[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44672-44684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22363]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5878-9]
Consumer and Commercial Products: Wood Furniture, Aerospace, and
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Coatings: Control Techniques Guidelines in
Lieu of Regulations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing its determination that control techniques
guidelines (CTG) are substantially as effective as national regulations
under section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, in
reducing volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions in ozone
nonattainment areas from wood furniture manufacturing,
[[Page 44673]]
aerospace, and shipbuilding and ship repair coatings and that,
therefore, the EPA may issue a CTG in lieu of a national regulation for
each of these specific categories. The CAA requires the EPA to control
VOC emissions from certain categories of consumer and commercial
products through either issuance of national rules or CTG. The proposed
action implements this requirement by determining that CTG are
substantially as effective as regulations for wood furniture
manufacturing, aerospace, and shipbuilding and ship repair coatings
and, therefore, may be issued in lieu of regulations.
The EPA determined that VOC emissions from consumer and commercial
products can contribute to the formation of ozone and ozone levels that
violate the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone.
Ozone, which is a major component of smog, causes negative health and
environmental impacts when present in high concentrations at ground
level. As of April 1996, there were 73 geographic areas which exceeded
the NAAQS for ozone. These ozone nonattainment areas have a combined
population of 114 million people.
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide interested
persons an opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or
arguments concerning the EPA's determination that CTG may be issued in
lieu of national regulations for wood furniture, aerospace, and
shipbuilding and ship repair coatings.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 21, 1997.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held, if requested, to
provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed determination that
CTG are substantially as effective as national regulations for wood
furniture, aerospace, and shipbuilding and ship repair coatings and,
therefore, CTG may be issued in lieu of regulations. If anyone contacts
the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by September 8, 1997, a
public hearing will be held on September 25, 1997, beginning at 9:30
a.m. Persons interested in attending the hearing should contact Ms. Kim
Teal at (919) 541-5580 to verify whether a hearing will occur and the
location of the hearing.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact the EPA by September 17, 1997, by contacting Ms.
Kim Teal, Coatings and Consumer Products Group (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5580.
ADDRESSES:
Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if possible)
to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention:
Docket No. A-96-23, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Docket. Docket No. A-96-23, containing supporting information for
the proposed determination of the effectiveness of a CTG for the wood
furniture, aerospace, and shipbuilding and ship repair coatings under
section 183(e), is available for public inspection and copying between
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the EPA's Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500,
1st Floor, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Telephone (202) 260-
7548, FAX (202) 260-4400. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel Brown, (919) 541-5305,
Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access and Filing Addresses
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disk in WordPerfect 6.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number A-96-23. No Confidential Business Information should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this proposed
determination may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
An electronic version of this proposed determination is available
for download from the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN), a
network of electronic bulletin boards developed and operated by the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control. The service is free, except for the cost of a phone call. Dial
(919) 541-5742 for data transfer of up to 14,400 bits per second. If
more information on TTN is needed, contact the systems operator at
(919) 541-5384.
Potentially Affected Entities
Entities potentially affected by this action are those wood
furniture manufacturing operations, aerospace manufacturing and rework
operations, or shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating)
operations which are (or have the potential to become) ``major''
sources of VOC emissions and are located in nonattainment areas of
ozone. Potentially affected entities are included in the following
table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially affected
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................... Wood furniture or wood furniture
component(s) manufacturing.
Any manufacturing, reworking, or
repairing of aircraft such as
airplanes, helicopters, missiles,
rockets, and space vehicles.
Any building or repairing,
repainting, converting, or
alteration of ships. The term ship
means any marine or fresh-water
vessel, including self-propelled
by other craft (barges), and
navigational aids (buoys). Note:
Offshore oil and gas drilling
platforms and vessels used by
individuals for noncommercial,
nonmilitary, and recreational
purposes that are less than 20
meters in length are not
considered ships.
Federal Government................. Federal agencies which undertake
aerospace manufacturing or rework
operations (see above) such as the
Air Force, Navy, Army, and Coast
Guard.
Federal agencies which undertake
shipbuilding or ship repair
operations (see above) such as the
Navy and Coast Guard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44674]]
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities which are the focus of this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be affected. If you have
questions regarding the focus or applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
The information presented in this notice is organized as follows:
I. Background
II. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Coatings
A. Factors to Consider Regarding the Effectiveness of CTG
Compared to a National Regulation
B. Overview of Existing Wood Furniture CTG and Expected
Emissions Reductions
C. Estimate of BAC for Wood Furniture Coatings
D. Comparison of Effectiveness of Wood Furniture CTG with
National Regulation Based on BAC in Reducing VOC Emissions
III. Aerospace Coatings
A. Factors to Consider Regarding the Effectiveness of CTG
Compared to a National Regulation
B. Overview of Recently Proposed Aerospace CTG and Expected
Emissions Reductions
C. Estimate of BAC for Aerospace Coatings
D. Comparison of Effectiveness of Aerospace CTG with National
Regulation Based on BAC in Reducing VOC Emissions
IV. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Coatings
A. Factors to Consider Regarding the Effectiveness of CTG
Compared to a National Regulation
B. Overview of Shipbuilding and Ship Repair CTG and Expected
Emissions Reductions
C. Estimate of BAC for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Coatings
D. Comparison of Effectiveness of Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
CTG with National Regulation Based on BAC in Reducing VOC Emissions
V. Proposed Determination
VI. Cost-Effectiveness
VII. Solicitation of Comments
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
E. Regulatory Flexibility
F. Unfunded Mandates Act
I. Background
Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of
human health effects, agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and
ecosystems. The most thoroughly studied health effects of exposure to
ozone at elevated levels during periods of moderate to strenuous
exercise are the impairment of normal functioning of the lungs,
symptomatic effects, and reduction in the ability to engage in
activities that require various levels of physical exertion. Typical
symptoms associated with acute (one to three hour) exposure to ozone at
levels of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) or higher under heavy exercise
or 0.16 ppm or higher under moderate exercise include cough, chest
pain, nausea, shortness of breath, and throat irritation.
Ground-level ozone, which is a major component of ``smog,'' is
formed in the atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. In order to reduce ground-level
ozone concentrations, emissions of VOC and NOX must be reduced.
Section 183(e) of the CAA addresses the reduction of VOC emissions
from consumer and commercial products. It requires the EPA to study VOC
emissions from consumer and commercial products, to report to Congress
the results of the study, and to list for regulation products
accounting for at least 80 percent of VOC emissions resulting from use
of such products in ozone nonattainment areas. Accordingly, on March
23, 1995 (60 FR 15264), the EPA announced the availability of the
``Consumer and Commercial Products Report to Congress'' (EPA-453/R-94-
066-A), and published the consumer and commercial products category
list and schedule for regulation. As stated in that notice, the list
and schedule could be amended as further information becomes available.
Group I, which identifies product categories scheduled for regulation
by 1997, includes wood furniture, aerospace, and shipbuilding and ship
repair coatings. Therefore, the EPA is required to regulate these three
categories by 1997. In this action, the EPA seeks comment on the
listing and the schedule for regulation with respect to these three
categories.
Regulations developed under section 183(e) must be based on best
available controls (BAC). Section 183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC as follows:
The degree of emission 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.
