Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings, Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, 58481-58491 [E8-23750]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
58481
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP
Applicable geographic or nonattainment area
Name of SIP provision
State approval/
submittal date
*
*
*
*
Approval of the 1997 8-hour Ozone 15% Rea- Dallas/Fort Worth, TX ................
sonable Further Progress Plan, and 2008 RFP
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets.
Revised 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory ....
[FR Doc. E8–23673 Filed 10–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 59
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0411; FRL–8725–9]
RIN 2060–AP01
Consumer and Commercial Products,
Group IV: Control Techniques
Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for
Miscellaneous Metal Products
Coatings, Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto
and Light-Duty Truck Assembly
Coatings, Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing Materials, and
Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; Notice of final
determination and availability of final
control techniques guidelines.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section
183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act, EPA
has determined that control techniques
guidelines will be substantially as
effective as national regulations in
reducing emissions of volatile organic
compounds in ozone national ambient
air quality standard nonattainment areas
from the following five Group IV
product categories: miscellaneous metal
products coatings, plastic parts coatings,
auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings, fiberglass boat manufacturing
materials, and miscellaneous industrial
adhesives. Based on this determination,
EPA is issuing control techniques
guidelines in lieu of national regulations
for these product categories. These
control techniques guidelines will
provide guidance to the States
concerning EPA’s recommendations for
reasonably available control technologylevel controls for these product
categories. EPA further takes final action
to list the five Group IV consumer and
commercial product categories
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX ................
*
05/23/07
05/23/07
addressed in this notice pursuant to
CAA Section 183(e).
DATES: This final action is effective on
October 7, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established the
following dockets for these actions:
Consumer and Commercial Products,
Group IV—Determination to Issue
Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu
of Regulations, Docket No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2008–0411; Consumer and
Commercial Products—Miscellaneous
Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Docket
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0412;
Consumer and Commercial Products—
Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly
Coatings, Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2008–0413; Consumer and Commercial
Products—Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing Materials, Docket No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0415; and
Consumer and Commercial Products—
Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives,
Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0460.
All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and is publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading
Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information concerning the Clean Air
Act (CAA) Section 183(e) consumer and
commercial products program, contact
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA approval date
Comments
*
10/07/08 [Insert FR
page number
where document
begins].
10/07/08 [Insert FR
page number
where document
begins].
*
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 determination and
control techniques guidelines (CTG)
documents for miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts coatings, or for fiberglass
boat manufacturing materials, contact:
Ms. Kaye Whitfield, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Natural Resources and Commerce Group
(E143–03), Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone
number: (919) 541–2509, fax number:
(919) 541–3470, e-mail address:
whitfield.kaye@epa.gov. For further
information on technical issues
concerning the determination and CTG
for auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings or the revision of the
Automobile Topcoat Protocol, contact:
Mr. Dave Salman, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143–
01), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number:
(919) 541–0859, fax number: (919) 541–
3470, e-mail address:
salman.dave@epa.gov. For further
information on technical issues
concerning the determination and CTG
for miscellaneous industrial adhesives,
contact: Ms. Martha Smith, U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, Natural Resources and
Commerce Group (E143–03), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number: (919) 541–2421, fax
number: (919) 541–3470, e-mail
address: smith.martha@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
58482
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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:
NAICS code a
Examples of affected entities
plastic
331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 482, 811
Auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings.
Fiberglass boat manufacturing materials.
Miscellaneous industrial adhesives ..
336111, 336112, 336211 ..............
Facilities that manufacture and repair fabricated metal, machinery,
computer and electronic equipment, transportation equipment, rail
transportation equipment.
Automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants, producers of automobile and light-duty truck bodies.
Boat building facilities.
Federal Government .........................
State/local/Tribal government ...........
.......................................................
.......................................................
Category
Miscellaneous metal
parts coatings.
a North
and
336612 ..........................................
316, 321, 326, 331, 332, 333,
334, 336, 337, 339, 482, 811.
American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the appropriate EPA contact listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this notice.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition
to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of this final action will
also be available on the Worldwide Web
(WWW) through the Technology
Transfer Network (TTN). Following
signature, a copy of the final action will
be posted on the TTN’s policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at the following
address: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.
The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of
air pollution control.
Judicial Review. Under Section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of
EPA’s listing and final determination is
available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit by
December 8, 2008. Under Section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to the final determination that
was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review.
Organization of this Document
The information presented in this
document is organized as follows:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Facilities that manufacture and repair leather and allied products,
wood products, plastic and rubber products, fabricated metal, machinery, computer and electronic equipment, transportation equipment, furniture and related products, rail transportation equipment,
and facilities involved in miscellaneous manufacturing.
Not affected.
State, local and Tribal regulatory agencies.
I. Background Information
A. The Ozone Problem
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
C. Significance of Control Techniques
Guidelines Documents (CTGs)
II. Significant Changes to the Final CTGs
A. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts
Coatings
B. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly
Coatings
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
C. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials
D. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives
III. Responses to Significant Comments on
EPA’s Determination
IV. Statutory and Executive Order (EO)
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. Background Information
A. The Ozone Problem
Ground-level ozone, a major
component of smog, is formed in the
atmosphere by reactions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC)1 and oxides
of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight.
The formation of ground-level ozone is
a complex process that is affected by
many variables.
Exposure to ground-level ozone is
associated with a wide variety of human
health effects, as well as agricultural
crop loss, and damage to forests and
ecosystems. Controlled human exposure
studies show that acute health effects
are induced by short-term (1 to 2 hour)
exposures (observed at concentrations
1 See EPA’s definition of VOC at 40 CFR
51.100(s).
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)),
generally while individuals are engaged
in moderate or heavy exertion, and by
prolonged (6 to 8 hour) exposures to
ozone (observed at concentrations as
low as 0.08 ppm and possibly lower),
typically while individuals are engaged
in moderate exertion. Transient effects
from acute exposures include
pulmonary inflammation, respiratory
symptoms, effects on exercise
performance, and increased airway
responsiveness. Epidemiological studies
have shown associations between
ambient ozone levels and increased
susceptibility to respiratory infection,
increased hospital admissions and
emergency room visits. Groups at
increased risk of experiencing elevated
exposures include active children,
outdoor workers, and others who
regularly engage in outdoor activities.
Those most susceptible to the effects of
ozone include those with pre-existing
respiratory disease, children, and older
adults. The literature suggests the
possibility that long-term exposures to
ozone may cause chronic health effects
(e.g., structural damage to lung tissue
and accelerated decline in baseline lung
function).
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
Under CAA Section 183(e), EPA
conducted a study of VOC emissions
from the use of consumer and
commercial products to assess their
potential to contribute to levels of ozone
that violate the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone,
and to establish criteria for regulating
VOC emissions from these products.
Section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA
to list for regulation those categories of
products that account for at least 80
percent of the VOC emissions, on a
reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer
and commercial products in areas that
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone
nonattainment areas), and to divide the
list of categories to be regulated into
four groups. EPA published the initial
list in the Federal Register on March 23,
1995 (60 FR 15264). In that notice, EPA
stated that it may amend the list of
products for regulation, and the groups
of product categories, in order to
achieve an effective regulatory program
in accordance with the EPA’s discretion
under CAA Section 183(e).
EPA has revised the list several times.
See 70 FR 69759 (November 17, 2005);
64 FR 13422 (March 18, 1999); and 71
FR 28320 (May 16, 2006). In the May
2006 revision, EPA added one product
category, portable fuel containers, and
removed one product category,
petroleum dry cleaning solvents. As a
result of these revisions, Group IV of the
list comprises five product categories:
miscellaneous metal products coatings,
plastic parts coatings, auto and lightduty truck assembly coatings, fiberglass
boat manufacturing materials, and
miscellaneous industrial adhesives.
Pursuant to the court’s order in Sierra
Club v. EPA, 1:01–cv–01597–PLF (D.C.
Cir., March 31, 2006), EPA must take
final action on the product categories in
Group IV by September 30, 2008. On
July 14, 2008, EPA published its
proposed determination that a CTG is
substantially as effective as a regulation
for each of these five categories and
announced availability of four draft
CTGs (miscellaneous metal products
coatings and plastic parts coatings are
addressed in one CTG referred to as
‘‘miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
coatings’’). See 73 FR 40230.
Any regulations issued under CAA
Section 183(e) must be based on ‘‘best
available controls (BAC).’’ CAA Section
183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC as ‘‘the degree
of emissions reduction that the
Administrator determines, on the basis
of technological and economic
feasibility, health, environmental, and
energy impacts, is achievable through
the application of the most effective
equipment, measures, processes,
methods, systems or techniques,
including chemical reformulation,
product or feedstock substitution,
repackaging, and directions for use,
consumption, storage, or disposal.’’
CAA Section 183(e) also provides EPA
with authority to use any system or
systems of regulation that EPA
determines is the most appropriate for
the product category. Under these
provisions, EPA has previously issued
‘‘national’’ regulations for autobody
refinishing coatings, consumer
products, architectural coatings,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
portable fuel containers, and aerosol
coatings.2
CAA Section 183(e)(3)(C) further
provides that EPA may issue a CTG in
lieu of a national regulation for a
product category where EPA determines
that the CTG will be ‘‘substantially as
effective as regulations’’ in reducing
emissions of VOC in ozone
nonattainment areas. The statute does
not specify how EPA is to make this
determination, but does provide a
fundamental distinction between
national regulations and CTGs.
Specifically, for national regulations,
CAA Section 183(e) defines regulated
entities as:
(i) . . . manufacturers, processors,
wholesale distributors, or importers of
consumer or commercial products for sale or
distribution in interstate commerce in the
United States; or (ii) manufacturers,
processors, wholesale distributors, or
importers that supply the entities listed
under clause (i) with such products for sale
or distribution in interstate commerce in the
United States.
Thus, under CAA Section 183(e), a
regulation for consumer or commercial
products is limited to measures
applicable to manufacturers, processors,
distributors, or importers of consumer
and commercial products supplied to
the consumer or industry. CAA Section
183(e) does not authorize EPA to issue
national regulations that would directly
regulate end-users of these products. By
contrast, CTGs are guidance documents
that recommend reasonably available
control technology (RACT) measures
that States can adopt and apply to the
end users of products. This dichotomy
(i.e., that EPA cannot directly regulate
end-users under CAA Section 183(e),
but can address end-users through a
CTG) created by Congress is relevant to
EPA’s evaluation of the relative merits
of a national regulation versus a CTG.
C. Significance of Control Techniques
Guidelines Documents (CTGs)
CAA Section 172(c)(1) provides that
State implementation plans (SIPs) for
nonattainment areas must include
‘‘reasonably available control measures
(RACM),’’ including RACT, for sources
of emissions. CAA Section 182(b)(2)(A)
provides that for certain nonattainment
areas, States must revise their SIPs to
include RACT for each category of VOC
sources covered by a CTG document
issued between November 15, 1990, and
the date of attainment.
EPA defines RACT as ‘‘the lowest
emission limitation that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the
2 See
63 FR 48806, 48819, and 48848 (September
11, 1998); 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007); and 73
FR 15604 (March 24, 2008).
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58483
application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility,
44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979).’’ In
subsequent notices, EPA has addressed
how States can meet the RACT
requirements of the CAA. Significantly,
RACT for a particular industry is
determined on a case-by-case basis,
considering issues of technological and
economic feasibility.
EPA provides States with guidance
concerning what types of controls could
constitute RACT for a given source
category through issuance of a CTG. The
recommendations in the CTG are based
on available data and information and
may not apply to a particular situation
based upon the circumstances of a
specific source. States can follow the
CTG and adopt State regulations to
implement the recommendations
contained therein, or they can adopt
alternative approaches. In either event,
States must submit their RACT rules to
EPA for review and approval as part of
the SIP process. EPA will evaluate the
rules and determine, through notice and
comment rulemaking in the SIP
approval process, whether the
submitted rules meet the RACT
requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
regulations. To the extent a State adopts
any of the recommendations in a CTG
into its State RACT rules, interested
parties can raise questions and
objections about the substance of the
guidance and the appropriateness of the
application of the guidance to a
particular situation during the
development of the State rules and
EPA’s SIP approval process.
