
facilities that apply surface coatings to flat wood paneling products),
and this can only be accomplished through a CTG. We further explain
that the approaches in the draft CTG are consistent with existing
effective state and local VOC strategies. In the second part, we
discuss how the distribution and place of use of the products in this
category also support the use of a CTG. We further explain that there
are control approaches for this category that result in significant VOC
emission reductions and that such reductions could only be obtained by
controlling the use of the product through a CTG. Such reductions could
not be obtained through a regulation under CAA section 183(e) because
the controls affect the end-user, which is not a regulated entity under
CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). Accordingly, for these reasons and the
reasons described more fully below, we believe that a CTG will achieve
much greater VOC emission reductions than a rule for this category.
1. The Most Effective Entity To Target for VOC Reductions and
Consistency With State and Local VOC Strategies
To evaluate the most effective entity to target for VOC reductions,
it is important to first identify the primary sources of VOC emissions.
There are two main sources of VOC emissions from flat wood paneling
coating: (1)
[[Page 44537]]
Evaporation of VOC from coatings and adhesives; and (2) evaporation of VOC
from cleaning materials. We address each of these sources of VOC emissions,
in turn, below, as we discuss the CTG versus regulation approach.
a. Coatings and Adhesives
The industry currently uses primarily waterborne coatings, although
some products (e.g., tileboard and fire-resistant paneling) still
require solvent-borne coatings to provide adequate water, weather, and
fire resistance. Quick drying time is another important reason why
manufacturers use solvent-borne coatings, especially when fast line
speeds are used. A national rule could contain limits for the as-sold
VOC content of coatings and adhesives, but given the nature of the flat
wood paneling coating process, this would result, in little, if any,
reduction in VOC emissions. A national rule could, for example, set
lower VOC content limits for waterborne and other low-VOC content
materials and higher VOC content limits for solvent-borne materials
without specifying which flat wood paneling products must be coated
with each type of material. This rule structure would leave facilities
free to choose which type of material to use. Further, many coatings
and adhesives used in flat wood paneling coating are not identified by
the supplier specifically as flat wood paneling coatings and would fall
outside of the scope of such a national rule. Thus, such a rule would
not compel anyone to use lower VOC content materials and would achieve
little, if any, VOC emission reduction.
Control devices, such as thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, or
carbon adsorbers, can achieve a significant reduction in VOC emissions
from high VOC content materials. In light of the significant reductions
in VOC emissions obtained with such devices, existing State and local
regulations that address flat wood paneling coating allow the use of
high VOC content materials in conjunction with control devices. These
regulations require the use of such controls or the use of equivalent
low-VOC content materials. In addition, the 2003 NESHAP contains a
compliance option that allows the facility to lower the emission rate
by using add-on controls.
We could not require such control devices at flat wood paneling
facilities through a national rule, because, pursuant to CAA section
183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the regulated entities subject to a
national rule would be the coating and adhesive manufacturers and
suppliers, not the flat wood paneling facilities. The draft CTG applies
to these facilities, as the end users of the coatings and adhesives,
and specifically recommends limiting emissions by the use of low-VOC
coatings or to control emissions through the operation of control
devices. Given the significant reductions achievable through available
use of add-on control devices, the most effective entity to regulate to
address VOC emissions associated with flat wood paneling coatings is
the facility using the coatings.
b. Cleaning Materials
There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated
with the cleaning materials used in the flat wood paneling coating
process: (1) Limiting the VOC content of the cleaning materials, and
(2) implementing work practices governing the use of the product.
A national rule affecting solvent manufacturers that supply
cleaning materials to the flat wood paneling industry that limits the
VOC content of VOC in the cleaning materials sold would suffer from the
same deficiencies noted above with regard to lithographic printing
fountain solutions, lithographic printing and letterpress printing
cleaning materials, and flexible packaging printing cleaning materials.
Specifically, although flat wood paneling coaters may purchase cleaning
materials from vendors serving their respective industry, nothing in a
national rule governing manufacturers would preclude them from
purchasing bulk solvents or other multipurpose cleaning materials from
other vendors. The general availability of bulk solvents or multipurpose
cleaning materials from vendors that would not be subject to the
regulation would directly undermine the effectiveness of the regulation.