Although section 183(e) requires the EPA to issue regulations,
section 183(e)(3)(C) provides that the EPA may issue CTG in lieu of a
national regulation where the EPA determines that the CTG will be
``substantially as effective as regulations'' in reducing emissions of
VOC in ozone nonattainment areas.
Although not specifically defined in the CAA, a CTG is a guidance
document issued by the EPA which, under section 182(b)(2), triggers a
responsibility for States to submit reasonably available control
technology (RACT) rules for stationary sources of VOC that are covered
by the CTG as part of their State implementation plans. The EPA defines
RACT as ``the lowest emission limit 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). Each CTG includes a ``presumptive norm'' or
``presumptive RACT'' that the EPA believes satisfies the definition of
RACT. If a State submits a RACT rule that is consistent with the
presumptive RACT, the State does not need to submit additional support
to demonstrate that the rule meets the CAA's RACT requirement. However,
if the State determines to submit an alternative emission limit or
level of control for a source or source category for which there is a
presumptive RACT, the State must submit independent documentation as to
why the rule meets the statutory RACT requirement.
Although section 183(e) authorizes issuance of a CTG in lieu of a
regulation for categories of consumer and commercial products for which
a CTG would be substantially as effective in ozone nonattainment areas
as a regulation would be, the statute does not explicitly identify the
appropriate standard, or level of control, for the CTG. As discussed
above, a CTG generally triggers the responsibility of a State to
develop regulations based on RACT. Congress did not provide a distinct
standard to be considered when determining whether a CTG would be
substantially as effective as a regulation pursuant to section 183(e),
and legislative history does not address this issue. Because the only
statutory requirement triggered by a CTG is establishment of RACT, the
EPA believes that Congress intended the more generally applied RACT
standard to be the basis for determining whether a CTG could be issued
in lieu of regulation for consumer and commercial products.
In some situations, the EPA may examine an existing CTG, or one
that is under development pursuant to other requirements of the CAA, to
determine
[[Page 44675]]
if such CTG is substantially as effective as a regulation under section
183(e). The EPA believes that such comparisons would fulfill the
requirements of section 183(e) when such CTG are based on RACT or
standards determined to be equivalent to RACT.
Sections 183(b)(3) and (4) require the EPA to establish CTG based
on ``best available control measures'' (BACM) to reduce emissions from
aerospace coatings and solvents and shipbuilding and ship repair
coating operations. As discussed later in this notice, the EPA
determined that for the CTG based on BACM required under sections
183(b)(3) and (4) for aerospace coatings and shipbuilding and ship
repair coating operations, RACT would in fact be equivalent to BACM.
Therefore, it is appropriate for the EPA to consider whether these CTG,
which would meet both BACM and RACT, would be substantially as
effective as a BAC-based regulation issued under section 183(e).
In exercising its discretion to consider a CTG as a regulatory
alternative under section 183(e) of the CAA, the EPA recognizes that
because its specific purpose is to reduce emissions of VOC in ozone
nonattainment areas, in some cases a CTG can be substantially as
effective as a national regulation, particularly for some of the
commercial products scheduled for regulation under section 183(e). In
fact, in some instances, a CTG may be more effective because it can be
directed at a broader scope of regulated entities. Section 183(e)
defines regulated entities as follows:
(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.
Based on this definition, a regulation issued under section 183(e)
for consumer or commercial products would focus only on the
manufacturers or importers of the solvents and products supplied to the
consumer or industry, rather than on the consumer or end-users of the
products within an industry. Focusing on manufacturers and importers is
an effective approach for reducing emissions from consumer and
commercial products, especially those which are easily transportable
and widely distributed to consumers and contractors for use in
unlimited locations. For these types of products, a CTG may not be as
effective as a national regulation. The transportability of the
products tend to decrease rule effectiveness due to the likelihood of
unregulated or ``higher VOC'' products being bought in attainment areas
and used in nonattainment areas. In addition, since the end-users
include homeowners and other widely varied consumers, effective
enforcement on these types of users would be limited. Therefore, for
these types of products, the main benefit of a CTG may not be achieved;
namely, the ability to ensure that the product used meets the
requirements after any thinner or other VOC components are added. In
such instances where the end user is at a specified manufacturing
setting, a CTG may be as, or more, effective than a regulation because
a CTG can be reasonably focused on the end-user, and thus, directly
target the coating as-applied, rather than as-supplied, at the
facilities. The ``as-applied'' coating would include the VOC in the
manufactured commercial coating itself plus any VOC solvent added to
the product by the end-user. The application of a CTG to these
industries may be particularly effective because, in contrast to
consumer products, these industries have well-defined end-users which
consistently apply large volumes of coatings at specific and easily
identifiable locations. At the point of application, a CTG can prohibit
an end-user from thinning products beyond VOC requirements. In
addition, a CTG could achieve added VOC reductions in industrial
settings where these coatings are applied by requiring particular
application equipment or work practices. These types of requirements
would not be practical for widely distributed consumer products since
enforcement personnel would not be aware of locations where the
products may be used on any given day.
In the case of wood furniture manufacturing, aerospace, and
shipbuilding and ship repair facilities, large volumes of coatings may
be applied in a manner where the specific application process requires
the addition of VOC solvent and other adjuncts to achieve and maintain
ideal coating properties; these additions by the end-user may increase
emissions of VOC which may not be adequately addressed by a regulation
aimed at regulated entities (i.e., the coating manufacturers). Because
a CTG is directed toward the end-user, requirements could directly
target the coating as applied at the facility. The ``as-applied''
coating would include any VOC solvent added to the commercial products
(i.e., the coatings as supplied by the coating manufacturers) by the
end-user. In addition, a CTG could target application equipment and
work practice standards to achieve further VOC reductions. In these
cases, a CTG may be a more effective means to reduce VOC emissions than
a national regulation.
Considering these factors, the EPA estimated and compared the
likely VOC reductions in ozone nonattainment areas to be achieved by a
CTG versus a national regulation based on BAC for each of these
categories. In conducting the comparison of whether a CTG based on RACT
would be substantially as effective as a national regulation based on
BAC, the EPA estimated what RACT and BAC would be in order to estimate
emission reductions. Although the EPA considered likely estimates of
RACT and BAC for this comparative purpose, at this time, specific RACT
and BAC limits are not being proposed and the EPA only seeks comments
on the proposed case-by-case determination that a CTG would be as
effective as a national regulation for these three industries. If the
EPA determines, based on comments received, that a CTG would not be
substantially as effective as a national regulation, the EPA will
proceed with development of a BAC-based national regulation. As today's
proposal relies only on estimates of BAC, it is possible that a BAC-
based regulation may differ from the estimates relied on today.
Based on the comparisons discussed below, the EPA is proposing that
a CTG for wood furniture, aerospace, and shipbuilding and ship repair
industries would be substantially as effective as a national regulation
developed under section 183(e) in reducing VOC emissions from
facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas. In determining whether
to develop a CTG or a regulation, the EPA may take into account a
variety of different factors related to implementation and enforcement,
such as the most effective entity to target for regulation, the need
for flexibility, the distribution and site of use for the products,
consistency with other control strategies, and cost-effectiveness. As
described below on a case-by-case basis, some of these factors can
affect the effectiveness of a CTG in controlling VOC emissions from
commercial products. The EPA requests comment on these determinations.