We encourage States in developing
their RACT rules to consider carefully
the facts and circumstances of the
particular sources in their States
because, as noted above, RACT is
determined on a case-by-case basis,
considering issues of technological and
economic feasibility. For example, a
State may decide not to require 90
percent control efficiency at facilities
that are already well controlled, if the
additional emission reductions would
not be cost-effective. States may also
want to consider reactivity-based
approaches, as appropriate, in
developing their RACT regulations.3
Finally, if States consider requiring
more stringent VOC content limits than
those recommended in the CTGs, States
may also wish to consider averaging, as
appropriate. In general, the RACT
requirement is applied on a short-term
3 ‘‘Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds in Ozone State
Implementation Plans,’’ 70 FR 54046 (September
13, 2005).
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
58484
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
basis up to 24 hours.4 However, EPA
guidance addresses averaging times
longer than 24 hours under certain
conditions.5 The EPA’s ‘‘Economic
Incentive Policy’’ 6 provides guidance
on use of long-term averages with regard
to RACT and generally provides for
averaging times of no greater than 30
days. Thus, if the appropriate
conditions are present, States may wish
to consider the use of averaging in
conjunction with more stringent limits.
Because of the nature of averaging,
however, we would expect that any
State RACT rules that allow for
averaging also include appropriate
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
By this action, we are taking final
action to list the five Group IV
consumer and commercial product
categories addressed in this notice
pursuant to CAA Section 183(e).
Further, we are issuing final CTGs that
cover these five product categories in
Group IV of the CAA Section 183(e) list.
These CTGs are guidance to the States
and provide recommendations only. A
State can determine what constitutes
RACT for these product categories, and
EPA will review the State’s rules
reflecting RACT in the context of the
SIP process and determine whether
those rules meet the RACT requirements
of the CAA and its implementing
regulations.
Finally, CAA Section 182(b)(2)
provides that a CTG issued after 1990
specify the date by which a State must
submit a SIP revision in response to the
CTG. In the CTGs at issue here, EPA
provides that States should submit their
SIP revisions within one year of the date
that the CTGs are finalized.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
II. Significant Changes to the Final
CTGs
In response to comments, we have
made certain changes to the final CTGs
for the Group IV consumer and
commercial product categories.
Specifically, we have included
definitions to clarify the scope of certain
types of products to which our
recommended VOC limits apply.
4 See, e.g., 52 FR 45108, col. 2, ‘‘Compliance
Periods’’ (November 24, 1987). ‘‘VOC rules should
describe explicitly the compliance timeframe
associated with each emission limit (e.g.,
instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules
are silent on compliance time, EPA will interpret
it as instantaneous.’’
5 Memorandum from John O’Connor, Acting
Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, January 20, 1984, ‘‘Averaging Times for
Compliance with VOC Emission Limits—SIP
Revision Policy.’’
6 ‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic
Incentive Programs, January 2001,’’ available at
https://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/
policy/search.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
Further, for various reasons described
below, we have either added
recommended VOC limits specifically
for certain specialty product categories
that would have otherwise been covered
by more generic VOC limits
recommended in the CTG, or changed
our draft recommended VOC limits for
certain specialty products. We also
recommended not applying the
recommended limits to certain lowvolume materials supplied in small
containers and clarified that the
recommended limits do not apply to
aerosol spray cans. These changes,
which are described in more detail
below, do not affect our proposed
determination in the July 14, 2008
notice that a CTG is substantially as
effective as a national rule for
addressing VOC emissions from the
Group IV consumer and commercial
products in ozone nonattainment areas.
None of the comments raised issues
with any of the rationales we provided
in support of our proposed
determination. Further, because the
above-mentioned changes to our
recommended limits make up only a
very small percentage of the consumer
and commercial products listed under
CAA Section 183(e) Group IV, we do not
believe that these changes alter the VOC
emission reductions discussed in the
July 14, 2008 notice in any material
way. Thus, the rationales we expressed
in the July notice in support of the
determination are unaffected by these
changes. For the reasons described in
the July 2008 notice and this document,
we have determined that CTGs are
substantially as effective as national
rules for these Group IV consumer and
commercial products.
Provided below is a summary of the
changes made in each of the final CTGs
addressed in this notice.
A. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic
Parts Coatings
To further clarify the scope of each
category for which we recommend
specific VOC limits, the final CTG
includes a definition for each of the
coating categories with recommended
VOC limits. These definitions are
adopted from the South Coast Air
Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) and Michigan rules that are
the basis for the recommended VOC
limits.
In response to public comments, we
have added to our recommendations in
the final CTG specific VOC limits for
eight categories of pleasure craft (i.e.,
recreational boats) surface coatings
based on SCAQMD Rule 1106.1. We
learned from the commenters that VOC
limits for pleasure craft are covered
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
under SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 (February
12, 1999), and not under SCAQMD
Rules 1107 and 1145, on which the
recommended VOC limits in the draft
CTG were based. The commenters also
noted that pleasure craft surface
coatings can not achieve the limits in
SCAQMD Rules 1107 and 1145 and at
the same time meet performance
requirements for use in marine
environments. In response to these
comments, we reviewed the VOC limits
for pleasure craft surface coatings in
SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 and found that
they reflect the RACT level of control
for these coatings. These limits are the
same as those in several other California
Districts. All but three of these limits
have been in place since 1994 and the
remaining three (extreme high gloss
coatings, finish primer/surfacer, and
non-aluminum antifoulant coatings)
have been in effect since 2001. There is
no indication that the SCAQMD Rule
1106.1 VOC limits recommended by the
commenters are unachievable or
unreasonable for sources outside these
California Districts. We are also not
aware of any pleasure craft surface
coating operation performing under
VOC limits lower than those provided
in SCAQMD Rule 1106.1. For the
reasons stated above, we recommend in
the final CTG the VOC limits in
SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 for pleasure craft
surface coatings to address these
coatings’ unique performance
requirements.
In the draft CTG, we requested
comment on whether certain materials
(sealers, deadeners, transit coatings, and
cavity waxes) used at automobile and
light-duty truck assembly plants that
were included in the miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts coatings category
and addressed in the draft CTG for
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
coatings should instead be included in
the auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings category and addressed in the
CTG for that category. All commenters
on the draft CTG responded that
recommendations for these materials
should be in the auto and light-duty
truck assembly coatings category and
addressed in the CTG for that category
to simplify implementation and
compliance and to clarify EPA’s
recommendations for these materials.
In response to these comments, we
have clarified in the final auto and lightduty truck assembly coatings CTG that
it covers the following materials:
automobile and light-duty truck cavity
wax, automobile and light-duty truck
sealers, automobile and light-duty truck
deadeners, automobile and light-duty
truck gasket/gasket sealing material,
automobile and light-duty truck
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
underbody coatings, and automobile
and light-duty truck lubricating wax/
compound. For further discussion on
how we address these materials, please
see section II.B of this notice and the
final auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings CTG.
Similar materials are used in the
production of vehicles other than
automobiles or light-duty trucks, or are
related to the production of a new
automobile or new light-duty truck at a
facility that is not an automobile or
light-duty truck assembly coatings
facility. These materials are included as
‘‘motor vehicle’’ materials in the
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
coatings category and addressed in the
final CTG for this category. The same
limits that are recommended for
‘‘automobile and light-duty truck’’
materials in the auto and light-duty
truck assembly coatings CTG are
recommended for ‘‘motor vehicle’’
materials in this CTG. Please see section
II.B of this notice for the rationale for
these recommended limits.
The recommended VOC emission
limits in the final miscellaneous metal
and plastic parts coatings CTG for the
motor vehicle materials described above
are as follows (grams VOC per liter of
coating, less water and exempt
compounds,7 g/l):
• Motor vehicle cavity wax—650
g/l.
• Motor vehicle sealer—650 g/l.
• Motor vehicle deadener—650 g/l.
• Motor vehicle gasket/gasket sealing
material—200 g/l.
• Motor vehicle underbody coating—
650 g/l.
• Motor vehicle lubricating wax/
compound—700 g/l.
• Motor vehicle trunk interior
coating—650 g/l.
• Motor vehicle bedliner—200 g/l.
In the final CTG, we revised the
recommended VOC content limit for
high performance architectural coatings.
The limit for this category in the draft
CTG was 3.5 lb VOC/gallon, less water
and exempt compounds. We received a
comment that there are no liquid high
performance architectural coatings
available today that can meet this limit.
The commenter suggested a limit of 6.2
lb VOC/gallon. According to the
commenter, reformulated liquid
coatings can meet this limit, and further
reformulation may not be technically
feasible while still meeting the requisite
performance characteristics for high
performance architectural coatings. The
7 Exempt compounds are those classified by EPA
as having negligible photochemical reactivity as
listed in 40 CFR 51.100(s). Exempt compounds are
not considered to be VOC.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
commenter also referenced the organic
HAP content limit for these coatings in
the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MMMM. The commenter noted
that the NESHAP limit is consistent
with a VOC content of 6.2 lb VOC/
gallon. The commenter also noted that
converting from a liquid coating to a
powder coating or installing and
operating add-on controls would be
necessary in order to meet the VOC
limit recommended for this coating
category in the draft CTG, and that each
of these approaches would be cost
prohibitive. The commenter therefore
argued that the VOC limit for high
performance architectural coatings
recommended in the draft CTG is not
reflective of RACT for these coatings.
We agree with the commenter that
liquid high performance architectural
coatings currently available and in use
today contain significantly more than
3.5 lb VOC/gallon. We believe that the
cost of converting to powder coatings or
installing and operating add-on controls
to meet a limit of 3.5 lb VOC/gallon
generally would be unreasonable
compared to the emission reduction that
would be achieved. We further agree
with the commenter that a limit of 6.2
lb VOC/gallon can be achieved by the
liquid high performance architectural
coatings currently available and in use
today and that further reformulation
may not be technically feasible. In light
of all of the above, we believe that the
6.2 lb VOC/gallon limit represents
RACT for high performance
architectural coatings. Accordingly, in
the final CTG, we revised our
recommended VOC limit for high
performance architectural coatings to be
6.2 lb/gal.
In the draft CTG, we recommended
that VOC limits for red and black
coatings used for automotive/
transportation plastic parts could be 15
percent higher than for other colors.
Higher limits were allowed for red and
black coatings because the organic
pigments used for these colors absorb
oil and require more VOC to maintain
proper coating viscosity. Commenters
requested that the same allowance
should also be made for yellow coatings
since these coatings now use organic
pigments instead of inorganic pigments,
and these organic pigments also absorb
oil and require more VOC to maintain
proper coating viscosity. The inorganic
pigments formerly used in yellow
coatings often contain hexavalent
chromium. Other environmental and
worker health programs restrict the use
of hexavalent chromium in pigments
because it is a known human
carcinogen, and it is being replaced with
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58485
organic yellow pigments. So as not to
create a barrier to the use of organic
yellow pigments in place of hexavalent
chromium, we are recommending in the
final CTG higher VOC limits for yellow
coatings used for automotive/
transportation plastic parts.
In response to comments on how to
determine the VOC content of materials,
we recommend in the final CTG that the
VOC content of coatings used at
miscellaneous metal and plastic part
coating facilities be determined using
EPA Method 24. In addition, we
recommend that manufacturer’s
formulation data be accepted as an
alternative to EPA Method 24. If there
is a disagreement between
manufacturer’s formulation data and the
results of a subsequent test, we
recommend that States use the test
method results unless the facility can
make a demonstration to the States’
satisfaction that the manufacturer’s
formulation data are correct.
B. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly
Coatings
In the July 2008 notice we requested
comment on whether certain materials
(sealers, deadeners, transit coatings,
cavity waxes, glass bonding primers,
and glass bonding adhesives) used at
automobile and light-duty truck
assembly plants that were included in
either the miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts coatings categories or the
miscellaneous industrial adhesives and
addressed in the respective draft CTG
should instead be included in the auto
and light-duty truck assembly coatings
category and addressed in the CTG for
this category. All commenters on the
draft CTG responded that
recommendations for these materials
should be in the auto and light-duty
truck assembly coatings category and
addressed in the CTG for this category
to simplify implementation and
compliance and to clarify EPA’s
recommendations for these materials.