A national rule also could, in theory, limit the VOC content of all
cleaning materials and all solvents sold regardless of specified end
use, which would ensure that only low-VOC materials are available to
the flat wood paneling coating industry. Such an approach is
unreasonable and impractical. Cleaning materials and solvents are sold
for multiple different commercial and industrial purposes. Reducing the
vapor pressure of all cleaning materials and solvents merely to achieve
VOC emission reductions from the flat wood paneling coating industry
would preclude the use of such materials in many important, legitimate
contexts.
The more effective approach for obtaining VOC reductions from
cleaning materials used by flat wood paneling coaters is to control the
use of such materials by the coaters through a CTG. Significantly, we
could not impose work practices through a CAA section 183(e) rule. Work
practices, by their nature, are directed at the end-user of the
product. The draft CTG recommends work practices such as keeping
solvents and shop towels in closed containers. This measure alone
results in significant reductions in VOC cleaning emissions. These
reductions would not be possible through a CAA section 183(e)
regulation because, by statute, such regulations do not apply to the
end-user. Finally, the approaches recommended in the CTG are consistent
with approaches taken by States and localities for cleaning materials,
and these approaches have proven effective in reducing VOC emissions.
Based on the nature of the flat wood paneling coating process, the
sources of significant VOC emissions from this process, and the
available strategies for reducing such emissions, the most effective
means of achieving VOC emission reductions from this product category
is through controls at the point of use of the products, (i.e., through
controls on flat wood paneling coaters), and this can only be
accomplished through a CTG. The approaches described in the draft CTG
are also consistent with effective state and local VOC control
strategies. These two factors alone demonstrate that a CTG will be
substantially as effective as a national regulation.
2. The Product's Distribution and Place of Use and Likely VOC Emission
Reductions Associated With a CTG Versus a Regulation
The factors described in the above section, taken by themselves,
weigh heavily in favor of the CTG approach. The other two factors
relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only further
confirm that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national
regulation for flat wood paneling coatings.
First, the products described above are used at commercial
facilities in specific, identifiable locations. This stands in contrast
to other consumer products, such as architectural coatings, that are
widely distributed and used by innumerable small users (e.g.,
individual consumers in the general public). Because the VOC emissions
are occurring at commercial manufacturing facilities, implementation
and enforcement of controls concerning the use of products are feasible
and therefore the nature of the product's place of use further counsels
in favor of the CTG approach.
[[Page 44538]]
Second, as described above, a CTG will achieve equal or greater
emission reduction than a national rule for each source of VOC
emissions from flat wood paneling coating. In total, a CTG will achieve
significantly more emission reduction than a national rule for this
category. A CTG will achieve a significant greater emission reductions
because, as explained above, there are certain control strategies,
applicable to the end-user of the product, that achieve significant
emission reductions. In particular, a CTG will achieve a significant
reduction of VOC emissions from coatings and adhesives through the use
of control devices. A CTG provides for work practices associated with
cleaning materials. The VOC reductions associated with these measures
could not be obtained through a national regulation, because they
require the implementation of measures by the end-user.
In addition, there are certain strategies that arguably could be
implemented through rulemaking, but are far more effective if
implemented directly at the point of use of the product. For the
reasons stated above it is more effective to control the VOC content of
coatings and adhesives through a CTG than through a regulation
Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and
circumstances associated with this product category, we propose to
determine that a CTG for flat wood paneling coatings will be
substantially as effective as a national regulation.
Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and
circumstances associated with this product category, we propose to
determine that a CTG for flat wood paneling coatings will be
substantially as effective as a national regulation.
V. Industrial Cleaning Solvents
A. Industry Characterization
1. Source Category Description
This category of consumer and commercial products includes the
industrial cleaning solvents used by many industries. This category
includes a variety of products used to remove contaminants such as
adhesives, inks, paint, dirt, soil, oil, and grease from parts,
products, tools, machinery, equipment, vessels, floors, walls, and
other production related work areas. Cleaning operations are performed
for a variety of reasons including safety, operability, and to avoid
contamination of the products being manufactured or repaired at the
facility. The cleaning solvents used in these operations are, in many
cases, generally available bulk solvents that are used for a multitude
of applications not limited to cleaning. For example, naphtha may be
used as a cleaning solvent, as a paint thinner, or as an ingredient
used in the manufacture of paint.