[[Page 44676]]
II. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Coatings
A. Factors To Consider Regarding the Effectiveness of CTG Compared to a
National Regulation
In evaluating control strategies for VOC emissions from wood
furniture manufacturing coatings, it is necessary to know how those
coatings are used by the wood furniture industry. The wood furniture
industry is commonly grouped into household/residential furniture,
office/business furniture, and kitchen cabinet furniture. Each group
consists of different grades and styles of wood furniture products and
uses a variety of raw materials and manufacturing methods. Differences
in the products would be apparent in finish application methods,
finishing sequences, types of wood or wood product used, and types of
finish coatings used.
The coatings used in the wood furniture industry penetrate the wood
and become an integral part of the final product. The coatings are very
complex in that they react differently with the various types of wood,
fiberboard, and particleboard used by the industry, as well as each
subsequent coating applied in the finishing process. Therefore, each
type of coating used for a particular step in a finishing sequence is
unique and must be formulated as part of a complimentary finishing
system to ensure compatibility. In addition, the VOC content and
composition of a coating is sometimes adjusted to account for changes
in the drying time and the overall ease of application in relation to
ambient temperature and the humidity. Solvents used to adjust the
coatings are also used for cleaning application equipment and work
spaces and to strip finished pieces (referred to as washoff) that do
not meet specifications.
The related VOC emissions from the wood furniture industry,
therefore, are from the use of the coatings and the use of solvent in
cleaning and washoff operations. Because VOC emissions in this industry
are due to a variety of different sources in the manufacturing process,
including the coatings as applied, a national regulation under section
183(e) of the CAA may be of limited effectiveness in reducing VOC
emissions from wood furniture coatings. This is primarily due to the
fact that the EPA's authority under section 183(e), as previously
discussed, does not authorize the regulation of end-users. Thus,
regulations could apply only to the wood furniture coatings as
``supplied'' to the wood furniture industry, not to the users who apply
the coatings. Since the wood furniture manufacturers often alter a
supplied coating prior to its application by adding VOC solvents, the
``as-applied'' VOC content of the coating ends up being greater than
the ``as-supplied'' VOC content. For this reason, a CTG could be as
effective, if not more effective, than a national regulation. For the
wood furniture industry, consisting of facilities which could be
inspected for compliance with State RACT rules, a CTG could provide
limits for the coatings as applied and also achieve VOC emission
reductions from the implementation of work practice standards for the
associated cleaning and washoff operations.
B. Overview of Existing Wood Furniture CTG and Expected Emissions
Reductions
Under a separate Federal Register notice, the EPA recently released
a final CTG for the wood furniture manufacturing industry (61 FR 25223,
May 20, 1996) pursuant to section 183(a) of the CAA. The EPA is not
seeking comment on the content, or issuance, of that wood furniture CTG
as it was issued independently of any requirements of section 183(e).
However, for the purpose of determining whether a CTG would be
substantially as effective as a regulation as required under section
183(e), the following discussion refers to that CTG as an estimate of
the potential emission reductions obtainable with a CTG for the wood
furniture industry. As the CTG issued pursuant to section 183(a) was
based on RACT, and a CTG to be issued pursuant to section 183(e) would
also be based on RACT, the already existing CTG provides an appropriate
estimate for these purposes.
The wood furniture CTG applies to wood furniture manufacturing
facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas that emit more than 25
tons per year (tpy) of VOC (10 tpy for sources located in extreme ozone
nonattainment areas). The CTG includes emission limits for the finish
coatings used by the wood furniture industry and work practice
standards that will reduce emissions from finishing, cleaning, and
washoff operations by reducing finish coating and solvent usage.
The CTG emission limits were established through a regulatory
negotiation process consisting of stakeholders from industry,
environmental and public health groups, States, and the EPA. For over
two years the stakeholders evaluated several control technique options
in consideration of advancing technology, compatibility, and
feasibility. At the conclusion of the evaluation, it was determined
that of the various coatings used in the finishing process,
conventional topcoats and sealers could technically and feasibly be
replaced with waterborne and/or high solids coatings. The waterborne
technology, however, is limited to topcoats since waterborne sealer
technology has been slower to advance and is limited in availability to
a few segments of the industry where both waterborne sealers and
topcoats can be used to meet product quality requirements. The high
solids technology is further advanced and both high-solids topcoats and
sealers are, or will be, available to the industry.
The emission limits corresponding to these two reference control
technologies are presented in table 1. A wood furniture manufacturing
facility may reformulate all of its topcoats so that it meets the
waterborne reference technology limit of 0.8 kilogram (kg) VOC/kg
solids, in which case it could use any sealer with no restriction on
its VOC content; or it may reformulate both the sealers and topcoats to
meet the high solids reference technology limits of 1.9 and 1.8 kg VOC/
kg solids, respectively (2.3 and 2.0 for vinyl sealers and conversion
varnish topcoats). The 0.8 kg VOC/kg solids limit for the waterborne
topcoats may also be achieved with other types of topcoats such as
ultraviolet-cured topcoats which also meet this limit.
Facilities must also comply with the work practice standards. These
include a limit on the types of application equipment that may be used
to apply finishing materials and a requirement that facilities develop
and implement an operator training program, a cleaning and washoff
solvent accounting system, and a leak detection and repair program.
Facilities must also keep all containers used to store finishing
materials and solvents closed when not in use. Table 2 summarizes the
work practice standards included in the CTG.
In the previously issued CTG, the EPA estimated that more than 950
wood furniture manufacturing facilities will be subject to State
regulations based on the CTG. The emission limits and work practice
standards are expected to reduce VOC emissions from these facilities by
18,500 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (20,400 tpy) in ozone nonattainment
areas.
C. Estimate of BAC for Wood Furniture Coatings
As discussed in the background section of this notice, the EPA may
determine that a CTG would be substantially as effective as a
regulation issued under section 183(e). To make
[[Page 44677]]
such a determination, the EPA estimated and compared the likely VOC
reductions in nonattainment areas to be achieved by a CTG versus a
regulation. Regulations issued pursuant to section 183(e) must be based
on BAC. Thus, for comparative purposes, the EPA identified potential
limits which would be likely to represent BAC. Although the EPA
conducted such an analysis, the EPA is not proposing this estimate as a
BAC limit at this time. The BAC estimate discussed in this proposal
represents a likely limit that could represent BAC in a national
regulation. However, if the EPA were to proceed with the development of
a national BAC regulation, it is possible that the BAC-based regulation
may differ from the estimates relied on today for comparison purposes.
In estimating BAC for wood furniture coatings, the EPA evaluated
the information and data used to establish the VOC emission controls in
the wood furniture CTG. As previously discussed, the limits recommended
in the CTG resulted from over two years of evaluating control options
in consideration of advancing technology and feasibility. Although that
CTG was based on RACT, as discussed below, the EPA believes that the
standard in the CTG reflects the most advanced control technologies
available for use by the industry and is, thus, representative of BAC.
In evaluating the topcoat and sealer coatings used by the wood
furniture manufacturing industry, the EPA considered conventional
coatings with lower VOC content as well as the more advanced waterborne
coatings and high solids coatings during the CTG development process.
For the purpose of the following discussion, it is helpful to think of
the different coating types (e.g., conventional, waterborne, high
solids) as distinct technologies comprising separate coating systems.