In response to these comments, we
have clarified in the final auto and lightduty truck assembly coatings CTG that
it covers the following materials:
Automobile and light-duty truck glass
bonding primer, automobile and lightduty truck adhesive, automobile and
light-duty truck cavity wax, automobile
and light-duty truck sealer, automobile
and light-duty truck deadener,
automobile and light-duty truck gasket/
gasket sealing material, automobile and
light-duty truck underbody coating,
automobile and light-duty truck trunk
interior coating, automobile and lightduty truck bedliner, automobile and
light-duty truck weatherstrip adhesive,
and automobile and light-duty truck
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
58486
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
lubricating wax/compound. To clarify
the scope of these materials, the final
CTG includes definitions for these
materials. It also includes the following
recommended VOC emission limits for
the application of these materials:
• Automobile and light-duty truck
glass bonding primer—900 g/l.
• Automobile and light-duty truck
adhesive—250 g/l.
• Automobile and light-duty truck
cavity wax—650 g/l.
• Automobile and light-duty truck
sealer—650 g/l.
• Automobile and light-duty truck
deadener—650 g/l.
• Automobile and light-duty truck
gasket/gasket sealing material—200 g/l.
• Automobile and light-duty truck
underbody coating—650 g/l.
• Automobile and light-duty truck
trunk interior coating—650 g/l.
• Automobile and light-duty truck
bedliner—200 g/l.
• Automobile and light-duty truck
weatherstrip adhesive—750 g/l.
• Automobile and light-duty truck
lubricating wax/compound—700 g/l.
We have provided below a brief
summary of our rationale for each of
these limits. As discussed in sections
II.A and II.D of this notice, similar
materials are used in the production of
vehicles other than automobiles or lightduty trucks, or are related to the
production of a new automobile or new
light-duty truck at a facility that is not
an automobile or light-duty truck
assembly coatings facility. These
materials are included as ‘‘motor
vehicle’’ materials in the miscellaneous
metal products, plastic parts coatings, or
miscellaneous industrial adhesives
categories and addressed in the CTGs
for those categories. The same limits
that are recommended for ‘‘automobile
and light-duty truck’’ materials in the
auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings CTG are recommended for
‘‘motor vehicle’’ materials in those
CTGs, and the following rationale
applies both to ‘‘automobile and lightduty truck’’ materials and ‘‘motor
vehicle’’ materials.
The draft miscellaneous industrial
adhesives CTG recommended a material
specific limit of 700 grams of VOC per
liter for glass bonding primer (referred
to as ‘‘automotive glass adhesive
primer’’ in that document). Commenters
indicated that currently used materials
contain up to 900 grams of VOC per
liter. Eliminating the use of the
materials in the 700 to 900 grams of
VOC per liter range may not be
technically feasible. The cost of the
testing required to confirm material
performance and compliance with
Federal crash safety standards and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
windshield integrity requirements
would be unreasonable compared to the
small emission reduction that would be
achieved. As a result, we conclude that
the 900 grams of VOC per liter limit
recommended in the final CTG is
representative of RACT for automobile
and light-duty truck glass bonding
primer.
The draft CTGs for miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts coatings and for
miscellaneous industrial adhesives did
not have product specific
recommendations for automobile and
light-duty truck adhesive, automobile
and light-duty truck cavity wax,
automobile and light-duty truck sealer,
automobile and light-duty truck
deadener, automobile and light-duty
truck gasket/gasket sealing material,
automobile and light-duty truck
underbody coating, automobile and
light-duty truck trunk interior coating,
automobile and light-duty truck
weatherstrip adhesive, or automobile
and light-duty truck lubricating wax/
compound. Rather, these materials fell
under general product categories in
these draft CTGs. For each of these types
of materials, commenters provided
information on the VOC content of the
materials currently in use and asserted
that the cost of the testing required to
confirm the performance of lower VOC
content materials would be
unreasonable compared to the small
emission reduction that would be
achieved. We agree with the
commenter’s assertion and conclude
that the limits recommended for these
materials in the final CTG are
representative of RACT.
Bedliner is an air dried multicomponent coating typically applied by
vehicle dealers or aftermarket
applicators. In the draft CTG for
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
coatings, bedliner would have fallen
under the general multi-component
coating category which had a
recommended limit of 340 grams of
VOC per liter. One commenter indicated
that bedliner is applied at some of its
automobile and light-duty truck
assembly plants. We are not aware of
any other automobile and light-duty
truck assembly plants that apply
bedliner. The bedliner applied at the
commenter’s plants contains less than
200 grams of VOC per liter. This is
similar to the VOC content of
aftermarket bedliner in the
miscellaneous metal products, or plastic
parts coatings categories and addressed
in the CTG for miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts coatings. As a result, we
conclude that the 200 grams of VOC per
liter limit recommended in the final
CTG for auto and light-duty truck
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
assembly coatings is representative of
RACT for automobile and light-duty
truck bedliner.
We also revised the final auto and
light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG
to recommend not applying the
recommended limits to materials that
are supplied to the automobile and
light-duty truck assembly plants in
containers with a net volume of 16
ounces or less, or a net weight of one
pound or less. We made this change in
response to comments that these low
volume materials have small VOC
emissions and the cost of controlling
them outweighs the emission reductions
that could be achieved. We agree with
this assessment.
In response to comments on how to
determine the VOC content of materials,
we recommend in the final CTG that the
VOC content of coatings, other than
reactive adhesives, used at automobile
and light-duty truck assembly plants be
determined using EPA Method 24. We
recommend that the procedure for
reactive adhesives in Appendix A of the
NESHAP for surface coating of plastic
parts (40 CFR Part 63, subpart PPPP) be
used to determine the VOC content of
reactive adhesives. In addition, we
recommend that manufacturer’s
formulation data be accepted as an
alternative to these methods. If there is
a disagreement between manufacturer’s
formulation data and the results of a
subsequent test, we recommend that
States use the test method results unless
the facility can make a demonstration to
the States’ satisfaction that the
manufacturer’s formulation data are
correct.
Finally, in conjunction with the draft
CTG we prepared a draft revision of the
Automobile Topcoat Protocol.
Commenters supported the revision of
the protocol. We are issuing the final
revised protocol concurrent with the
final CTG.
C. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing
Materials
In response to public comments,
several changes were made to the final
CTG to clarify the recommended control
measures. We clarified that certain nonatomizing resin application
technologies, such as fluid impingement
technology, meet the recommended
resin application equipment
specifications under certain
recommended compliance options. We
also revised the description of ‘‘hand
application’’ to include non-spray and
non-atomizing application methods
similar to hand- or mechanicallypowered caulking guns (e.g., similar to
those used to apply bonding putty),
brush, and direct hand application.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
These are low-emission application
methods used by many boat builders.
In the final CTG, we clarified that
polyester bonding putties are included
in the fiberglass boat manufacturing
materials category and addressed in the
final CTG for this category. We
explained that these putties, which are
made from a mixture of resin and filler,
are not considered adhesives since they
are part of the composite structure.
However, no VOC content limits are
recommended for polyester bonding
putties in the final fiberglass boat
manufacturing CTG, but we do
recommend covers for mixing
containers used to prepare these putties.
Because these putties are encapsulated
between the parts or surfaces they are
bonding, minimal area is exposed to the
air and most of the styrene is
incorporated into the cured resin
matrix. Therefore, VOC emissions from
these putties are inherently low. For this
reason, polyester bonding putties are
not subject to HAP limits, which are
based on styrene and methyl
methacrylate (MMA) emissions in the
Boat Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart VVVV. Similarly, no
VOC content limits are recommended
for these materials in the final CTG, but
covers are recommended for the putty
mixing containers.
The final CTG also does not include
recommended VOC limits for resin and
gel coat used for mold and part touch up
and repair. No VOC limits are
recommended because these materials
are used in small volumes (e.g., just an
ounce or two at a time); therefore, VOC
emissions from these materials are quite
low. Further, these materials need to
have higher VOC contents so that the
repairs will bond to the existing mold or
part. For these reasons, resin and gel
coat used for mold and part touch up
and repair are not subject to HAP
content limits in the boat manufacturing
NESHAP; however, under the NESHAP,
they are subject to a usage limit and
must not account for more than 1
percent of the total resin and gel coat
used at a facility. Similarly, no VOC
limits are recommended for these
materials in the final CTG, but we are
also recommending that resin and gel
coat used for mold and part touch up
and repair not exceed 1 percent by
weight of all resin and gel coat used at
a facility on a 12-month rolling-average
basis.
In response to public comments, we
are revising the VOC content limits for
resins and gel coats such that they now
consist of a monomer VOC content limit
and a limit on the non-monomer VOC
content. We received comments that
compliance with our recommended
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
VOC limits, which were equal to the
HAP content limits in the NESHAP,
may not be feasible because the VOC
content in resins and gel coats may be
greater than the HAP content. As
previously explained in the draft CTG,
the NESHAP HAP content limits were
based on styrene and MMA contents in
resins and gel coats. Because nearly all
VOC in resins and gel coats used in
fiberglass boat manufacturing are
styrene and MMA, we recommended
the NESHAP HAP content limits as the
VOC limits in the draft CTG. However,
commenters noted that the VOC content
of resins and gel coats may exceed the
HAP content since these materials may
include a small percent of non-HAP
VOC, about 0.5 to 5 percent of the total
weight of the resin or gel coat.
Therefore, it may not be feasible for
some materials to achieve the
recommended VOC limits in the draft
CTG, which only accounted for styrene
and MMA.
To resolve this issue, the final CTG
recommends a control option to address
all VOC in these materials based on
monomer VOC and non-monomer VOC.
Monomer VOCs react in a chemical
cross linking reaction to convert these
materials from liquids to solids. The
only monomer VOCs in these materials
that we have identified are styrene and
MMA. According to the commenters,
other VOC that are not monomers may
be present in these materials at 0.5 to 5
percent by weight of the resin and gel
coat. In light of the above information,
we recommend in the final CTG that
States adopt the HAP content limits in
the NESHAP as monomer VOC content
limits. In addition, we recommend that
the States limit the non-monomer VOC
content of resins and gel coats to 5
percent by weight of the resin or gel
coat. If the non-monomer VOC content
exceeds 5 percent, we recommend that
the amount over 5 percent be counted
toward the monomer VOC content of the
material. For example, if a resin
contained 34 percent monomer VOC,
but 6 percent non-monomer VOC, then
the resin would be treated in each
recommended compliance option as if it
had a monomer VOC content of 35
percent because of the 1 percent nonmonomer VOC that was over the 5
percent recommended limit for nonmonomer VOC.
In response to comments on how to
determine the VOC content of materials,
we recommend in the final CTG that the
monomer VOC content of resin and gel
coat materials be determined using
SCAQMD Method 312–91,
Determination of Percent Monomer in
Polyester Resins. In addition, we
recommend that manufacturer’s
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58487
formulation data be accepted as an
alternative to this method. If there is a
disagreement between manufacturer’s
formulation data and the results of a
subsequent test, we recommend that
States use the test method results unless
the facility can make a demonstration to
the States’ satisfaction that the
manufacturer’s formulation data are
correct.
D. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives
We revised the final CTG to
recommend not applying the
recommended limits to materials that
are supplied to the facilities operating
miscellaneous industrial adhesive
application processes in containers with
a net volume of 16 ounces or less, or a
net weight of one pound or less. We
made this change in response to
comments that these low volume
materials have small VOC emissions
and the cost of controlling them
outweighs the emission reductions that
could be achieved. We agree with this
assessment. This is also consistent with
the small container exemption in the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
model rule.