2. Sources of VOC Emissions and Controls
In general, VOC emissions occur from industrial cleaning solvents
through evaporation during cleaning activities such as wiping,
flushing, and brushing, as well as from storage and disposal of used
shop towels and solvent. Because a portion of all solvents evaporate
during use, such solvent-based cleaning materials can result in large
amounts of emissions of VOC.
In 1994, EPA completed a study of industrial cleaning solvents that
characterized cleaning operations carried out within six focus
industries (automotive, electrical equipment, magnetic tape, furniture,
packaging, and photographic supplies) to evaluate sources of
evaporative emissions from VOC solvents used as cleaning materials. We
believe that the range of cleaning activities performed in these
industries provided a good variety of cleaning operations for the
study, and that the information obtained relevant to VOC emission
sources and possible control techniques can be applied to virtually any
industry. During the study, EPA collected information on emissions from
industrial cleaning solvents used in approximately 300 individual
cleaning operations across the six focus industries. EPA classified
these operations into nine ``unit operations'' (UO). We believe that
any given industrial cleaning activity would fall into one or more of
these UO: (1) Spray gun cleaning; (2) spray booth cleaning; (3) large
manufactured components cleaning; (4) small manufactured components
cleaning; (5) parts cleaning; (6) equipment cleaning; (7) floor
cleaning; (8) line cleaning; and (9) tank cleaning. The purpose of
identifying these UO is to assist State and local agencies in
identifying the sources of VOC emissions from cleaning activities and
to provide a structure for developing and applying control techniques
to mitigate VOC emissions from industrial cleaning solvents used in
these UO.
In February 1994, EPA published an Alternative Control Techniques
(ACT) document (EPA-453/R-94-015) to provide information to State and
local agencies on sources and various means of controlling VOC
emissions from industrial cleaning operations. The ACT document
identified the cleaning UO listed above and presented techniques
available to reduce solvent losses, including the anticipated costs of
control and potential for emissions reductions for these options. The
ACT document also provided a quantitative overview of cleaning solvents
used and a model solvent management system for accounting and tracking
solvent usage. The model solvent management system was provided as a
tool for facilities to use in tracking their solvent usage. The ACT
document also provided a methodology for calculating emissions in a
consistent way.
Although the industrial cleaning solvent product category includes
a variety of different products with differing VOC contents, and
although these products are used in different ways by a wide range of
industries, we believe that there are two basic approaches to achieve
VOC emission reductions. First, the users of the products can control
emissions through work practices targeted at the activities and sources
of emissions specific to the user's industry (e.g., keeping solvent
containers covered, properly storing and disposing of used shop towels
and solvent, etc.). Second, users can also reduce overall VOC emissions
through solvent substitution (e.g., use of low-VOC, no-VOC, or low-
vapor pressure solvents). Theoretically, solvent substitution could be
achieved at the point of manufacture or at the point of use, but in
practice it is usually the user who selects the solvent or mixture of
solvents to use in the various industrial cleaning operations
throughout a facility. Either individually or in tandem, these two
general approaches are effective strategies to achieve significant
emission reductions from this product category, notwithstanding the
variation in the products, their users, and their specific uses.
3. State and Local Regulations
Many State and local agencies, including a number of the California
Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs), have developed strategies for
reducing VOC emissions from industrial cleaning solvents. Typically,
these strategies include both work practices governing the use of the
products and VOC limits governing the VOC content of the products. A
table identifying and summarizing some of these existing State and
local measures is included in the draft CTG document for this product
category.