To maintain the diversity of wood furniture products and the various
levels of product quality that customers demand, the EPA believes a
variety of coating systems should remain available. Therefore, in
establishing the RACT limits in the CTG, the EPA included separate
limits for waterborne and high solids coating technologies. However,
rather than estimating limits for each coating technology in
establishing BAC, the EPA estimated a single set of coating limits
representing the lowest achievable VOC content which would not preclude
the manufacture of the required coatings for each technology. Again,
this is because a regulation under section 183(e) would not apply to
the end-user of the product (e.g., the wood furniture manufacturing
industry), but rather the manufacturer or importer of the product
(e.g., the manufacturer of the wood furniture coating).
In evaluating BAC, waterborne technology and UV-curable coatings
offered topcoats and sealers with the lowest VOC contents among all of
the coating technologies considered. However, as described previously,
only waterborne topcoats were determined to be RACT with the limit in
the CTG set at 0.8 kg VOC/kg solid. In estimating BAC, the EPA
considered strengthening the RACT limit for waterborne technology by
establishing a VOC limit for waterborne sealers (which the CTG did not
include) and lowering the RACT VOC limit for topcoats. However, if the
EPA established BAC limits for topcoats and sealers based on waterborne
technology with the lowest VOC content, it would effectively eliminate
the availability of other coating technologies (e.g., high solids
coatings). Although a limit representing BAC would not necessarily need
to allow the manufacture and availability of other coating
technologies, some segments of the industry maintain that without these
coating technologies they cannot provide the product quality in demand.
For purposes of this analysis, the EPA believes that establishing a BAC
limit based on waterborne technology may have adverse economic impacts
on these industry segments, particularly those which have already
invested time and resources in converting their facilities to use the
high solids coating technology. Since this option may present
technological limits and potentially significant economic impacts, for
the purpose of this analysis, the EPA believes that BAC would not be
based on the use of waterborne coatings.
The EPA further evaluated potential BAC limits in consideration of
high solids coating technology. High solids coating technology is
widely available throughout most segments of the wood furniture
industry and both high solids topcoats and sealers were determined to
be RACT with a VOC limit of 1.8 kg VOC/kg solids and 1.9 kg VOC/kg
solids respectively. For high solids conversion varnish topcoats and
vinyl sealers, the RACT limits are 2.0 and 2.3 kg VOC/kg solids
respectively. In estimating BAC, the EPA considered lowering the CTG
RACT limits for high solids technology coatings by adopting lower VOC
limits adopted in a similar State/local agency rule. However, in
evaluating these local VOC limits, it was discovered that the sources
being regulated typically did not include the diversity of facilities
and operating conditions that must be considered in establishing
national limits. Furthermore, since the adopted limits in the local
rule have not gone into effect, compliance with the limits has not been
demonstrated.
The EPA, therefore, believes that the limits established as RACT
are representative of BAC with the possible exception of conversion
varnish topcoats. For high solids conversion varnish topcoats, the EPA
believes the BAC limit could be 1.8 kg VOC/kg solids as compared to the
RACT limit of 2.0 kg VOC/kg solids.
The EPA believes that setting a BAC limit for topcoats equal to 1.8
kg VOC/kg solids is technically feasible. Although this limit would
effectively eliminate conventional topcoats, both the waterborne and
high solids coatings could be manufactured to meet this limit and would
allow the wood furniture manufacturing industry to produce the
diversity and quality of products demanded. In establishing a BAC limit
for sealers, the EPA believes that the high solids technology would not
be used as a basis. Setting the BAC limit for sealers at 1.9 kg VOC/kg
solids would effectively require facilities which converted to
waterborne topcoats to use high solid sealers since waterborne sealers
are not available for all applications. This may pose a problem for the
industry because the waterborne and high solids technologies are not
necessarily compatible and many segments of the industry may not be
able to meet their product quality requirements with a combination of
waterborne topcoats and high solids sealers. The industry maintains
that when using waterborne topcoats, it is necessary in some
applications to use conventional sealers to maintain product quality.
Therefore, to estimate a BAC limit for sealers, the EPA relied upon an
analysis of conventional sealers. Based on this analysis, the EPA
determined that a reasonable estimate of BAC for sealers is 3.9 kg VOC/
kg solids.
In summary, for purposes of this analysis, the EPA believes that
the following limits would be likely to represent BAC for wood
furniture coatings:
Sealers--3.9 kg VOC/kg solids; and
Topcoats--1.8 kg VOC/kg solids.
The EPA requests comments on the determination that these limits
are representative of BAC. At this point, the EPA is not proposing
these limits as BAC for a national regulation; rather, the EPA is using
these estimated limits to compare the effectiveness of a wood furniture
CTG to a national regulation aimed at reducing VOC emissions in
nonattainment areas for the purpose of determining whether a CTG for
this
[[Page 44678]]
category is substantially as effective as a national regulation.
D. Comparison of Effectiveness of Wood Furniture CTG With National
Regulation Based on BAC in Reducing VOC Emissions
Based on EPA estimates of likely BAC limits incorporated into a
national regulation compared to the CTG, the EPA believes that a CTG
for wood furniture manufacturing coatings would achieve greater VOC
emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas than a regulation
under section 183(e) of the CAA. As previously discussed, the EPA
estimates that the wood furniture CTG will reduce VOC emissions from
wood furniture manufacturing facilities located in ozone nonattainment
areas by 18,500 Mg/yr (20,400 tpy). Of all the wood furniture
facilities located in nonattainment areas, there are approximately 950
facilities, emitting on average 25 or more tons of VOC per year, which
would be affected by the CTG. Alternatively, a national regulation
would limit the VOC content of coatings available to all wood furniture
manufacturing facilities, including those emitting less than 25 tpy
VOC. Although a national regulation would affect the coatings supplied
to approximately 4,500 facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas,
most of these facilities are very small and do not use significant
quantities of finishing coatings materials. Based on the estimated BAC
limits and number of affected facilities, the EPA estimates that the
implementation of a national regulation would reduce VOC emissions from
wood furniture manufacturing facilities located in ozone nonattainment
areas by 14,234 Mg/yr (15,689 tpy).
Although fewer facilities will be impacted by the CTG than by a
national regulation, the EPA estimates that the reductions per
facility, and, therefore, overall emission reductions, are greater with
the CTG than they are with a national regulation due to a variety of
factors. One factor, as discussed previously, is that the CTG includes
work practice standards which result in emission reductions that are
not obtainable with a national regulation. Another factor is that in
estimating the emission reductions from a national regulation, the EPA
assumed that all facilities would use topcoats and sealers with the
estimated BAC limits of 1.8 kg VOC/kg solids and 3.9 kg VOC/kg solids,
respectively. As discussed previously, the BAC limits represent the
lowest VOC limits that would be enforceable in a national regulation
for all of the coating technologies used in wood furniture
manufacturing. Arguably, the estimated BAC limits could be
subcategorized, as in the CTG, to specify particular coating limits for
the coatings supplied within the distinct coating technologies.
However, the EPA believes that this approach would not lead to further
VOC reductions from wood furniture coatings since, as previously
discussed, the supplied coatings are often altered prior to use.
However, individual facilities that can use waterborne technology will,
in practice, use waterborne topcoats below the BAC limits for all
coating technology topcoats. Likewise, facilities that can use high
solids technology will use high solid sealers below the BAC limit for
all coating technology sealers. Since the CTG RACT limits can be
enforced at individual facilities, emission reductions from the CTG
could account for the lowest limits in each distinct coating technology
used by specific sectors of the industry.