In response to comments on how to
determine the VOC content of materials,
we recommend in the final CTG that the
VOC content of adhesives, other than
reactive adhesives, used at facilities
operating miscellaneous industrial
adhesive application processes be
determined using EPA Method 24. We
recommend that the procedure for
reactive adhesives in Appendix A of the
NESHAP for surface coating of plastic
parts (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) be
used to determine the VOC content of
reactive adhesives. In addition, we
recommend that manufacturer’s
formulation data be accepted as an
alternative to these methods. If there is
a disagreement between manufacturer’s
formulation data and the results of a
subsequent test, we recommend that
States use the test method results unless
the facility can make a demonstration to
the States’ satisfaction that the
manufacturer’s formulation data are
correct.
We also clarified in the final CTG that
polyester bonding putties used to
assemble fiberglass parts at fiberglass
boat manufacturing facilities and at
other reinforced plastic composite
manufacturing facilities are not
included in the miscellaneous industrial
adhesives category and are not
addressed in the CTG for this category.
These bonding putties are part of the
composite structure and are not
adhesives. For further discussions on
these putties, please see section II.C of
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
58488
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
this notice and the final fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials CTG.
In the final miscellaneous industrial
adhesives CTG, we also revised the
definition of porous material to exclude
wood. In the draft CTG, we
recommended separate emission limits
for wood application processes and for
porous material (except wood)
application processes. However, we
inadvertently included wood in the
definition of porous material in the draft
CTG. This was an oversight, and wood
has been excluded from the definition of
porous material in the final CTG.
We also replaced the term ‘‘tire
retreading’’ in the CTG with ‘‘tire
repair’’. This change was made in
response to a comment that the OTC
model rule, on which the CTG
definition was based, uses the term ‘‘tire
repair’’ for the same definition. We
made this change to be consistent with
the OTC model rule and to more
accurately describe the specific process
being defined.
In the draft CTG we requested
comment on whether certain materials
(glass bonding primers and glass
bonding adhesives) used at automobile
and light-duty truck assembly plants
that were included in the miscellaneous
industrial adhesives category and
addressed in the draft CTG for
miscellaneous industrial adhesives
should instead be included in the auto
and light-duty truck assembly coatings
category and addressed in the CTG for
that category. All commenters on the
draft CTG responded that
recommendations for these materials
should be in the auto and light-duty
truck assembly coatings category and
addressed in the CTG for that category
to simplify implementation and
compliance and to clarify EPA’s
recommendations for these materials.
In response to these comments, we
have clarified in the final auto and lightduty truck assembly coatings CTG that
it covers the following materials:
automobile and light-duty truck glass
bonding primer, automobile and lightduty truck adhesive, and automobile
and light-duty truck weatherstrip
adhesive. For further discussion on how
we address these materials, please see
section II.B of this notice and the final
auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings CTG.
Similar materials are used in the
production of vehicles other than
automobiles or light-duty trucks, or are
related to the production of a new
automobile or new light-duty truck at a
facility that is not an automobile or
light-duty truck assembly coatings
facility. These materials are included as
‘‘motor vehicle’’ materials in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
miscellaneous industrial adhesives
category and addressed in the final CTG
for this category. The same limits that
are recommended for ‘‘automobile and
light-duty truck’’ materials in the auto
and light-duty truck assembly coatings
CTG are recommended for ‘‘motor
vehicle’’ materials in this CTG. Please
see section II.B of this notice for the
rationale for these recommended limits.
The recommended VOC emission
limits in the final miscellaneous
industrial adhesives CTG for the motor
vehicle materials described above are as
follows:
• Motor vehicle glass bonding
primer—900 g/l.
• Motor vehicle adhesive—250 g/l.
• Motor vehicle weatherstrip
adhesive—750 g/l.
Please note that, in the final CTG, the
term ‘‘motor vehicle glass bonding
primer’’ replaces the term ‘‘automotive
glass adhesive primer’’ provided in the
draft CTG. The terms have the same
definition, but ‘‘glass bonding primer’’
is the term more commonly used in the
automotive and motor vehicle industry.
III. Responses to Significant Comments
on EPA’s Determination
All commenters that addressed EPA’s
proposed CAA Section 183(e)(3)(C)
determination that CTGs will be
substantially as effective as national
regulations in reducing emissions of
VOC in ozone nonattainment areas from
the miscellaneous metal products
coatings, plastic parts coatings, auto and
light-duty truck assembly coatings, and
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials
product categories agreed with the
proposed determination.
In support of EPA’s proposed
determination and issuance of draft
CTGs for these product categories,
commenters remarked that the CTG
approach would afford industry
flexibility to achieve VOC emission
reductions while not compromising
their ability to meet customer needs. We
received comments noting that the CTG
approach allows States greater
flexibility to tailor regulatory
requirements to their specific
circumstances. The commenter stated
that site-specific factors necessitate the
need for flexible controls. According to
the commenters, because there can be
great variation in the operations of
facilities and the environmental
conditions in which they operate, State
regulators should be granted some
latitude to fashion control strategies to
address the variables that are inherent to
the formation of ground-level ozone in
their States. The commenters concluded
that the CTG approach affords this
flexibility by allowing the use of a
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
variety of mechanisms to achieve
emission reductions.
With respect to the miscellaneous
industrial adhesives category, we
similarly received comments agreeing
with EPA’s determination that a CTG is
substantially as effective as a rule.
However, we also received comments
supporting the issuance of a national
rule rather than a CTG for this product
category. These commenters raised no
concerns or issues with EPA’s rationales
for its proposed determination that a
CTG is substantially as effective as a
rule in reducing VOC emissions from
miscellaneous industrial adhesives in
ozone nonattainment areas. Rather, the
commenters explained that regulation of
manufacturers of industrial adhesives
would cover a wider variety of
materials, and thus achieve greater VOC
emissions reductions, than measures
limiting emissions from the products at
the point of use. The commenters
further argued that manufacturers have
greater control over the VOC content
and associated emissions of industrial
adhesives than do users, given that
individual industrial adhesives are
formulated to perform specific functions
and, unlike other coating materials, are
not ordinarily thinned or otherwise
altered prior to use by the user. The
commenters stated that, among the
categories of adhesive materials covered
in the proposed CTG, a number of them
are more likely to be used ‘‘in the field’’
or at construction sites rather than in
manufacturing facilities. One
commenter added that any uncertainty
regarding the industry sectors that are
covered by the miscellaneous industrial
adhesives source category would be
resolved by regulating industrial
adhesives at the point of manufacture
rather than the point of use. The
commenter expressed concern that a
CTG for adhesives would require
enforcement at innumerable
manufacturing facilities nationwide,
resulting in significant costs. The
commenter added that in contrast, a
national rule applicable to
manufacturers of industrial adhesives
would greatly reduce the number of
regulated entities and simplify
enforcement, and reduce costs.
EPA appreciates the commenters’
concerns and suggestions. However, for
the following reasons, EPA rejects the
commenters’ suggestion that EPA
should issue a national rule for the
Section 183(e) miscellaneous industrial
adhesives category. As an initial matter,
the scope of adhesives that the
commenters suggest that EPA cover
under a national rule is broader than the
Section 183(e) miscellaneous industrial
adhesives category. In EPA’s Report to
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Congress, Study of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Consumer
and Commercial Products—
Comprehensive Emissions Inventory
(EPA–453/R–94–066–B, March 1995),
supporting the Section 183(e) consumer
and commercial product category list
that EPA compiled in 1995 and the
schedule for taking action on the listed
product categories,8 the ‘‘miscellaneous
industrial adhesives’’ product category
was clearly described as comprising
adhesives used in industrial
manufacturing operations. Accordingly,
this product category does not include
field-applied adhesives (e.g., plastic
solvent welding cements used by
plumbers to join plumbing pipes on
construction jobs in the field).
In the July 2008 notice, EPA proposed
to finalize the miscellaneous industrial
adhesives product category, as that
category was listed in 1995. EPA did not
propose to broaden that product
category, as EPA had determined that
the category properly reflected the scope
of sources needed, in conjunction with
the other product categories, to meet the
requirements of Section 183(e)(3)(A).
Petitioners have not alleged or
demonstrated that EPA’s proposed
listing is contrary to the requirements of
Section 183(e)(3)(A). EPA therefore
takes final action to list the
miscellaneous industrial adhesives
product category, which again includes
those adhesives used in industrial
manufacturing operations.
Further, as discussed in the July 14,
2008 notice, the effect of a national rule
that sets VOC limits only for
miscellaneous industrial adhesives (i.e.,
adhesives used in industrial
manufacturing operations) could be
easily subverted because such a rule
could not require that a manufacturing
facility use only those low-VOC content
adhesives materials that are specifically
marketed for miscellaneous industrial
adhesive application operations. By
contrast, the miscellaneous industrial
adhesives CTG applies specifically to
the products in the Section 183(e)
miscellaneous industrial adhesives
category, i.e., adhesives used at
industrial manufacturing operations.
Moreover, as discussed above and in
the July 14, 2008 notice, EPA has
identified in the CTG flexible and
effective options for controlling VOC
emissions from the miscellaneous
industrial adhesives category, and these
recommended control options are
consistent with existing State and local
VOC control strategies. The
8 See ‘‘Consumer and Commercial Products:
Schedule for Regulation’’ (60 FR 15264, March 23,
1995)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
recommended control options, which
are directed at the use of these
adhesives, can only be implemented
through the CTG approach because the
regulated entities subject to a national
rule would be adhesives manufacturers
and suppliers, not the users. The
commenters have raised no concerns or
issues with EPA’s rationales, including
those reiterated above, supporting its
proposed Section 183(e)(3)(C)
determination that a CTG is
substantially as effective as a regulation
in reducing VOC emissions from
miscellaneous industrial adhesives in
ozone nonattainment areas. For the
foregoing reasons, EPA is finalizing its
183(e)(3)(C) determination for
miscellaneous industrial adhesives in
this notice.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order (EO)
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is a
‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ since it
is deemed to raise novel legal or policy
issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under EO
12866, and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action
does not contain any information
collection requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district, or
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58489
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule will not impose any
requirements on small entities. EPA is
taking final action to list the five Group
IV consumer and commercial product
categories addressed in this notice for
purposes of CAA Section 183(e). The
listing action alone does not impose any
regulatory requirements. EPA has also
determined that, for each of the five
product categories at issue, a CTG will
be substantially as effective as a national
regulation in achieving VOC emission
reductions in ozone nonattainment
areas. This final determination means
that EPA has concluded that it is not
appropriate to issue Federal regulations
under CAA Section 183(e) to regulate
VOC emissions from these five product
categories. Instead, EPA has concluded
that it is appropriate to issue guidance
in the form of CTGs that provide
recommendations to States concerning
potential methods to achieve needed
VOC emission reductions from these
product categories. In addition to the
final determination, EPA is also
announcing availability of the final
CTGs for these five product categories.
These CTGs are guidance documents.
EPA does not directly regulate any small
entities through the issuance of a CTG.
Instead, EPA issues CTGs to provide
States with guidance on developing
appropriate State regulations to obtain
VOC emission reductions from the
affected sources within certain
nonattainment areas. EPA’s issuance of
a CTG does trigger an obligation on the
part of certain States to issue State
regulations, but States are not obligated
to issue regulations identical to the
EPA’s CTG. States may follow the
recommendations in the CTG or deviate
from them, and the ultimate
determination of whether a State
regulation meets the RACT
requirements of the CAA would be
determined through notice and
comment rulemaking in the EPA’s
action on each State’s SIP. Thus, States
retain discretion in determining to what
degree to follow the CTGs.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule contains no Federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
58490
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
1538 for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector
because it imposes no enforceable duty
on any State, local, or Tribal
governments or the private sector.
Therefore, this action is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 or 205
of the UMRA. In addition, we have
determined that this rule is not subject
to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. As
stated in section IV.C. this action serves
to list five product categories, finalize a
determination that a CTG will be
substantially as effective as a national
regulation in achieving VOC emission
reductions in ozone nonattainment
areas for the five categories, and
announce the availability of the final
CTGs (i.e., guidance documents) for
these five product categories. These
actions do not impose any regulatory
requirements; therefore, EPA is not
directly regulating any small entities.