To identify potential control recommendations for the draft CTG,
EPA reviewed the existing State and local regulations governing VOC
emissions from this product category. The review indicated that the
[[Page 44539]]
regulations in three of the California AQMDs (South Coast, Bay Area,
and Sacramento) are good models to evaluate, because these rules are
consistent with each other in format and approach, the technical
information developed to support these regulations is readily
available, and these regulations are more current than those of other
jurisdictions. Additionally, several case studies were available from
the California AQMDs pertaining to their rules that help illustrate how
specific facilities achieved VOC reductions and at what cost. Moreover,
many other State and local agencies either have, or are considering,
using the current regulations from the California AQMDs as models for
the format and content their own control strategies. If the California
AQMD strategies are effective, EPA believes that there can be a benefit
to extending these measures to other nonattainment areas and
maintaining nationwide consistency, as appropriate.
The regulations adopted in the California AQMDs all have
requirements for both work practices and VOC content limits for solvent
cleaning materials. A comparison of the various AQMD regulations
governing VOC emissions from industrial cleaning solvents indicates
that the work practice provisions are similar and require product users
to implement generally accepted practices that have been shown to be
effective in mitigating evaporative losses from solvent storage,
handling, and disposal activities. These work practices are further
discussed in the draft CTG and in section B below.
Although the work practice requirements are similar among the
AQMDs, the VOC content limits and rule applicability differ somewhat
from District to District. For example, South Coast AQMD Rule 1171
(2005) has a ``general use'' VOC limit of 25 grams VOC per liter of
cleaning material that applies to most industries. In cases where water
based cleaners or low-VOC solvent cleaners cannot be used, however,
South Coast AQMD allows higher limits for a number of specific
industries as provided for in section 1171(c) of their rule.
By comparison, Bay Area AQMD Regulation 8, Rule 4, provides for a
``general use'' limit of 50 grams VOC per liter of cleaning material,
unless emissions are controlled by an emission control system with an
overall abatement efficiency of at least 85 percent. The Bay Area rule
exempts relatively few specific operations (e.g., electrical apparatus
components, electronic components, precision optics, research and
development laboratories, etc.) from the ``general use'' limit (see Bay
Area AQMD's section 8-4-116). In addition, the Bay Area rule exempts
cleaning operations subject to other specific Bay Area AQMD rules.
There are 18 such exemptions listed in Bay Area AQMD's section 8-4-117
(e.g., architectural coating, light and medium duty motor vehicle
assembly plants, plastic parts and products, etc.).
EPA's review of existing and State and local approaches to reduce
VOC emissions from this product category indicates that strategies that
include both work practices and VOC content limits can be effective and
should be the basis for a CTG under CAA section 183(e).
B. Recommended Control Techniques
The following sections describe recommendations EPA is providing in
the draft CTG document for industrial cleaning solvents, including a
discussion of the recommended control measures and a description of
industries to which these recommendations apply. These recommendations
are discussed in more detail in the draft CTG document, which also
incorporates the entire 1994 ACT document.
1. Control Measures
Based on our analysis of State and local requirements, primarily
the California AQMD measures, the draft CTG recommends both work
practices and a generally applicable VOC content limit for most
operations modeled after the Bay Area AQMD rule.
a. Work Practices
The draft CTG recommends practices similar to those required by
the California AQMDs. Specifically, these are: (1) Covering open
containers and used applicators; (2) minimizing air circulation around
cleaning operations; (3) properly disposing of used solvent and shop
towels; and (4) implementing equipment practices that minimize
emissions (e.g., keeping parts cleaners covered, maintenance of
cleaning equipment to repair solvent leaks, etc.).
b. VOC Content Limit
The draft CTG recommends a generally applicable VOC content limit
of 50 grams VOC per liter (0.42 1b/gal) of cleaning material, unless
emissions are controlled by an emission control system with an overall
abatement efficiency of at least 85 percent. This limit is modeled on
the ``general use'' category of the Bay Area AQMD solvent cleaning
regulations, taking into account the specific exclusions provided for
in the Bay Area AQMD rule and described earlier. In addition to the Bay
Area exclusions, and as discussed earlier, the more stringent South
Coast AQMD ``general use'' limit is accompanied by higher limits for
several individual operations (e.g., cleaning of ultraviolet ink
application equipment, screen printing, cleaning of coating application
equipment, etc.). When developing RACT measures for industrial cleaning
operations, we suggest that State and local agencies consider the
specific industries and operations in their jurisdictions and the
individual requirements of those operations and tailor their rules to
those specific scenarios accordingly. Furthermore, in considering
existing cleaning requirements as bases for specific exemptions from
their general industrial cleaning solvents rules, State and local
agencies should take into account how current those measures are. EPA
believes that more recent rules are likely to be more effective than
older, possibly outdated, rules. We remind the States that the ultimate
determination of whether any specific State or local measures meet any
applicable RACT requirement will occur during the notice and comment
rulemaking process associated with EPA action on SIP submissions.