This demonstrates the advantage of controlling emissions from the
coatings as applied with a CTG, versus the coating as supplied by the
manufacturer with a national BAC regulation. As discussed previously,
the estimated BAC limits are applicable to all the various topcoat and
sealer coating technologies supplied to the industry and, therefore,
reflect the lowest VOC limits achievable by all the coating
technologies. The CTG, however, can establish coating limits for
particular application processes that can use a single coating
technology and still produce quality products. Since the limits in a
CTG are applicable to the coatings as applied, and regulators can
inspect wood furniture manufacturing facilities for compliance, the EPA
believes that a CTG is the most effective way to control emissions from
the wood furniture coatings. Therefore, based on the emission reduction
estimates, and the limited applicability of a national BAC regulation
versus a CTG, the EPA believes that a CTG will be more effective in
reducing VOC emissions from wood furniture manufacturing coatings in
ozone nonattainment areas, and that a CTG may be issued in lieu of a
national regulation under section 183(e)(3)(C).
III. Aerospace Coatings
A. Factors to Consider Regarding the Effectiveness of CTG Compared to
National Regulation
In evaluating control strategies for VOC emissions from aerospace
coatings, the EPA identified how these coatings are used by the
aerospace industry and sources of significant VOC emissions. The
aerospace industry includes all manufacturing facilities that produce
aerospace vehicles and/or components thereof and all facilities that
rework or repair aerospace vehicles. Aerospace facilities can be
divided into four market segments: Commercial original equipment
manufacturers (OEM), commercial rework facilities, military OEM, and
military rework facilities. The commercial OEM segment of the market
includes the manufacture of commercial aircraft as well as the
production of business and private aircraft. The military OEM segment
of the market includes military installations and defense contractors
that manufacture aircraft, missiles, rockets, satellites, and
spacecraft. Rework facilities, both commercial and military, may rework
many of the above end-products. The most significant VOC emissions from
the aerospace manufacturing and rework operations are the coatings
themselves as well as cleaning operations.
Most aerospace coatings are solvent-borne; the most common VOC
solvents are toluene, xylene, methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl
ketone. The VOC content varies for the various coating categories and
specific coating requirements. Coatings are applied to the surface of a
part to form a decorative or functional solid film. The most widely
used coatings fit into the broad categories of nonspecialized primers
and topcoats. However, in addition to these two general categories,
there are numerous specialty coatings that provide additional
performance characteristics such as temperature, fluid, or fire
resistance; flexibility; substrate compatibility; antireflection;
temporary protection or marking; sealing; adhesively joining
substrates; enhanced corrosion protection; or compatibility with a
space environment. Each coating is unique due to individual performance
standards particular to a specific design. The quality of the coatings
is critical to the airworthiness and safety of the final product.
Therefore, aerospace coating specifications are dictated by the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Department of Defense, and specific
customer requirements.
A wide variety of solvents, including some of those listed above,
are also used for cleaning operations in the aerospace industry.
Aerospace components are cleaned frequently during manufacturing to
remove contaminants such as dirt, grease, and oil, and to prepare the
components for the next operation. Application equipment and work
spaces are also cleaned with
[[Page 44679]]
solvents resulting in potentially significant emissions.
The related VOC emissions from the aerospace industry are,
therefore, from the use of the coatings and from the use of solvent in
cleaning operations. Because VOC emissions in this industry are due to
a variety of different sources in the manufacturing process, including
the coatings as applied, a national regulation may be of limited
effectiveness in reducing VOC emissions from aerospace coatings. This
is primarily due to the limit of the EPA's authority under section
183(e), as previously discussed, to regulate only the aerospace
coatings as supplied to the industry. Since, in practice, the supplied
aerospace coatings are often altered prior to application by adding VOC
solvents, the ``as-applied'' VOC content of the coating ends up being
greater than the ``as-supplied'' VOC content. For this reason, a CTG
could be as effective, if not more effective, than a national
regulation. For the aerospace industry, consisting of facilities which
could be inspected for compliance with State RACT rules, a CTG could
provide limits for the coatings as applied and also achieve VOC
emission reductions from the implementation of work practice standards
for the associated cleaning operations.
B. Overview of Recently Proposed Aerospace CTG and Expected Emissions
Reductions
On October 29, 1996 (61 FR 55842), a draft CTG for aerospace
manufacturing and rework facilities was issued pursuant to section
183(b)(3) for public review along with a supplemental notice to the
national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). The
EPA is not seeking comment on the content or issuance of that draft
aerospace CTG with this notice. However, the following discussion
refers to that CTG as an estimate of the potential emission reductions
obtainable with a CTG for the aerospace industry. This discussion
serves as the basis for the determination required under section 183(e)
as to whether a CTG would be substantially as effective as a
regulation.
The draft aerospace CTG applies to aerospace manufacturing and
rework facilities which are considered major VOC sources located in
ozone nonattainment areas that emit more than 25 tpy of VOC (10 tpy for
sources located in extreme ozone nonattainment areas). The type and
level of VOC control identified in the draft CTG is based on BACM. The
draft CTG emission limits were established in conjunction with the
development of maximum achievable control technology for the NESHAP.
This involved extensive data gathering and evaluation to identify the
best controls for the industry in consideration of advanced technology
and feasibility. The VOC content limits of 350 grams per liter (g/l)
(2.9 pounds per gallon (lb/gal)) (less water and exempt solvents) and
420 g/l (3.5 lb/gal) (less water and exempt solvents) were established
for primers and topcoats respectively. The VOC content limits of 622 g/
l (5.2 lb/gal) (less water and exempt solvents) and 160 g/l (1.3 lb/
gal) (less water and exempt solvents) were established for Type I and
Type II chemical milling maskants respectively. Additional VOC limits,
as presented in table 3, were established for various specialty coating
categories. The draft CTG also includes a requirement that facilities
use specific types of application equipment (or techniques) for
applying primers and topcoats and follow work practice guidelines for
solvent cleaning operations, housekeeping measures, hand-wipe cleaning,
flush cleaning, and spray gun cleaning.
The EPA estimates that approximately 64 percent of aerospace
facilities, or 1,836 facilities, are located in ozone nonattainment
areas and are expected to be subject to the aerospace CTG resulting in
VOC emission reductions of 3,889 Mg/yr (4,288 tpy). Of the 3,889 Mg/yr
(4,288 tpy), 2,721 Mg/yr (3,000 tpy) are expected to result from the
VOC content limits of the applied coatings with the remaining
reductions from the equipment and work practice standards.
As mentioned earlier, a CTG issued pursuant to section 183(e) would
be based on RACT. The EPA believes that for aerospace coatings, RACT
and BACM are identical. While typically BACM (``best'') implies more
stringent control than RACT (``reasonable''), the EPA recognizes that
there may be instances when there is such a limited range of controls
for a specified industry or industry process that these two levels of
control may be identical. The aerospace coating industry is such an
instance. Thus, the EPA believes that it is appropriate to rely on
these estimated emission reductions, which reflect both BACM and RACT,
for the purpose of comparing the effectiveness of a CTG to a regulation
under section 183(e).