Please refer to section IV.C. for
additional details.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
EO 13132, entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications. ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ is
defined in the EO to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’
This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in EO
13132. The CAA establishes the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the States, and this
action does not impact that relationship.
Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this
rule. However, in the spirit of EO 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA
solicited comments (see 73 FR 40230,
July 14, 2008) from State and local
officials. EPA received no adverse
comments from State or local
governments on these issues.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in EO 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It
does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian Tribes, in that the
listing action and the final
determination impose no regulatory
burdens on tribes. Furthermore, the
listing action and the final
determination do not affect the
relationship or distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes. The
CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule
(TAR) establish the relationship of the
Federal government and Tribes in
implementing the CAA. Thus, EO 13175
does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that are
based on health and safety risks, such
that the analysis required under section
5–501 of the EO has the potential to
influence the regulations. This rule is
not subject to EO 13045 because it is
based solely on technology
performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in EO 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it
is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. These
actions impose no regulatory
requirements and are therefore not
likely to have any adverse energy
effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No.
104–113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in their regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices, etc.) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Congress, through OMB, with
explanations when the Agency does not
use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994)
establishes Federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main
provision directs Federal agencies, to
the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final
rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it
increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations
without having any disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any
populations, including any minority or
low-income populations. The purpose
of CAA Section 183(e) is to obtain VOC
emission reductions to assist in the
attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The
health and environmental risks
associated with ozone were considered
in the establishment of the ozone
NAAQS. The level is designed to be
protective of the public with an
adequate margin of safety. EPA’s listing
of the products and its determination
that CTGs are substantially as effective
as regulations are actions intended to
help States achieve the NAAQS in the
most appropriate fashion.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this notice and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
States prior to publication of the notice
in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective October 7, 2008.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59
[CMS–2238–F]
Air pollution control, Consumer and
commercial products, Confidential
business information, Ozone, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
RIN 0938–AP26
Dated: September 30, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
■
PART 59—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 59
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7511b(e).
Subpart A—General
2. Section 59.1 is revised to read as
follows:
■
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
§ 59.1 Final determinations under Section
183(e)(3)(C) of the CAA.
This section identifies the consumer
and commercial product categories for
which EPA has determined that CTGs
will be substantially as effective as
regulations in reducing VOC emissions
in ozone nonattainment areas:
(a) Wood furniture coatings;
(b) Aerospace coatings;
(c) Shipbuilding and repair coatings;
(d) Lithographic printing materials;
(e) Letterpress printing materials;
(f) Flexible packaging printing
materials;
(g) Flat wood paneling coatings;
(h) Industrial cleaning solvents;
(i) Paper, film, and foil coatings;
(j) Metal furniture coatings;
(k) Large appliance coatings;
(l) Miscellaneous metal products
coatings;
(m) Plastic parts coatings;
(n) Auto and light-duty truck
assembly coatings;
(o) Fiberglass boat manufacturing
materials; and
(p) Miscellaneous industrial
adhesives.
[FR Doc. E8–23750 Filed 10–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:31 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Part 447
Medicaid Program; Multiple Source
Drug Definition
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This final rule revises the
definition of ‘‘multiple source drug’’ to
better conform the regulatory definition
to the provisions of section 1927(k)(7) of
the Social Security Act. It also responds
to public comments received on the
March 14, 2008 interim final rule with
comment period.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective November 6, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail
Sexton, (410) 786–4583.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In the July 17, 2007 Federal Register
we published a final rule with comment
period (72 FR 39142) implementing the
provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005 (DRA) pertaining to prescription
drugs under the Medicaid Program. In
that rule, we codified terms pertaining
to the calculation and reporting of
average manufacturer price (AMP) and
best price and amended existing
regulations regarding the calculation of
the Federal upper limits (FULs) for
certain covered outpatient drugs. The
rule was effective October 1, 2007. On
March 14, 2008, we issued an interim
final rule with comment period (73 FR
13785) that revised the definition of
multiple source drug to conform to the
statutory provisions. As stated in that
rule, the interim final rule with
comment period was not issued in
response to public comments received
on the Medicaid prescription drug rule.
We are still considering those
comments. On November 15, 2007, the
National Association of Chain Drug
Stores and the National Community
Pharmacists Association filed a motion
for a preliminary injunction in the
United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. They contended,
in part, that the definition of ‘‘multiple
source drug’’ adopted in the Medicaid
prescription drug rule is contrary to the
statutory language in that it defined a
multiple source drug, in part, as a drug
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58491
which is sold or marketed in the United
States, as opposed to the State. Plaintiffs
argued that all drugs are not generally
available in every State. National
Association of Chain Drug Stores et al.
v. Health and Human Services, Civil
Action No. 1:07–cv–02017 (RCL).
Although we continue to believe that,
when an FDA-approved,
therapeutically, pharmaceutically, and
bioequivalent drug is sold or marketed
in the United States, at least one
therapeutically, pharmaceutically, and
bioequivalent drug is sold or marketed
in every State, we issued an interim
final rule with comment period to revise
the definition of ‘‘multiple source
drug.’’ We stated that we expected the
effect of the revision, if any, to be
minimal.
We are publishing this final rule to
address comments received on the
interim final rule with comment period
published on March 14, 2008 (73 FR
13785). Specifically, we are addressing
comments pertaining to the definition of
‘‘multiple source drug’’ in the March 14,
2008 interim final rule with comment
period. For a full discussion of the
multiple source drug definition
provisions see the March 14, 2008
interim final rule with comment period
(73 FR 13785).
As noted in the interim final rule with
comment period, this rule to the extent
that it may affect Medicaid
reimbursement rates for retail
pharmacies, is subject to the injunction
issued by the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia in
National Association of Chain Drug
Stores et al. v. Health and Human
Services, Civil Action No. 1:07–cv–
02017 (RCL).
II. Provisions of the Interim Final Rule
In § 447.502, we defined key terms
used for payment and rebates for
Medicaid covered outpatient drugs. We
defined multiple source drug, with
respect to a rebate period, as a covered
outpatient drug for which there is at
least one other drug product which is:
(1) Rated as therapeutically equivalent
(for the list of drug products rated as
therapeutically equivalent, see the
FDA’s most recent publication of
‘‘Approved Drug Products with
Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations’’
which is available at https://
www.fda.gov/cder/orange/default.htm
or can be viewed at the FDA’s Freedom
of Information Public Reading Room at
5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A–30,
Rockville, MD 20857); (2)
pharmaceutically equivalent and
bioequivalent, as determined by the
FDA; and (3) sold or marketed in the
United States during the rebate period.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58481-58491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23750]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 59
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0411; FRL-8725-9]
RIN 2060-AP01
Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV: Control Techniques
Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Miscellaneous Metal Products
Coatings, Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly
Coatings, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and Miscellaneous
Industrial Adhesives
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; Notice of final determination and availability of
final control techniques guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act, EPA has
determined that control techniques guidelines will be substantially as
effective as national regulations in reducing emissions of volatile
organic compounds in ozone national ambient air quality standard
nonattainment areas from the following five Group IV product
categories: miscellaneous metal products coatings, plastic parts
coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings, fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials, and miscellaneous industrial adhesives. Based
on this determination, EPA is issuing control techniques guidelines in
lieu of national regulations for these product categories. These
control techniques guidelines will provide guidance to the States
concerning EPA's recommendations for reasonably available control
technology-level controls for these product categories. EPA further
takes final action to list the five Group IV consumer and commercial
product categories addressed in this notice pursuant to CAA Section
183(e).
DATES: This final action is effective on October 7, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established the following dockets for these actions:
Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV--Determination to Issue
Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations, Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0411; Consumer and Commercial Products--Miscellaneous Metal
and Plastic Parts Coatings, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0412; Consumer
and Commercial Products--Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings,
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0413; Consumer and Commercial Products--
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0415; and Consumer and Commercial Products--Miscellaneous Industrial
Adhesives, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0460. All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and is publicly available only
in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the Clean
Air Act (CAA) Section 183(e) consumer and commercial products program,
contact Mr. Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and
Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number: (919) 541-5460, fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-mail
address: moore.bruce@epa.gov. For further information on technical
issues concerning the determination and control techniques guidelines
(CTG) documents for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, or
for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, contact: Ms. Kaye
Whitfield, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce
Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number: (919) 541-2509, fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-mail
address: whitfield.kaye@epa.gov. For further information on technical
issues concerning the determination and CTG for auto and light-duty
truck assembly coatings or the revision of the Automobile Topcoat
Protocol, contact: Mr. Dave Salman, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings
and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number: (919) 541-0859, fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-
mail address: salman.dave@epa.gov. For further information on technical
issues concerning the determination and CTG for miscellaneous
industrial adhesives, contact: Ms. Martha Smith, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2421,
fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-mail address: smith.martha@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 58482]]
Entities Potentially Affected by this Action. The entities
potentially affected by this action include industrial facilities that
use the respective consumer and commercial products covered in this
action as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code \a\ Examples of affected entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous metal and plastic 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, Facilities that manufacture and repair
parts coatings. 482, 811. fabricated metal, machinery, computer and
electronic equipment, transportation
equipment, rail transportation equipment.
Auto and light-duty truck assembly 336111, 336112, 336211..... Automobile and light-duty truck assembly
coatings. plants, producers of automobile and light-
duty truck bodies.
Fiberglass boat manufacturing 336612..................... Boat building facilities.
materials.
Miscellaneous industrial adhesives. 316, 321, 326, 331, 332, Facilities that manufacture and repair leather
333, 334, 336, 337, 339, and allied products, wood products, plastic
482, 811. and rubber products, fabricated metal,
machinery, computer and electronic equipment,
transportation equipment, furniture and
related products, rail transportation
equipment, and facilities involved in
miscellaneous manufacturing.
Federal Government................. ........................... Not affected.
State/local/Tribal government...... ........................... State, local and Tribal regulatory agencies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate EPA contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the
Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of the final action will be posted on the
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules
at the following address: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
Judicial Review. Under Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of EPA's listing and final determination is available only by
filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by December 8, 2008. Under Section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the final determination
that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment can be raised during judicial review.
Organization of this Document
The information presented in this document is organized as follows:
I. Background Information
A. The Ozone Problem
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
C. Significance of Control Techniques Guidelines Documents
(CTGs)
II. Significant Changes to the Final CTGs
A. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings
B. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings
C. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials
D. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives
III. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's Determination
IV. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. Background Information
A. The Ozone Problem
Ground-level ozone, a major component of smog, is formed in the
atmosphere by reactions of volatile organic compounds (VOC)\1\ and
oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight. The formation of
ground-level ozone is a complex process that is affected by many
variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See EPA's definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of
human health effects, as well as agricultural crop loss, and damage to
forests and ecosystems. Controlled human exposure studies show that
acute health effects are induced by short-term (1 to 2 hour) exposures
(observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)),
generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion,
and by prolonged (6 to 8 hour) exposures to ozone (observed at
concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm and possibly lower), typically while
individuals are engaged in moderate exertion. Transient effects from
acute exposures include pulmonary inflammation, respiratory symptoms,
effects on exercise performance, and increased airway responsiveness.
Epidemiological studies have shown associations between ambient ozone
levels and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased
hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Groups at increased risk
of experiencing elevated exposures include active children, outdoor
workers, and others who regularly engage in outdoor activities. Those
most susceptible to the effects of ozone include those with pre-
existing respiratory disease, children, and older adults. The
literature suggests the possibility that long-term exposures to ozone
may cause chronic health effects (e.g., structural damage to lung
tissue and accelerated decline in baseline lung function).
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
Under CAA Section 183(e), EPA conducted a study of VOC emissions
from the use of consumer and commercial products to assess their
potential to contribute to levels of ozone that violate the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and to establish
criteria for regulating VOC emissions from these products. Section
183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to list for regulation those categories
of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions,
on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial products
in areas that
[[Page 58483]]
violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone nonattainment areas), and to
divide the list of categories to be regulated into four groups. EPA
published the initial list in the Federal Register on March 23, 1995
(60 FR 15264). In that notice, EPA stated that it may amend the list of
products for regulation, and the groups of product categories, in order
to achieve an effective regulatory program in accordance with the EPA's
discretion under CAA Section 183(e).