c. Alternative Vapor Pressure Limit
In addition to the VOC content limit recommended here, EPA solicits
comment on possible use of a composite vapor pressure limit, for
example, 8 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) at 20 degrees Celsius, as (1)
a replacement for the 50 g/l VOC content limit entirely; or (2) an
alternative limit that may be used in lieu of the 50 g/l VOC content
limit for specific operations as determined by the State or local agency.
EPA is considering this option because, historically, some State
and local agencies have specified composite vapor pressure limits in
their cleaning requirements. For example some States (e.g., Illinois,
Connecticut, New York, etc.) limit solvents used in cold cleaning to
1.0 mmHg. California's Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
allows a composite vapor pressure of 33 mmHg for solvents used for
cleaning of coating application equipment and other cleanup of uncured
coatings, adhesives, inks, and resins and for cleaning of electronic
and electrical components, medical devices, and aerospace components.
2. Applicability
In the draft CTG, EPA recommends that, in general, these measures
should have broad applicability to any industrial cleaning operations
that have VOC emissions of at least 6.8 kg/day (15
[[Page 44540]]
lb/day), before controls. This level of emissions has been the
applicability threshold for many CTG in the past. Furthermore, it is
consistent with the intent of CAA section 183(e) to address
individually small uses of consumer and commercial products that, in
the aggregate, are significant sources of VOC emissions. We recommend
that, for purposes of determining this threshold, aggregate emissions
from all solvent cleaning activities associated with covered operations
at a given facility are included. As described above, we also recommend
that specific industry category exclusions, similar to the ones
provided for in the Bay Area and South Coast rules but tailored to the
States'' individual situations, accompany the applicability threshold.
In addition to the exclusions a State or local agency may specify
as a result of the existence of effective measures that address
cleaning operations associated with specific source categories within
its jurisdiction, we recommend that the States exclude from
applicability those cleaning operations in the following categories
listed for regulation under CAA section 183(e): Aerospace coatings,
wood furniture coatings, shipbuilding and repair coatings, flexible
packaging printing materials, lithographic printing materials,
letterpress printing materials, flat wood paneling coatings, large
appliance coatings, metal furniture coatings, paper film and foil
coating, plastic parts coatings, miscellaneous metals parts coatings,
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, miscellaneous industrial
adhesives, and auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings.\11\ For
three of these product categories (i.e., aerospace coatings, wood
furniture coatings, and shipbuilding and repair coatings), EPA has
already issued CTGs that address cleaning operations. For the remaining
categories, EPA intends to include control measures for cleaning
associated with these categories if the Agency determines that a CTG is
appropriate for the respective categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA may amend the list and exercise its discretion in
scheduling its actions under CAA section 183(e) in order to achieve
an effective regulatory program. Should EPA revise the list in the
future, these categories could change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
EPA estimates that there are approximately 2,550 facilities in
ozone nonattainment areas that would be affected by the draft CTG.
These facilities had emissions that exceed the emission threshold of
6.8 kg (15 1b) of VOC per day. Total aggregate VOC emissions from
solvent cleaning operations from these sources are approximately 64,000
Mg/yr (71,000 tpy). EPA used studies published by the Bay Area AQMD to
estimate the cost of compliance for the measures recommended in the
draft CTG. According to these estimates, EPA believes that affected
sources may either incur minimal additional costs or realize a savings
on a case-by-case basis, depending primarily on facts such as how much
they currently spend to operate high-VOC content solvent-based parts
cleaners, and the cost of organic solvent disposal.