C. Estimate of BAC for Aerospace Coatings
As discussed previously, the EPA must determine whether a CTG would
be substantially as effective as a regulation based on BAC. In making
this determination, the EPA has prepared a likely estimate of the
emission reductions that could be achieved with a BAC-based regulation.
Although the EPA prepared such an estimate, it is important to note
that this is only an estimate of what emission reductions might be
achieved with a BAC-based regulation. If the EPA were to proceed with
the development of a national BAC regulation, it is possible that the
level of VOC reductions resulting from a BAC-based regulation may
differ from the estimates calculated today.
In estimating BAC for aerospace coatings, the EPA evaluated the
data and information used to establish the VOC emission controls in the
aerospace CTG issued pursuant to section 183(b) which is based on BACM.
Although section 183(b) does not specifically define BACM, the VOC
limits established under this section for primers and topcoats
represent the best performing sources in the industry. Because there is
no distinct definition of BACM, the EPA believes that limits based on
BACM are similar, if not equivalent, to limits that would be
established under BAC as required in section 183(e). Thus, the EPA
believes it is reasonable to rely on the limits established under BACM
as representative of BAC limits for the purpose of comparing the
effectiveness of an aerospace CTG to a national regulation in reducing
VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. In this notice, the EPA is
not proposing these limits as BAC for the purpose of issuing a national
regulation. Rather, the EPA is using these estimated limits to compare
the effectiveness of an aerospace CTG to a national regulation aimed at
reducing VOC emissions in nonattainment areas for the purpose of
determining whether a CTG for this category is substantially as
effective as a regulation.
D. Comparison of Effectiveness of Aerospace CTG With National
Regulation Based on BAC in Reducing VOC Emissions
As discussed previously, the EPA estimated that the aerospace CTG
will reduce VOC emissions from aerospace manufacturing and rework
facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas by 3,889 Mg/yr (4,288
tpy). Alternatively, the EPA estimates that the implementation of a
national regulation, based on the likely BAC limits and the number of
affected facilities, would reduce VOC emissions from aerospace
manufacturing and rework facilities located in ozone nonattainment
areas by 2,721 Mg/yr (3,000 tpy). The number of facilities in ozone
nonattainment areas affected by a national regulation is equal to the
number of facilities affected by a CTG. However, the emission
reductions
[[Page 44680]]
from a CTG are greater due to the inclusion of equipment and work
practice standards related to the coating operations, which a
regulation under section 183(e) would not include.
In addition, the EPA believes that a CTG would be more effective
because it is applicable to aerospace coatings as applied, whereas a
national regulation is limited to coatings as supplied. The EPA
believes that for aerospace coatings, supplied coatings are often
altered by thinning prior to use. Because the EPA does not have
authority under section 183(e) to regulate end-users, a national
regulation would not be able to prohibit such activities and the actual
emission reductions from a regulation may be considerably less if data
were available to adjust for thinning emissions. For the foregoing
reasons, the EPA believes that a CTG would be more effective in
reducing VOC emissions from aerospace coatings in ozone nonattainment
areas, and that a CTG may be issued in lieu of a national regulation
under section 183(e)(3)(C).
IV. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Coatings
A. Factors To Consider Regarding the Effectiveness of CTG Compared to a
National Regulation
In evaluating control strategies for VOC emissions from
shipbuilding and ship repair coatings, the EPA identified the coatings
used by the shipbuilding and ship repair industry and the significant
sources of VOC emissions in that industry. The shipbuilding and ship
repair industry consists of establishments that build and repair ships,
and includes operations such as repainting, conversions, and
alterations of ships.
Marine coatings are vital for protecting the ship from corrosive
and biotic attacks from the ship's environment. A typical coating
system consists of (1) a thin primer coat that provides initial
corrosion (oxidation) protection and promotes adhesion of the
subsequent coating, (2) one or more intermediate coats that physically
protect(s) the primer and may provide additional or special properties,
and (3) a topcoat that provides long-term protection for both the
substrate and the underlying coatings.
Marine coatings are very complex and serve specific functions such
as corrosion protection, heat/fire resistance, and antifouling (used to
prevent the settlement and growth of marine organisms on the ship's
underwater hull). Specific coating selections are based on the intended
use of the ship, ship activity, travel routes, desired time between
paintings (service life), the aesthetic desires of the ship owner or
commanding officer, and fuel costs. Different coatings are used for
these purposes, and each may use one or more solvents (or solvent
blends) in different concentrations. Ship owners and paint formulators
specify the paints and coating thicknesses to be applied at shipyards.
Solvents are frequently added to coatings by the applicator just
prior to application to adjust viscosity. Thinning of coatings is done
at most shipyards (regardless of size) even though the paint
manufacturers typically state it is usually unnecessary. Weather
conditions play a big part in thinning, as do application processes and
desired drying times. Solvents are also widely used for equipment
cleaning which results in significant VOC emissions. Because VOC
emissions in this industry are due to a variety of different sources in
the manufacturing process, including the coatings as applied, a
national regulation may be of limited effectiveness in reducing VOC
emissions from shipbuilding and ship repair coatings. This is primarily
due to the limit of the EPA's authority under section 183(e), as
previously discussed, to regulate only the shipbuilding and ship repair
coatings as supplied to the industry. Because, in practice, the
supplied coatings are often thinned prior to application by adding VOC
solvents, the ``as-applied'' VOC content of the coating ends up being
greater than the ``as-supplied'' VOC content. For this reason a CTG
could be as effective, if not more effective, than a national
regulation. For the shipbuilding and ship repair industry, consisting
of facilities which could be inspected for compliance with State RACT
rules, a CTG could provide limits for the coatings as applied and also
achieve VOC emission reductions from the implementation of work
practice standards for the associated cleaning operations.
B. Overview of Shipbuilding and Ship Repair CTG and Expected Emissions
Reductions
Under a separate Federal Register notice, the EPA recently released
a final CTG for shipbuilding and ship repair operations (surface
coating) (61 FR 44050, August 27, 1996) pursuant to section 183(b)(4)
of the CAA. The EPA is not seeking comment on the content, or issuance,
of that shipbuilding and ship repair CTG as it was issued independently
of any requirements of section 183(e). However, for the purpose of
determining whether a CTG would be substantially as effective as a
rulemaking as required under section 183(e), the following discussion
refers to that CTG as an estimate of the potential emission reductions
obtainable with a CTG for the shipbuilding and ship repair industry.
The shipbuilding and ship repair CTG applies to shipbuilding and
ship repair facilities (i.e., shipyards) which are, or have the
potential to become, major VOC sources in ozone nonattainment areas.
The CTG for shipbuilding and repair operations (surface coating) was
developed in parallel with the NESHAP for this same industry. In
establishing the level of control for surface coating operations in the
shipbuilding and ship repair industry, the EPA relied on BACM as
proposed in the Federal Register on December 6, 1994 (59 FR 62681). The
type and level of VOC control identified as BACM is based on the marine
coating VOC limits being used in California (with some exceptions and
modifications). Table 4 presents the various coating categories with
the maximum ``as-applied'' VOC content allowed for each. The CTG also
includes additional work practice guidelines that apply to solvent
cleaning operations and housekeeping measures. The EPA estimates that
approximately 100 shipyards will be subject to State regulations based
on the CTG. The emission limits and work practice standards are
expected to reduce VOC emissions from these shipyards by 1,239 Mg/yr
(1,366 tpy). As mentioned earlier, a CTG issued pursuant to section
183(e) would be based on RACT. The EPA believes that for shipbuilding
and ship repair coatings RACT and BACM are identical. While typically
BACM (``best'') implies more stringent control than RACT
(``reasonable''), the shipbuilding industry, as in the case of the
aerospace industry, presents such a limited range of controls for a
specified industry process that these two levels of control may be
identical. Thus, the EPA believes that it is appropriate to rely on
these already existing estimated emission reductions, which reflect
both BACM and RACT, for the purpose of comparing the effectiveness of a
CTG to a regulation under section 183(e).