EPA has revised the list several times. See 70 FR 69759 (November
17, 2005); 64 FR 13422 (March 18, 1999); and 71 FR 28320 (May 16,
2006). In the May 2006 revision, EPA added one product category,
portable fuel containers, and removed one product category, petroleum
dry cleaning solvents. As a result of these revisions, Group IV of the
list comprises five product categories: miscellaneous metal products
coatings, plastic parts coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings, fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, and miscellaneous
industrial adhesives. Pursuant to the court's order in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 1:01-cv-01597-PLF (D.C. Cir., March 31, 2006), EPA must take final
action on the product categories in Group IV by September 30, 2008. On
July 14, 2008, EPA published its proposed determination that a CTG is
substantially as effective as a regulation for each of these five
categories and announced availability of four draft CTGs (miscellaneous
metal products coatings and plastic parts coatings are addressed in one
CTG referred to as ``miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings'').
See 73 FR 40230.
Any regulations issued under CAA Section 183(e) must be based on
``best available controls (BAC).'' CAA Section 183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC
as ``the degree of emissions reduction that the Administrator
determines, on the basis of technological and economic feasibility,
health, environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the
application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes,
methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation,
product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for use,
consumption, storage, or disposal.'' CAA Section 183(e) also provides
EPA with authority to use any system or systems of regulation that EPA
determines is the most appropriate for the product category. Under
these provisions, EPA has previously issued ``national'' regulations
for autobody refinishing coatings, consumer products, architectural
coatings, portable fuel containers, and aerosol coatings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 63 FR 48806, 48819, and 48848 (September 11, 1998); 72
FR 8428 (February 26, 2007); and 73 FR 15604 (March 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA Section 183(e)(3)(C) further provides that EPA may issue a CTG
in lieu of a national regulation for a product category where EPA
determines that the CTG will be ``substantially as effective as
regulations'' in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment
areas. The statute does not specify how EPA is to make this
determination, but does provide a fundamental distinction between
national regulations and CTGs.
Specifically, for national regulations, CAA Section 183(e) defines
regulated entities as:
(i) . . . manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or
importers of consumer or commercial products for sale or
distribution in interstate commerce in the United States; or (ii)
manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers that
supply the entities listed under clause (i) with such products for
sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States.
Thus, under CAA Section 183(e), a regulation for consumer or
commercial products is limited to measures applicable to manufacturers,
processors, distributors, or importers of consumer and commercial
products supplied to the consumer or industry. CAA Section 183(e) does
not authorize EPA to issue national regulations that would directly
regulate end-users of these products. By contrast, CTGs are guidance
documents that recommend reasonably available control technology (RACT)
measures that States can adopt and apply to the end users of products.
This dichotomy (i.e., that EPA cannot directly regulate end-users under
CAA Section 183(e), but can address end-users through a CTG) created by
Congress is relevant to EPA's evaluation of the relative merits of a
national regulation versus a CTG.
C. Significance of Control Techniques Guidelines Documents (CTGs)
CAA Section 172(c)(1) provides that State implementation plans
(SIPs) for nonattainment areas must include ``reasonably available
control measures (RACM),'' including RACT, for sources of emissions.
CAA Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas,
States must revise their SIPs to include RACT for each category of VOC
sources covered by a CTG document issued between November 15, 1990, and
the date of attainment.
EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility, 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979).'' In subsequent
notices, EPA has addressed how States can meet the RACT requirements of
the CAA. Significantly, RACT for a particular industry is determined on
a case-by-case basis, considering issues of technological and economic
feasibility.
EPA provides States with guidance concerning what types of controls
could constitute RACT for a given source category through issuance of a
CTG. The recommendations in the CTG are based on available data and
information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the
circumstances of a specific source. States can follow the CTG and adopt
State regulations to implement the recommendations contained therein,
or they can adopt alternative approaches. In either event, States must
submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the
SIP process. EPA will evaluate the rules and determine, through notice
and comment rulemaking in the SIP approval process, whether the
submitted rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA and EPA's
regulations. To the extent a State adopts any of the recommendations in
a CTG into its State RACT rules, interested parties can raise questions
and objections about the substance of the guidance and the
appropriateness of the application of the guidance to a particular
situation during the development of the State rules and EPA's SIP
approval process.
We encourage States in developing their RACT rules to consider
carefully the facts and circumstances of the particular sources in
their States because, as noted above, RACT is determined on a case-by-
case basis, considering issues of technological and economic
feasibility. For example, a State may decide not to require 90 percent
control efficiency at facilities that are already well controlled, if
the additional emission reductions would not be cost-effective. States
may also want to consider reactivity-based approaches, as appropriate,
in developing their RACT regulations.\3\ Finally, if States consider
requiring more stringent VOC content limits than those recommended in
the CTGs, States may also wish to consider averaging, as appropriate.
In general, the RACT requirement is applied on a short-term
[[Page 58484]]
basis up to 24 hours.\4\ However, EPA guidance addresses averaging
times longer than 24 hours under certain conditions.\5\ The EPA's
``Economic Incentive Policy'' \6\ provides guidance on use of long-term
averages with regard to RACT and generally provides for averaging times
of no greater than 30 days. Thus, if the appropriate conditions are
present, States may wish to consider the use of averaging in
conjunction with more stringent limits. Because of the nature of
averaging, however, we would expect that any State RACT rules that
allow for averaging also include appropriate recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
in Ozone State Implementation Plans,'' 70 FR 54046 (September 13,
2005).
\4\ See, e.g., 52 FR 45108, col. 2, ``Compliance Periods''
(November 24, 1987). ``VOC rules should describe explicitly the
compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit (e.g.,
instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules are silent on
compliance time, EPA will interpret it as instantaneous.''
\5\ Memorandum from John O'Connor, Acting Director of the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ``Averaging
Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits--SIP Revision
Policy.''
\6\ ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,
January 2001,'' available at https://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/
artd/air/policy/search.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By this action, we are taking final action to list the five Group
IV consumer and commercial product categories addressed in this notice
pursuant to CAA Section 183(e). Further, we are issuing final CTGs that
cover these five product categories in Group IV of the CAA Section
183(e) list. These CTGs are guidance to the States and provide
recommendations only. A State can determine what constitutes RACT for
these product categories, and EPA will review the State's rules
reflecting RACT in the context of the SIP process and determine whether
those rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA and its implementing
regulations.
Finally, CAA Section 182(b)(2) provides that a CTG issued after
1990 specify the date by which a State must submit a SIP revision in
response to the CTG. In the CTGs at issue here, EPA provides that
States should submit their SIP revisions within one year of the date
that the CTGs are finalized.
II. Significant Changes to the Final CTGs
In response to comments, we have made certain changes to the final
CTGs for the Group IV consumer and commercial product categories.
Specifically, we have included definitions to clarify the scope of
certain types of products to which our recommended VOC limits apply.
Further, for various reasons described below, we have either added
recommended VOC limits specifically for certain specialty product
categories that would have otherwise been covered by more generic VOC
limits recommended in the CTG, or changed our draft recommended VOC
limits for certain specialty products. We also recommended not applying
the recommended limits to certain low-volume materials supplied in
small containers and clarified that the recommended limits do not apply
to aerosol spray cans. These changes, which are described in more
detail below, do not affect our proposed determination in the July 14,
2008 notice that a CTG is substantially as effective as a national rule
for addressing VOC emissions from the Group IV consumer and commercial
products in ozone nonattainment areas. None of the comments raised
issues with any of the rationales we provided in support of our
proposed determination. Further, because the above-mentioned changes to
our recommended limits make up only a very small percentage of the
consumer and commercial products listed under CAA Section 183(e) Group
IV, we do not believe that these changes alter the VOC emission
reductions discussed in the July 14, 2008 notice in any material way.
Thus, the rationales we expressed in the July notice in support of the
determination are unaffected by these changes. For the reasons
described in the July 2008 notice and this document, we have determined
that CTGs are substantially as effective as national rules for these
Group IV consumer and commercial products.
Provided below is a summary of the changes made in each of the
final CTGs addressed in this notice.
A. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings
To further clarify the scope of each category for which we
recommend specific VOC limits, the final CTG includes a definition for
each of the coating categories with recommended VOC limits. These
definitions are adopted from the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) and Michigan rules that are the basis for the
recommended VOC limits.
In response to public comments, we have added to our
recommendations in the final CTG specific VOC limits for eight
categories of pleasure craft (i.e., recreational boats) surface
coatings based on SCAQMD Rule 1106.1. We learned from the commenters
that VOC limits for pleasure craft are covered under SCAQMD Rule 1106.1
(February 12, 1999), and not under SCAQMD Rules 1107 and 1145, on which
the recommended VOC limits in the draft CTG were based. The commenters
also noted that pleasure craft surface coatings can not achieve the
limits in SCAQMD Rules 1107 and 1145 and at the same time meet
performance requirements for use in marine environments. In response to
these comments, we reviewed the VOC limits for pleasure craft surface
coatings in SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 and found that they reflect the RACT
level of control for these coatings. These limits are the same as those
in several other California Districts. All but three of these limits
have been in place since 1994 and the remaining three (extreme high
gloss coatings, finish primer/surfacer, and non-aluminum antifoulant
coatings) have been in effect since 2001. There is no indication that
the SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 VOC limits recommended by the commenters are
unachievable or unreasonable for sources outside these California
Districts. We are also not aware of any pleasure craft surface coating
operation performing under VOC limits lower than those provided in
SCAQMD Rule 1106.1. For the reasons stated above, we recommend in the
final CTG the VOC limits in SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 for pleasure craft
surface coatings to address these coatings' unique performance
requirements.
In the draft CTG, we requested comment on whether certain materials
(sealers, deadeners, transit coatings, and cavity waxes) used at
automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants that were included in
the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings category and
addressed in the draft CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
coatings should instead be included in the auto and light-duty truck
assembly coatings category and addressed in the CTG for that category.
All commenters on the draft CTG responded that recommendations for
these materials should be in the auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings category and addressed in the CTG for that category to
simplify implementation and compliance and to clarify EPA's
recommendations for these materials.
In response to these comments, we have clarified in the final auto
and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG that it covers the following
materials: automobile and light-duty truck cavity wax, automobile and
light-duty truck sealers, automobile and light-duty truck deadeners,
automobile and light-duty truck gasket/gasket sealing material,
automobile and light-duty truck
[[Page 58485]]
underbody coatings, and automobile and light-duty truck lubricating
wax/compound. For further discussion on how we address these materials,
please see section II.B of this notice and the final auto and light-
duty truck assembly coatings CTG.
Similar materials are used in the production of vehicles other than
automobiles or light-duty trucks, or are related to the production of a
new automobile or new light-duty truck at a facility that is not an
automobile or light-duty truck assembly coatings facility. These
materials are included as ``motor vehicle'' materials in the
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings category and addressed
in the final CTG for this category. The same limits that are
recommended for ``automobile and light-duty truck'' materials in the
auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG are recommended for
``motor vehicle'' materials in this CTG. Please see section II.B of
this notice for the rationale for these recommended limits.
The recommended VOC emission limits in the final miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts coatings CTG for the motor vehicle materials
described above are as follows (grams VOC per liter of coating, less
water and exempt compounds,\7\ g/l):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Exempt compounds are those classified by EPA as having
negligible photochemical reactivity as listed in 40 CFR 51.100(s).
Exempt compounds are not considered to be VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle cavity wax--650 g/l.
Motor vehicle sealer--650 g/l.
Motor vehicle deadener--650 g/l.
Motor vehicle gasket/gasket sealing material--200 g/l.
Motor vehicle underbody coating--650 g/l.
Motor vehicle lubricating wax/compound--700 g/l.
Motor vehicle trunk interior coating--650 g/l.
Motor vehicle bedliner--200 g/l.
In the final CTG, we revised the recommended VOC content limit for
high performance architectural coatings. The limit for this category in
the draft CTG was 3.5 lb VOC/gallon, less water and exempt compounds.