The Bay Area AQMD studies indicate that replacing high-VOC cleaning
materials with low-VOC, water-based cleaning materials, for
applications in which these materials are similar in effectiveness to
high-VOC materials, results in a cost savings. The CTG for industrial
cleaning solvents is guidance for the States. Although States can adopt
the recommendations in the CTG, they may choose not to follow those
recommendations and instead adopt other technically-sound approaches
that meet the requirements of RACT in the CAA and EPA's implementing
regulations. Accordingly, there is necessarily some uncertainty in any
prediction of costs and emission impacts associated with the
recommendations in the CTG. Nevertheless, assuming that States address
the VOC emissions from this product category in accordance with the
recommendations in the CTG or comparable approaches, EPA anticipates a
net cost savings.\12\ We based this prediction on an assumption that
substitution of low-VOC materials for high-VOC materials is possible
for all uses. Because this assumption is not true for some
applications, this prediction may not be valid in all cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ From a purely economic perspective, the CTG does not
produce a cost savings, because the recommendations contained in the
document represent control methods that are currently available to
facilities. Facilities can implement the recommended approach of
using low-VOC materials today and recognize a cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as
Effective as a Regulation
In determining whether to develop a national rule or a CTG for the
product category of industrial cleaning solvents under CAA section
183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four factors identified above in Section
I.D in light of the specific facts and circumstances associated with
this product category. Based on that analysis, we propose to determine
that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a rule in achieving
VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from industrial
cleaning solvents.
This section is divided into two parts, each of which addresses two
of the factors relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) determination.
In the first part, we determine that the most effective means of
achieving VOC emission reductions in this category is through controls
at the point of use of the product, (i.e., through controls on
facilities that conduct solvent cleaning), and this can only be
accomplished through a CTG. We further explain that the approaches in
the draft CTG are consistent with existing effective state and local
VOC strategies. In the second part, we discuss how the distribution and
place of use of the products in this category also support the use of a
CTG. We further explain that there are control approaches for this
category that result in significant VOC emission reductions and that
such reductions could only be obtained by controlling the use of the
product through a CTG. Such reductions could not be obtained through a
regulation under CAA section 183(e) because the controls affect the
end-user, which is not a regulated entity under CAA section
183(e)(1)(C). Accordingly, for these reasons and the reasons described
more fully below, we believe that a CTG will achieve much greater VOC
emission reductions than a rule for this category.
1. The Most Effective Entity To Target for VOC Reductions and
Consistency With State and Local VOC Strategies
There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated
with the industrial cleaning solvents product category: (1) Limiting
the VOC content of the cleaning materials, and (2) implementing work
practices governing the use of the products.
A national rule affecting industrial cleaning solvent manufacturers
that limits the VOC content of the cleaning materials sold suffers from
the same deficiencies noted above with regard to lithographic printing,
letterpress printing, flexible packaging printing, and flat wood
paneling coating. Specifically, although facilities performing cleaning
operations generally purchase cleaning materials from vendors serving
their respective industry, nothing in a national rule governing
manufacturers would preclude them from purchasing bulk solvents or
other multipurpose cleaning materials from other vendors. The general
availability of bulk solvents or multipurpose cleaning materials from
vendors that would not be subject to the
[[Page 44541]]
regulation would directly undermine the effectiveness of the regulation.
A national rule also could, in theory, limit the VOC content of all
cleaning materials and all solvents sold regardless of specified end
use, which would ensure that only low-VOC materials are available for
any use. Such an approach is unreasonable and impractical. Cleaning
materials and solvents are sold for multiple different commercial and
industrial purposes. Reducing the VOC content of all materials merely
to achieve VOC emission reduction from two limited product categories,
could preclude the use of such materials in many important, legitimate
contexts. Furthermore, many general-purpose solvents used for cleaning
are single compounds (e.g., toluene) or are mixtures (e.g., mineral
spirits) that are by nature 100 percent VOC. Consequently, they cannot
be reformulated to low-VOC content.
The more effective approach for obtaining VOC reductions from
industrial cleaning solvents is to control the use of such materials
through a CTG. The draft CTG recommends limiting the VOC content of
cleaning materials. With the CTG, the VOC content restrictions would
apply to the facility performing cleaning operations regardless of the
source of the cleaning materials.