C. Estimate of BAC for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Coatings
As discussed previously, the EPA must determine whether a CTG would
be substantially as effective as a regulation based on BAC. In making
this determination, the EPA has prepared a likely estimate of the
emission reductions that could be achieved with a BAC-based regulation.
Although the EPA prepared such an estimate, it is important to note
that this is only an
[[Page 44681]]
estimate of what emission reductions might be achieved with a BAC-based
regulation. If the EPA were to proceed with the development of a
national BAC regulation, it is possible that the BAC-based regulation
may differ from the estimates calculated today.
The EPA believes the use of lower-VOC coatings is the only
technologically and economically feasible level of control for
shipbuilding and ship repair coatings that the EPA can establish on a
category-wide basis. In estimating BAC for shipbuilding and ship repair
coatings, the EPA evaluated the work completed to establish the
emission controls in the shipbuilding and ship repair CTG issued
pursuant to section 183(b) which is based on BACM. Although section
183(b) does not specifically define BACM, the VOC limits for
shipbuilding and ship repair coatings established in the CTG and
presented in table 4 represent the best performing sources in the
industry. Because there is no distinct definition, the EPA believes
that limits based on BACM are similar, if not equivalent, to limits
that would be established under BAC as required in section 183(e).
Thus, the EPA believes it is reasonable to rely on the limits
established under BACM as representative of BAC limits for the purpose
of comparing the effectiveness of a shipbuilding and ship repair CTG to
a national regulation in reducing VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment
areas. In this notice, the EPA is not proposing these limits as BAC for
the purpose of issuing a national regulation.
D. Comparison of Effectiveness of Shipbuilding and Ship Repair CTG With
National Regulation Based on BAC in Reducing VOC Emissions
Based on the CTG issued pursuant to section 183(b), the EPA
estimated that the shipbuilding and ship repair CTG will reduce VOC
emissions from shipyards located in ozone nonattainment areas by 1,239
Mg/yr (1,366 tpy). Of the approximately 187 shipyards located in ozone
nonattainment areas, there are approximately 100 facilities which emit
25 tpy or more of VOC (10 tpy for facilities in extreme nonattainment
areas) and will, therefore, be subject to State regulations based on
the CTG. Alternatively, a national regulation would limit the VOC
content of coatings available to all 187 shipyards located in ozone
nonattainment areas. However, most of these facilities are very small,
such as barge yards with less than 15 employees, and do not use
significant quantities of marine coatings which result in significant
VOC emissions. The EPA estimates that the implementation of a national
regulation, based on the estimated BAC limits and the estimated number
of affected facilities, would reduce VOC emissions from shipyards
located in ozone nonattainment areas by 1,605 Mg/yr (1,770 tpy).
Although the estimated emission reductions from a national
regulation (1,605 Mg/yr (1,770 tpy)) are greater than the estimated
emission reductions from a CTG (1,239 Mg/yr (1,366 tpy)), the EPA
believes that a CTG would be more effective because it is applicable to
shipbuilding and ship repair coatings as applied, whereas a national
regulation is limited to coatings as supplied. The EPA believes that
many shipyard coaters routinely add thinning solvent to coatings prior
to application, increasing the VOC content of the coatings as applied.
Because the EPA does not have authority under section 183(e) to
regulate end-users, a national regulation would not be able to prohibit
such activities and the actual emission reductions estimates from a
regulation may be considerably less if data were available to adjust
for thinning emissions. A CTG could effectively limit emissions from
``as-applied'' coatings which take into account any thinning solvents
added to the supplied coating prior to application. For the foregoing
reasons, the EPA believes that a CTG would be substantially as
effective in reducing VOC emissions from shipbuilding and ship repair
coatings in ozone nonattainment areas, and that a CTG may be issued in
lieu of a national regulation under section 183(e)(3)(C).
V. Proposed Determination
Based on the above analyses, the EPA has determined that the
recently finalized wood furniture CTG and the draft aerospace CTG being
developed will reduce VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas by
18,500 Mg/yr (20,400 tpy) and 3,889 Mg/yr (4,288 tpy), respectively.
These estimated reductions from the CTG are greater than the estimated
reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from a national regulation for
wood furniture coatings and aerospace coatings, 14,234 Mg/yr (15,689
tpy) and 2,721 Mg/yr (3,000 tpy), respectively. Because the CTG for the
wood furniture and aerospace industries are likely to be more effective
in reducing VOC emissions than national regulations developed under
section 183(e), the EPA has determined that a CTG is substantially as
effective as a national regulation in reducing VOC emissions and,
therefore, may issue CTG in lieu of national regulations for wood
furniture and aerospace coatings under section 183(e).
In the case of shipbuilding and ship repair coatings, the EPA
believes that the emission reductions obtainable through a CTG,
recommending limits on ``as-applied'' coatings, would be as much as
reductions achieved by a national regulation setting limits for ``as-
supplied'' coatings. Therefore, the EPA has determined that a CTG is
substantially as effective as a national regulation and may issue a CTG
in lieu of a national regulation for shipbuilding and ship repair
coatings under section 183(e).
VI. Cost-Effectiveness
The following information may be of interest to readers of todays
notice, and is presented here solely for informational purposes. The
cost-effectiveness estimates for the wood furniture, aerospace, and
shipbuilding and ship repair CTG were calculated under separate actions
during the development of the CTG. The previously issued wood furniture
CTG has a cost-effectiveness of $1089/Mg. The cost-effectiveness of the
aerospace and shipbuilding and ship repair CTG cannot be precisely
calculated because of the interrelationship of costs and emission
reductions with the concomitant NESHAP for these standards. The final
shipbuilding and ship repair CTG estimated a cost effectiveness of
$846/Mg; and the draft aerospace CTG did not quantify the additional
costs resulting from the CTG, but concluded that they are negligible.
VII. Solicitation of Comments
The Administrator welcomes comments from interested persons on the
proposed determination that RACT-based CTG would be substantially as
effective as BAC-based national regulations for the wood furniture
manufacturing, aerospace, and shipbuilding and ship repair (coatings)
industries. The Administrator is specifically requesting factual
information that may support either the approach taken or an
alternative approach. To receive proper consideration, documentation or
data should be provided to support the comments.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide opportunity
for interested persons to make oral presentations regarding the
proposed determinations in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the
CAA. Persons wishing to make an oral presentation on the EPA's proposed
determinations that
[[Page 44682]]
CTG's may be issued in lieu of regulations for wood furniture,
aerospace, and shipbuilding and ship repair coatings should contact the
EPA at the address given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
Oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of
the public may file a written statement before, during, or within 30
days after the hearing. Written statements should be addressed to the
Air and Radiation Docket address given in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble, and should refer to Docket No. A-96-23.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing and any written statements
will be available for public inspection and copying during normal
working hours at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket in Washington, DC
(see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
B. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of
this proposed determination. The principal purposes of the docket are:
(1) To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can intelligently and effectively participate in
the decision making process, and (2) to serve as the record in case of
judicial review (section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA).