We received a comment that there are no liquid high performance
architectural coatings available today that can meet this limit. The
commenter suggested a limit of 6.2 lb VOC/gallon. According to the
commenter, reformulated liquid coatings can meet this limit, and
further reformulation may not be technically feasible while still
meeting the requisite performance characteristics for high performance
architectural coatings. The commenter also referenced the organic HAP
content limit for these coatings in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. The commenter noted that
the NESHAP limit is consistent with a VOC content of 6.2 lb VOC/gallon.
The commenter also noted that converting from a liquid coating to a
powder coating or installing and operating add-on controls would be
necessary in order to meet the VOC limit recommended for this coating
category in the draft CTG, and that each of these approaches would be
cost prohibitive. The commenter therefore argued that the VOC limit for
high performance architectural coatings recommended in the draft CTG is
not reflective of RACT for these coatings.
We agree with the commenter that liquid high performance
architectural coatings currently available and in use today contain
significantly more than 3.5 lb VOC/gallon. We believe that the cost of
converting to powder coatings or installing and operating add-on
controls to meet a limit of 3.5 lb VOC/gallon generally would be
unreasonable compared to the emission reduction that would be achieved.
We further agree with the commenter that a limit of 6.2 lb VOC/gallon
can be achieved by the liquid high performance architectural coatings
currently available and in use today and that further reformulation may
not be technically feasible. In light of all of the above, we believe
that the 6.2 lb VOC/gallon limit represents RACT for high performance
architectural coatings. Accordingly, in the final CTG, we revised our
recommended VOC limit for high performance architectural coatings to be
6.2 lb/gal.
In the draft CTG, we recommended that VOC limits for red and black
coatings used for automotive/transportation plastic parts could be 15
percent higher than for other colors. Higher limits were allowed for
red and black coatings because the organic pigments used for these
colors absorb oil and require more VOC to maintain proper coating
viscosity. Commenters requested that the same allowance should also be
made for yellow coatings since these coatings now use organic pigments
instead of inorganic pigments, and these organic pigments also absorb
oil and require more VOC to maintain proper coating viscosity. The
inorganic pigments formerly used in yellow coatings often contain
hexavalent chromium. Other environmental and worker health programs
restrict the use of hexavalent chromium in pigments because it is a
known human carcinogen, and it is being replaced with organic yellow
pigments. So as not to create a barrier to the use of organic yellow
pigments in place of hexavalent chromium, we are recommending in the
final CTG higher VOC limits for yellow coatings used for automotive/
transportation plastic parts.
In response to comments on how to determine the VOC content of
materials, we recommend in the final CTG that the VOC content of
coatings used at miscellaneous metal and plastic part coating
facilities be determined using EPA Method 24. In addition, we recommend
that manufacturer's formulation data be accepted as an alternative to
EPA Method 24. If there is a disagreement between manufacturer's
formulation data and the results of a subsequent test, we recommend
that States use the test method results unless the facility can make a
demonstration to the States' satisfaction that the manufacturer's
formulation data are correct.
B. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings
In the July 2008 notice we requested comment on whether certain
materials (sealers, deadeners, transit coatings, cavity waxes, glass
bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives) used at automobile and
light-duty truck assembly plants that were included in either the
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings categories or the
miscellaneous industrial adhesives and addressed in the respective
draft CTG should instead be included in the auto and light-duty truck
assembly coatings category and addressed in the CTG for this category.
All commenters on the draft CTG responded that recommendations for
these materials should be in the auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings category and addressed in the CTG for this category to
simplify implementation and compliance and to clarify EPA's
recommendations for these materials.
In response to these comments, we have clarified in the final auto
and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG that it covers the following
materials: Automobile and light-duty truck glass bonding primer,
automobile and light-duty truck adhesive, automobile and light-duty
truck cavity wax, automobile and light-duty truck sealer, automobile
and light-duty truck deadener, automobile and light-duty truck gasket/
gasket sealing material, automobile and light-duty truck underbody
coating, automobile and light-duty truck trunk interior coating,
automobile and light-duty truck bedliner, automobile and light-duty
truck weatherstrip adhesive, and automobile and light-duty truck
[[Page 58486]]
lubricating wax/compound. To clarify the scope of these materials, the
final CTG includes definitions for these materials. It also includes
the following recommended VOC emission limits for the application of
these materials:
Automobile and light-duty truck glass bonding primer--900
g/l.
Automobile and light-duty truck adhesive--250 g/l.
Automobile and light-duty truck cavity wax--650 g/l.
Automobile and light-duty truck sealer--650 g/l.
Automobile and light-duty truck deadener--650 g/l.
Automobile and light-duty truck gasket/gasket sealing
material--200 g/l.
Automobile and light-duty truck underbody coating--650 g/
l.
Automobile and light-duty truck trunk interior coating--
650 g/l.
Automobile and light-duty truck bedliner--200 g/l.
Automobile and light-duty truck weatherstrip adhesive--750
g/l.
Automobile and light-duty truck lubricating wax/compound--
700 g/l.
We have provided below a brief summary of our rationale for each of
these limits. As discussed in sections II.A and II.D of this notice,
similar materials are used in the production of vehicles other than
automobiles or light-duty trucks, or are related to the production of a
new automobile or new light-duty truck at a facility that is not an
automobile or light-duty truck assembly coatings facility. These
materials are included as ``motor vehicle'' materials in the
miscellaneous metal products, plastic parts coatings, or miscellaneous
industrial adhesives categories and addressed in the CTGs for those
categories. The same limits that are recommended for ``automobile and
light-duty truck'' materials in the auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings CTG are recommended for ``motor vehicle'' materials in those
CTGs, and the following rationale applies both to ``automobile and
light-duty truck'' materials and ``motor vehicle'' materials.
The draft miscellaneous industrial adhesives CTG recommended a
material specific limit of 700 grams of VOC per liter for glass bonding
primer (referred to as ``automotive glass adhesive primer'' in that
document). Commenters indicated that currently used materials contain
up to 900 grams of VOC per liter. Eliminating the use of the materials
in the 700 to 900 grams of VOC per liter range may not be technically
feasible. The cost of the testing required to confirm material
performance and compliance with Federal crash safety standards and
windshield integrity requirements would be unreasonable compared to the
small emission reduction that would be achieved. As a result, we
conclude that the 900 grams of VOC per liter limit recommended in the
final CTG is representative of RACT for automobile and light-duty truck
glass bonding primer.
The draft CTGs for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings
and for miscellaneous industrial adhesives did not have product
specific recommendations for automobile and light-duty truck adhesive,
automobile and light-duty truck cavity wax, automobile and light-duty
truck sealer, automobile and light-duty truck deadener, automobile and
light-duty truck gasket/gasket sealing material, automobile and light-
duty truck underbody coating, automobile and light-duty truck trunk
interior coating, automobile and light-duty truck weatherstrip
adhesive, or automobile and light-duty truck lubricating wax/compound.
Rather, these materials fell under general product categories in these
draft CTGs. For each of these types of materials, commenters provided
information on the VOC content of the materials currently in use and
asserted that the cost of the testing required to confirm the
performance of lower VOC content materials would be unreasonable
compared to the small emission reduction that would be achieved. We
agree with the commenter's assertion and conclude that the limits
recommended for these materials in the final CTG are representative of
RACT.
Bedliner is an air dried multi-component coating typically applied
by vehicle dealers or aftermarket applicators. In the draft CTG for
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, bedliner would have
fallen under the general multi-component coating category which had a
recommended limit of 340 grams of VOC per liter. One commenter
indicated that bedliner is applied at some of its automobile and light-
duty truck assembly plants. We are not aware of any other automobile
and light-duty truck assembly plants that apply bedliner. The bedliner
applied at the commenter's plants contains less than 200 grams of VOC
per liter. This is similar to the VOC content of aftermarket bedliner
in the miscellaneous metal products, or plastic parts coatings
categories and addressed in the CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts coatings. As a result, we conclude that the 200 grams of VOC per
liter limit recommended in the final CTG for auto and light-duty truck
assembly coatings is representative of RACT for automobile and light-
duty truck bedliner.
We also revised the final auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings CTG to recommend not applying the recommended limits to
materials that are supplied to the automobile and light-duty truck
assembly plants in containers with a net volume of 16 ounces or less,
or a net weight of one pound or less. We made this change in response
to comments that these low volume materials have small VOC emissions
and the cost of controlling them outweighs the emission reductions that
could be achieved. We agree with this assessment.
In response to comments on how to determine the VOC content of
materials, we recommend in the final CTG that the VOC content of
coatings, other than reactive adhesives, used at automobile and light-
duty truck assembly plants be determined using EPA Method 24. We
recommend that the procedure for reactive adhesives in Appendix A of
the NESHAP for surface coating of plastic parts (40 CFR Part 63,
subpart PPPP) be used to determine the VOC content of reactive
adhesives. In addition, we recommend that manufacturer's formulation
data be accepted as an alternative to these methods. If there is a
disagreement between manufacturer's formulation data and the results of
a subsequent test, we recommend that States use the test method results
unless the facility can make a demonstration to the States'
satisfaction that the manufacturer's formulation data are correct.
Finally, in conjunction with the draft CTG we prepared a draft
revision of the Automobile Topcoat Protocol. Commenters supported the
revision of the protocol. We are issuing the final revised protocol
concurrent with the final CTG.
C. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials
In response to public comments, several changes were made to the
final CTG to clarify the recommended control measures. We clarified
that certain non-atomizing resin application technologies, such as
fluid impingement technology, meet the recommended resin application
equipment specifications under certain recommended compliance options.
We also revised the description of ``hand application'' to include non-
spray and non-atomizing application methods similar to hand- or
mechanically-powered caulking guns (e.g., similar to those used to
apply bonding putty), brush, and direct hand application.
[[Page 58487]]
These are low-emission application methods used by many boat builders.
In the final CTG, we clarified that polyester bonding putties are
included in the fiberglass boat manufacturing materials category and
addressed in the final CTG for this category. We explained that these
putties, which are made from a mixture of resin and filler, are not
considered adhesives since they are part of the composite structure.
However, no VOC content limits are recommended for polyester bonding
putties in the final fiberglass boat manufacturing CTG, but we do
recommend covers for mixing containers used to prepare these putties.
Because these putties are encapsulated between the parts or surfaces
they are bonding, minimal area is exposed to the air and most of the
styrene is incorporated into the cured resin matrix. Therefore, VOC
emissions from these putties are inherently low. For this reason,
polyester bonding putties are not subject to HAP limits, which are
based on styrene and methyl methacrylate (MMA) emissions in the Boat
Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV. Similarly, no VOC
content limits are recommended for these materials in the final CTG,
but covers are recommended for the putty mixing containers.
The final CTG also does not include recommended VOC limits for
resin and gel coat used for mold and part touch up and repair. No VOC
limits are recommended because these materials are used in small
volumes (e.g., just an ounce or two at a time); therefore, VOC
emissions from these materials are quite low. Further, these materials
need to have higher VOC contents so that the repairs will bond to the
existing mold or part. For these reasons, resin and gel coat used for
mold and part touch up and repair are not subject to HAP content limits
in the boat manufacturing NESHAP; however, under the NESHAP, they are
subject to a usage limit and must not account for more than 1 percent
of the total resin and gel coat used at a facility. Similarly, no VOC
limits are recommended for these materials in the final CTG, but we are
also recommending that resin and gel coat used for mold and part touch
up and repair not exceed 1 percent by weight of all resin and gel coat
used at a facility on a 12-month rolling-average basis.