Significantly, we could not impose work practices through a CAA
section 183(e) rule. Work practices, by their nature, are directed at
the end-user of the product. The draft CTG recommends work practices
such as keeping solvents and shop towels in closed containers. This
measure alone results in significant reductions in VOC cleaning
emissions, when used in conjunction with low-VOC cleaning materials.
These reductions would not be possible through a CAA section 183(e)
regulation because, by statute, such regulations do not apply to the
end-user. Finally, the approaches recommended in the CTG are consistent
with approaches taken by States and localities for industrial cleaning
operations, and these approaches have proven effective in reducing VOC
emissions.
Based on the sources of significant VOC emissions from industrial
cleaning solvents and the available strategies for reducing such
emissions, the most effective means of achieving VOC emission
reductions from this product category is through controls at the point
of use of the product (i.e., through controls on facilities performing
solvent cleaning activities), and this can only be accomplished through
a CTG. The approaches described in the draft CTG are also consistent
with effective state and local VOC control strategies. These two
factors alone demonstrate that a CTG will be substantially as effective
as a national regulation.
2. The Product's Distribution and Place of Use and Likely VOC Emission
Reductions Associated With a CTG Versus a Regulation
The factors described in the above section, taken by themselves,
weigh heavily in favor of the CTG approach. The other two factors
relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only further
confirm that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national
regulation for industrial cleaning solvents.
First, the products described above are used at manufacturing,
repair, service, and other facilities in specific, identifiable
locations. This stands in contrast to other consumer products, such as
architectural coatings, that are widely distributed and used by
innumerable small users (e.g. individual consumers in the general
public). Because the VOC emissions are occurring at commercial
facilities, implementation and enforcement of controls concerning the
use of products are feasible and therefore the nature of the product's
place of use further counsels in favor of the CTG approach.
Second, a CTG will achieve equal or greater emission reduction than
a national rule for each source of VOC emissions from industrial
cleaning solvents, and, in total, a CTG will achieve significantly more
emission reduction than a national rule for this category. A CTG will
achieve a significant VOC emission reduction from cleaning materials
through the combined use of low-VOC cleaning materials and work
practices. A national rule could not effectively regulate the VOC
content of cleaning materials, and a national rule cannot require work
practices. In summary, a CTG will achieve a significant reduction in
VOC emissions from the industrial cleaning solvents category while a
national rule would achieve little, if any, emission reduction.
Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and
circumstances associated with this product category, we propose to
determine that a CTG for industrial cleaning solvents will be
substantially as effective as a national regulation.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain any information collection
requirements and therefore is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less
[[Page 44542]]
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed
determination, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it
imposes no regulatory requirements. EPA is proposing take final action
to list the five Group II consumer and commercial product categories
addressed in this notice for purposes of CAA section 183(e) of the Act.
The listing action alone does not impose any regulatory requirements.
EPA's proposed determination that a CTG will be substantially as
effective as a national regulation in achieving VOC emission reductions
in ozone nonattainment areas means that EPA has concluded that it is
not appropriate to issue federal regulations under CAA section 183(e)
to regulate VOC emissions from these five product categories. Instead,
EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to issue guidance in the form
of CTG that provide recommendations to States concerning potential
methods to achieve needed VOC emission reductions from these product
categories. In addition to the proposed determination, EPA is also
taking comment on draft CTG for these five product categories. When
finalized, these CTG will be guidance documents. EPA does not directly
regulate any small entities through the issuance of a CTG. Instead, EPA
issues CTG to provide States with guidance on appropriate regulations
to obtain VOC emission reductions from the affected sources within
certain nonattainment areas. EPA's issuance of a CTG does trigger an
obligation on the part of the States to issue State regulations, but
States are not obligated to issue regulations identical to the Agency's
CTG. States may follow the guidance or deviate from it, and the
ultimate determination of whether a State regulation meets the RACT
requirements of the CAA would be determined through notice and comment
rulemaking in the Agency's action on each State's State Implementation
Plan. Thus, States retain discretion in determining what degree to
follow the CTGs.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under UMRA section 202, 2 U.S.C.