C. 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.
D. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
regulation that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities.
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency.
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof.
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the Presidents's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, OMB has notified the
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the executive order. The EPA has submitted this action
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations are documented in the docket (see ADDRESSES).
E. Regulatory Flexibility
Because today's notice is not a rulemaking, the EPA has not
prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (Public Law 96-354, September 19, 1980).
F. Unfunded Mandates Act
Because today's notice is not a rulemaking, the requirements of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) do not apply to
this action.
Table 1.--CTG Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission
limit, kg
Reference control technology VOC/kg
solids
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waterborne:
--Topcoats................................................ 0.8
--Sealer.................................................. No limit.
High solids:
--Sealer.................................................. 1.9
--Topcoat................................................. 1.8
--Vinyl sealers........................................... 2.3
--Conversion varnish topcoats............................. 2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--CTG Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission source Work practice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finishing operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer equipment leaks.......... Develop written inspection and
maintenance plan to address and
prevent leaks. Minimum inspection
frequency of 1/month.
Storage containers, including Keep covered when not in use.
mixing equipment.
Application equipment............. Discontinue use of conventional air
spray guns.a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleaning Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun/line cleaning................. Collect cleaning solvent into a
closed container; cover all
containers when not in use.
Spray booth cleaning.............. Limit use of organic solvents.
Washoff/general cleaning.......... Keep washoff tank covered when not
in use;
Minimize dripping by tilting and/or
rotating the part to drain as much
solvent as possible and allowing
sufficient dry time;
Maintain a log of the quantity and
type of solvent used for washoff
and cleaning;
Maintain a log of the number of
pieces washed off and the reason
for the washoff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operator training................. Train all operators in proper
application, cleanup, and equipment
use.
Implementation plan............... Develop a plan to implement work
practice standards and maintain
onsite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Air guns will be allowed only in the following instances:
--When they are used in conjunction with coatings that emit less than
1.0 kg VOC per kg of solids used;
--Touch up and repair under limited conditions;
--When spray is automated;
--When add-on controls are employed;
--If the cumulative application is less than five.
[[Page 44683]]
Table 3.--Aerospace Specialty Coatings VOC Content Limits (g/l)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coating type Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ablative Coating............................................ 600
Adhesion Promoter........................................... 890
Adhesive Bonding Primer:
Cured at 250 deg.F or below......................... 850
Cured above 250 deg.F............................... 1,030
Adhesives:
Commercial Interior Adhesive........................ 760
Cyanoacrylate Adhesive.............................. 1,020
Fuel Tank Adhesive.................................. 620
Nonstructural Adhesive.............................. 360
Rocket Motor Bonding Adhesive....................... 890
Rubber-based Adhesive............................... 850
Structural Autoclavable Adhesive.................... 60
Structural Nonautoclavable Adhesive................. 850
Antichafe Coating........................................... 660
Chemical Agent-Resistant Coating............................ 550
Clear Coating............................................... 720
Commercial Exterior Aerodynamic Structure Primer............ 650
Compatible Substrate Primer................................. 780
Corrosion Prevention Compound............................... 710
Cryogenic Flexible Primer................................... 645
Cryoprotective Coating...................................... 600
Electric or Radiation-Effect Coating........................ 800
Electrostatic Discharge and Electromagnetic Interference
(EMI) Coating.............................................. 800
Elevated Temperature Skydrol Resistant Commercial Primer.... 740
Epoxy Polyamide Topcoat..................................... 660
Fire-Resistant (interior) Coating........................... 800
Flexible Primer............................................. 640
Flight-Test Coating:
Missile or Single Use Aircraft...................... 420
All Other........................................... 840
Fuel-Tank Coating........................................... 720
High-Temperature Coating.................................... 850
Insulation Covering......................................... 740
Intermediate Release Coating................................ 750
Lacquer..................................................... 830
Maskants:
Bonding Maskant..................................... 1,230
Critical Use and Line Sealer Maskant................ 1,020
Seal Coat Maskant........................................... 1,230
Metallized Epoxy Coating.................................... 740
Mold Release................................................ 780
Optical Anti-Reflective Coating............................. 750
Part Marking Coating........................................ 850
Pretreatment Coating........................................ 780
Rain Erosion-Resistant Coating.............................. 850
Rocket Motor Nozzle Coating................................. 660
Scale Inhibitor............................................. 880
Screen Print Ink............................................ 840
Sealant
Extrudable/Rollable/Brushable Sealants.............. 240
Sprayable Sealants.................................. 600
Self-priming Topcoat........................................ 420
Silicone Insulation Material................................ 850
Solid Film Lubricant........................................ 880
Specialized Function Coating................................ 890
Temporary Protective Coating................................ 320
Thermal Control Coating..................................... 800
Wet Fastener Installation Coating........................... 675
Wing Coating................................................ 850
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Grams per liter VOC (g/l) means a weight of VOC per combined volume of
VOC and coating solids, less water and exempt compounds.
[[Page 44684]]
Table 4.--VOC Limits for Marine Coatings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC limits a,b
------------------------------------------------------
Grams/liter Grams/liter solids c
Coating category coating (minus --------------------------------------
water and
exempt t4.5 deg.C t<4.5 deg.c="">d
compounds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General use.............................................. 340 571 728
Specialty:
Air flask........................................ 340 571 728
Antenna.......................................... 530 1,439
Antifoulant...................................... 400 765 971
Heat resistant................................... 420 841 1,069
High-gloss....................................... 420 841 1,069
High-temperature................................. 500 1,237 1,597
Inorganic zinc high-build........................ 340 571 728
Military exterior................................ 340 571 728
Mist............................................. 610 2,235
Navigational aids................................ 550 1,597
Nonskid.......................................... 340 571 728
Nuclear.......................................... 420 841 1,069
Organic zinc..................................... 360 630 802
Pretreatment wash primer......................... 780 11,095
Repair and maint. of thermoplastics.............. 550 1,597
Rubber camouflage................................ 340 571 728
Sealant for thermal spray aluminum............... 610 2,235
Special marking.................................. 490 1,178
Specialty interior............................... 340 571 728
Tack coat........................................ 610 2,235
Undersea weapons systems......................... 340 571 728
Weld-through precon. primer...................... 650 2,885
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The limits are expressed in two sets of equivalent units. Either set of limits may be used to demonstrate
compliance.
b To convert from g/l to lb/gal, multiply by (3.785 l/gal.)(1/453.6 lb/g) or 1/120. For compliance purposes,
metric units define the standards.
c VOC limits expressed in units of mass of VOC per volume of solids were derived from the VOC limits expressed
in units of mass of VOC per volume of coating assuming the coatings contain no water or exempt compounds and
that the volumes of all components with a coating are additive.
d These limits apply during cold-weather time periods (i.e., temperatures below 4.5 deg.C). Cold-weather
allowances are not given to coatings in categories that permit less than 40 percent solids (nonvolatiles)
content by volume. Such coatings are subject to the same limits regardless of weather.
Dated: August 15, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-22363 Filed 8-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