In response to public comments, we are revising the VOC content
limits for resins and gel coats such that they now consist of a monomer
VOC content limit and a limit on the non-monomer VOC content. We
received comments that compliance with our recommended VOC limits,
which were equal to the HAP content limits in the NESHAP, may not be
feasible because the VOC content in resins and gel coats may be greater
than the HAP content. As previously explained in the draft CTG, the
NESHAP HAP content limits were based on styrene and MMA contents in
resins and gel coats. Because nearly all VOC in resins and gel coats
used in fiberglass boat manufacturing are styrene and MMA, we
recommended the NESHAP HAP content limits as the VOC limits in the
draft CTG. However, commenters noted that the VOC content of resins and
gel coats may exceed the HAP content since these materials may include
a small percent of non-HAP VOC, about 0.5 to 5 percent of the total
weight of the resin or gel coat. Therefore, it may not be feasible for
some materials to achieve the recommended VOC limits in the draft CTG,
which only accounted for styrene and MMA.
To resolve this issue, the final CTG recommends a control option to
address all VOC in these materials based on monomer VOC and non-monomer
VOC. Monomer VOCs react in a chemical cross linking reaction to convert
these materials from liquids to solids. The only monomer VOCs in these
materials that we have identified are styrene and MMA. According to the
commenters, other VOC that are not monomers may be present in these
materials at 0.5 to 5 percent by weight of the resin and gel coat. In
light of the above information, we recommend in the final CTG that
States adopt the HAP content limits in the NESHAP as monomer VOC
content limits. In addition, we recommend that the States limit the
non-monomer VOC content of resins and gel coats to 5 percent by weight
of the resin or gel coat. If the non-monomer VOC content exceeds 5
percent, we recommend that the amount over 5 percent be counted toward
the monomer VOC content of the material. For example, if a resin
contained 34 percent monomer VOC, but 6 percent non-monomer VOC, then
the resin would be treated in each recommended compliance option as if
it had a monomer VOC content of 35 percent because of the 1 percent
non-monomer VOC that was over the 5 percent recommended limit for non-
monomer VOC.
In response to comments on how to determine the VOC content of
materials, we recommend in the final CTG that the monomer VOC content
of resin and gel coat materials be determined using SCAQMD Method 312-
91, Determination of Percent Monomer in Polyester Resins. In addition,
we recommend that manufacturer's formulation data be accepted as an
alternative to this method. If there is a disagreement between
manufacturer's formulation data and the results of a subsequent test,
we recommend that States use the test method results unless the
facility can make a demonstration to the States' satisfaction that the
manufacturer's formulation data are correct.
D. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives
We revised the final CTG to recommend not applying the recommended
limits to materials that are supplied to the facilities operating
miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes in containers
with a net volume of 16 ounces or less, or a net weight of one pound or
less. We made this change in response to comments that these low volume
materials have small VOC emissions and the cost of controlling them
outweighs the emission reductions that could be achieved. We agree with
this assessment. This is also consistent with the small container
exemption in the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rule.
In response to comments on how to determine the VOC content of
materials, we recommend in the final CTG that the VOC content of
adhesives, other than reactive adhesives, used at facilities operating
miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes be determined
using EPA Method 24. We recommend that the procedure for reactive
adhesives in Appendix A of the NESHAP for surface coating of plastic
parts (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) be used to determine the VOC
content of reactive adhesives. In addition, we recommend that
manufacturer's formulation data be accepted as an alternative to these
methods. If there is a disagreement between manufacturer's formulation
data and the results of a subsequent test, we recommend that States use
the test method results unless the facility can make a demonstration to
the States' satisfaction that the manufacturer's formulation data are
correct.
We also clarified in the final CTG that polyester bonding putties
used to assemble fiberglass parts at fiberglass boat manufacturing
facilities and at other reinforced plastic composite manufacturing
facilities are not included in the miscellaneous industrial adhesives
category and are not addressed in the CTG for this category. These
bonding putties are part of the composite structure and are not
adhesives. For further discussions on these putties, please see section
II.C of
[[Page 58488]]
this notice and the final fiberglass boat manufacturing materials CTG.
In the final miscellaneous industrial adhesives CTG, we also
revised the definition of porous material to exclude wood. In the draft
CTG, we recommended separate emission limits for wood application
processes and for porous material (except wood) application processes.
However, we inadvertently included wood in the definition of porous
material in the draft CTG. This was an oversight, and wood has been
excluded from the definition of porous material in the final CTG.
We also replaced the term ``tire retreading'' in the CTG with
``tire repair''. This change was made in response to a comment that the
OTC model rule, on which the CTG definition was based, uses the term
``tire repair'' for the same definition. We made this change to be
consistent with the OTC model rule and to more accurately describe the
specific process being defined.
In the draft CTG we requested comment on whether certain materials
(glass bonding primers and glass bonding adhesives) used at automobile
and light-duty truck assembly plants that were included in the
miscellaneous industrial adhesives category and addressed in the draft
CTG for miscellaneous industrial adhesives should instead be included
in the auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings category and
addressed in the CTG for that category. All commenters on the draft CTG
responded that recommendations for these materials should be in the
auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings category and addressed in
the CTG for that category to simplify implementation and compliance and
to clarify EPA's recommendations for these materials.
In response to these comments, we have clarified in the final auto
and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG that it covers the following
materials: automobile and light-duty truck glass bonding primer,
automobile and light-duty truck adhesive, and automobile and light-duty
truck weatherstrip adhesive. For further discussion on how we address
these materials, please see section II.B of this notice and the final
auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG.
Similar materials are used in the production of vehicles other than
automobiles or light-duty trucks, or are related to the production of a
new automobile or new light-duty truck at a facility that is not an
automobile or light-duty truck assembly coatings facility. These
materials are included as ``motor vehicle'' materials in the
miscellaneous industrial adhesives category and addressed in the final
CTG for this category. The same limits that are recommended for
``automobile and light-duty truck'' materials in the auto and light-
duty truck assembly coatings CTG are recommended for ``motor vehicle''
materials in this CTG. Please see section II.B of this notice for the
rationale for these recommended limits.
The recommended VOC emission limits in the final miscellaneous
industrial adhesives CTG for the motor vehicle materials described
above are as follows:
Motor vehicle glass bonding primer--900 g/l.
Motor vehicle adhesive--250 g/l.
Motor vehicle weatherstrip adhesive--750 g/l.
Please note that, in the final CTG, the term ``motor vehicle glass
bonding primer'' replaces the term ``automotive glass adhesive primer''
provided in the draft CTG. The terms have the same definition, but
``glass bonding primer'' is the term more commonly used in the
automotive and motor vehicle industry.
III. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's Determination
All commenters that addressed EPA's proposed CAA Section
183(e)(3)(C) determination that CTGs will be substantially as effective
as national regulations in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone
nonattainment areas from the miscellaneous metal products coatings,
plastic parts coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings,
and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials product categories agreed
with the proposed determination.
In support of EPA's proposed determination and issuance of draft
CTGs for these product categories, commenters remarked that the CTG
approach would afford industry flexibility to achieve VOC emission
reductions while not compromising their ability to meet customer needs.
We received comments noting that the CTG approach allows States greater
flexibility to tailor regulatory requirements to their specific
circumstances. The commenter stated that site-specific factors
necessitate the need for flexible controls. According to the
commenters, because there can be great variation in the operations of
facilities and the environmental conditions in which they operate,
State regulators should be granted some latitude to fashion control
strategies to address the variables that are inherent to the formation
of ground-level ozone in their States. The commenters concluded that
the CTG approach affords this flexibility by allowing the use of a
variety of mechanisms to achieve emission reductions.
With respect to the miscellaneous industrial adhesives category, we
similarly received comments agreeing with EPA's determination that a
CTG is substantially as effective as a rule. However, we also received
comments supporting the issuance of a national rule rather than a CTG
for this product category. These commenters raised no concerns or
issues with EPA's rationales for its proposed determination that a CTG
is substantially as effective as a rule in reducing VOC emissions from
miscellaneous industrial adhesives in ozone nonattainment areas.
Rather, the commenters explained that regulation of manufacturers of
industrial adhesives would cover a wider variety of materials, and thus
achieve greater VOC emissions reductions, than measures limiting
emissions from the products at the point of use. The commenters further
argued that manufacturers have greater control over the VOC content and
associated emissions of industrial adhesives than do users, given that
individual industrial adhesives are formulated to perform specific
functions and, unlike other coating materials, are not ordinarily
thinned or otherwise altered prior to use by the user. The commenters
stated that, among the categories of adhesive materials covered in the
proposed CTG, a number of them are more likely to be used ``in the
field'' or at construction sites rather than in manufacturing
facilities. One commenter added that any uncertainty regarding the
industry sectors that are covered by the miscellaneous industrial
adhesives source category would be resolved by regulating industrial
adhesives at the point of manufacture rather than the point of use. The
commenter expressed concern that a CTG for adhesives would require
enforcement at innumerable manufacturing facilities nationwide,
resulting in significant costs. The commenter added that in contrast, a
national rule applicable to manufacturers of industrial adhesives would
greatly reduce the number of regulated entities and simplify
enforcement, and reduce costs.
EPA appreciates the commenters' concerns and suggestions. However,
for the following reasons, EPA rejects the commenters' suggestion that
EPA should issue a national rule for the Section 183(e) miscellaneous
industrial adhesives category. As an initial matter, the scope of
adhesives that the commenters suggest that EPA cover under a national
rule is broader than the Section 183(e) miscellaneous industrial
adhesives category. In EPA's Report to
[[Page 58489]]
Congress, Study of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer
and Commercial Products--Comprehensive Emissions Inventory (EPA-453/R-
94-066-B, March 1995), supporting the Section 183(e) consumer and
commercial product category list that EPA compiled in 1995 and the
schedule for taking action on the listed product categories,\8\ the
``miscellaneous industrial adhesives'' product category was clearly
described as comprising adhesives used in industrial manufacturing
operations. Accordingly, this product category does not include field-
applied adhesives (e.g., plastic solvent welding cements used by
plumbers to join plumbing pipes on construction jobs in the field).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See ``Consumer and Commercial Products: Schedule for
Regulation'' (60 FR 15264, March 23, 1995)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the July 2008 notice, EPA proposed to finalize the miscellaneous
industrial adhesives product category, as that category was listed in
1995. EPA did not propose to broaden that product category, as EPA had
determined that the category properly reflected the scope of sources
needed, in conjunction with the other product categories, to meet the
requirements of Section 183(e)(3)(A). Petitioners have not alleged or
demonstrated that EPA's proposed listing is contrary to the
requirements of Section 183(e)(3)(A). EPA therefore takes final action
to list the miscellaneous industrial adhesives product category, which
again includes those adhesives used in industrial manufacturing
operations.
Further, as discussed in the July 14, 2008 notice, the effect of a
national rule that sets VOC limits only for miscellaneous industrial
adhesives (i.e., adhesives used in industrial manufacturing operations)
could be easily subverted because such a rule could not require that a
manufacturing facility use only those low-VOC content adhesives
materials that are specifically marketed for miscellaneous industrial
adhesive application operations. By contrast, the miscellaneous
industrial adhesives CTG applies specifically to the products in the
Section 183(e) miscellaneous industrial adhesives category, i.e.,
adhesives used at industrial manufacturing operations.
Moreover, as discussed above and in the July 14, 2008 notice, EPA
has identified in the CTG flexible and effective options for
controlling VOC emissions from the miscellaneous industrial adhesives
category, and these recommended control options are consistent with
existing State and local VOC control strategies. The recommended
control options, which are directed at the use of these adhesives, can
only be implemented through the CTG approach because the regulated
entities subject to a national rule would be adhesives manufacturers
and suppliers, not the users. The commenters have raised no concerns or
issues with EPA's rationales, including those reiterated above,
supporting its proposed Section 183(e)(3)(C) determination that a CTG
is substantially as effective as a regulation in reducing VOC emissions
from miscellaneous industrial adhesives in ozone nonattainment areas.
For the foregoing reasons, EPA is finalizing its 183(e)(3)(C)
determination for miscellaneous industrial adhesives in this notice.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a
``significant regulatory action,'' since it is deemed to raise novel
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866, and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action does not contain any
information collection requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. EPA is taking
final action to list the five Group IV consumer and commercial product
categories addressed in this notice for purposes of CAA Section 183(e).
The listing action alone does not impose any regulatory requirements.
EPA has also determined that, for each of the five product categories
at issue, a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national
regulation in achieving VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment
areas. This final determination