1532, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for any proposed or final rule that ``includes any
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more * * * in any one year.'' A ``Federal mandate'' is
defined under section 421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' and a ``Federal private sector mandate.'' A
``Federal intergovernmental mandate,'' in turn, is defined to include a
regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local,
or Tribal governments,'' section 421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i),
except for, among other things, a duty that is ``a condition of Federal
assistance,'' section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A ``Federal private sector
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector,'' with certain exceptions, section 421(7)(A),
2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A).
EPA has determined that the listing action, the proposed
determination that a CTG would be substantially as effective as a
regulation for these product categories, and the proposed draft CTGs
for these categories, do not contain a Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have determined that the listing
action, the proposed determination and the proposed draft CTGs contain
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because they contain no regulatory requirements that
apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore,
this action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the EO to
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.''
The listing action, the proposed determination that CTGs are
substantially as effective as regulations for these product categories,
and the proposed draft CTGs do not have federalism implications. They
do not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in EO 13132. The CAA establishes the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, and this
action does not impact that relationship. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply
to the proposed determination and proposed draft CTGs. However, in the
spirit of EO 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA is
soliciting comment on the listing action, the proposed determination,
and the proposed draft CTGs from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
EO 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
Tribal implications.''
The listing action, the proposed determination that CTGs would be
substantially as effective as regulations to achieve VOC emission
reductions from these product categories, and the proposed draft CTGs
do not have Tribal implications as defined by EO 13175. They do not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, in that
the listing action, the proposed determination, and the proposed draft
CTGs impose no regulatory burdens on tribes. Furthermore, the listing
action, the proposed determination, and the proposed draft CTGs do not
affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the
Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) establish the relationship of the Federal
government and Tribes in implementing the Clean Air Act. Because
listing action, the proposed determination, and the proposed draft CTGs
do not have Tribal implications, EO 13175 does not apply.
[[Page 44543]]
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under EO 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria,
Section 5B501 of the EO directs the Agency to evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
The listing action, the proposed determination, and the proposed
draft CTGs are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are
not economically significant regulatory actions as defined by Executive
Order 12866. In addition, EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as
applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health and
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulations. The
listing action, the proposed determination, and the proposed draft CTGs
are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they do not include
regulatory requirements based on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) provides that
agencies shall prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for certain
actions identified as ``significant energy actions.'' Section 4(b) of
EO 13211 defines ``significant energy actions'' as ``any action by an
agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or
is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation,
including notices of inquiry, advance notices of final rulemaking, and
notices of final rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory
action under EO 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a ``significant energy
action.'' EPA has determined that listing action, the proposed
determination, and the proposed draft CTGs are a not significant
regulatory action under EO 12866, and that they are not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in their
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with
explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
The listing action, the proposed determination that CTGS will be
substantially as effective as regulations to achieve VOC emission
reductions, and the proposed draft CTGs do not involve technical
standards and therefore the NTTAA does not apply.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' provides
for Federal agencies to consider the impact of programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations,
including tribes.
EPA believes that the listing action, the proposed determination,
and the proposed draft CTGs should not raise any environmental justice
issues. The purpose of section 183(e) is to obtain VOC emission
reductions to assist in the attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The health
and environmental risks associated with ozone were considered in the
establishment of the ozone NAAQS. The level is designed to be
protective of the public with an adequate margin of safety. EPA's
listing of the products, determination that CTGs are substantially as
effective as regulations, and proposed draft CTGs, are actions intended
to help States achieve the NAAQS in the most appropriate fashion.
Dated: July 27, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, part 59, Subpart
A is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 59--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 59 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7511b(e).
2. Subpart A is added to read as follows:
Subpart A--General
Sec. 59.1 Final Determinations Under Section 183(e)(3)(C).
This section identifies the consumer and commercial product
categories for which EPA has determined that CTGs will be substantially
as effective as regulations in reducing VOC emissions in ozone
nonattainment areas:
(a) Wood furniture coatings;
(b) Aerospace coatings;
(c) Shipbuilding and repair coatings;
(d) Lithographic printing materials;
(e) Letterpress printing materials;
(f) Flexible packaging printing materials;
(g) Flat wood paneling coatings; and
(h) Industrial cleaning solvents.
[FR Doc. 06-6640 Filed 8-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P