[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 175 (Monday, September 11, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47095-47097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21527]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-5287-7]
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources Appendix A--
Reference Methods; Amendments to Method 24 for the Determination of
Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density, Volume Solids, and
Weight Solids of Surface Coatings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes procedures for the determination of
volatile matter content, density, volume solids, and water content for
non thin film ultraviolet radiation-cured coatings. Method 24 refers to
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures for
the determination of volatile matter content, density, volume solids,
weight solids, and water content of surface coatings. This ASTM method
excluded ultraviolet radiation-cured coatings which was not EPA's
intent. Therefore, EPA is revising Method 24 to apply to non thin film
ultraviolet radiation-cured coatings.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 1995. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the regulation is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of September 11, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-94-37, containing material relevant to
this rulemaking, is available for public inspection and copying between
8:30 a.m. and Noon, and 1:30 and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at
EPA's Air Docket Section, Room M1500, First Floor, Waterside Mall,
Gallery 1, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Candace Sorrell at (919) 541-1064,
Source Characterization Group A (MD-19), Emissions, Monitoring, and
Analysis Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. The Rulemaking
Method 24 was intended to be used for measuring volatile organic
compounds content of all coatings that are intended for either ambient
or baking film foundation. When Method 24 was published in 1980 it
referenced the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method
D 2369-81, which the Environmental Protection Agency believed would
apply to all coatings. However, that method was not applicable to
ultraviolet (UV) radiation-cured coatings and this amendment to Method
24 will incorporate ASTM Method D 5403-93, which does contain those
procedures.
This rulemaking does not impose emission measurement requirements
beyond those specified in the current regulation, nor does it change
any emission standard. Rather, the rulemaking would simply amend an
existing test method associated with emission measurement requirements
that would apply irrespective of this rulemaking.
II. Public Participation
The opportunity to hold a public hearing on February 8, 1995 at 10
a.m. was present in the proposal notice, but no one desired to make an
oral presentation. The public comment period was from January 9, 1995
to March 7, 1995.
III. Significant Comments and Changes to the Proposed Rulemaking
Seven comment letters were received from the proposal rulemaking.
The major comments and responses are summarized in this preamble.
Three comments believe that ASTM D 5403-93 is not applicable to
thin film UV cured coatings and inks. They noted that to meet the
minimum sample size requirement of 0.2 grams, at the coatings
recommended thickness, the substrate would be too large to weigh on
normal laboratory balances. They requested that the method be modified
to state this limitation.
The EPA agrees that the method should be modified to state that
ASTM D 5403-93 is not applicable to thin film UV cured coatings and
inks. For this method a thin film UV cured coating or ink is one which
will not allow the tester to apply at least 0.2 g of coating to the
substrate at the supplier recommended film thickness. Revisions have
been made to add the equation used to determine if ASTM D 5403-93 is
applicable. The revisions also include the requirement of a minimum
size substrate before a coating can be classified thin film for this
method.
One commenter requested that the cure test at 50 percent exposure
and the oven drying portion of ASTM D 5403-93 be deleted from the
proposed Method 24 amendments for UV cured coatings. The commenter
believes that these steps should be deleted because they expose the
cured coatings to conditions to which they would not normally be
exposed and over estimate potential emissions.
The EPA does not agree with the commenter's argument that these
steps over estimate potential emissions. The purpose of the cure test
is to ensure that the coating is properly cured before being placed in
the oven. If the coating is not properly cured before being placed in
the oven, the emissions will be biased high. The purpose of placing the
cured coating in the oven is to determine the VOC emissions that will
be emitted over time. Even after a coating is cured under normal
procedures, VOC are released during the life time of the coating.
Two commenters were concerned that EPA looks at this modification
to Method 24 as a complete ``fix it'' for the test method. They both
noted section 1.4 of ASTM D 5403-93 which states that the method may
not be applicable to radiation curable materials wherein the volatile
material is water.
The EPA is not trying to imply that this modification makes Method
24 perfect. The EPA recognizes the limitations of ASTM D 5403-93 as
stated in Section 1 of the method and also its limitations with respect
to thin film radiation cured coating as previously discussed in this
preamble. However, Method 24 is the best method currently available for
determining the VOC content of coatings and inks. The EPA is always
investigating new ways to improve its current test methods including
Method 24.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file for all information
submitted or otherwise considered by EPA in the development of this
proposed rulemaking. The principle purposes of the docket are: (1) To
allow interested parties to identify and locate documents so that they
can effectively participate in the rulemaking process and (2) to serve
as the record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review
materials).
[Section 307(d)(7)(A)].
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant
[[Page 47096]]
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not ``significant'' because none of the
listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, this action was not
submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.
C. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 204 requires
the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The Agency must select form those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why
this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative
is inconsistent with law.
Because this proposed rule is estimated to result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments or the private
sector of less than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the
selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or
uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a
plan with regard to small governments.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires the
identification of potentially adverse impacts of Federal regulations
upon small business entities. The Act specifically requires the
completion of an RFA analysis in those instances where small business
impacts are possible. Because this rulemaking imposes no adverse
economic impacts, an analysis has not been conducted. Pursuant to the
provision of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that the promulgated
rule will not have an impact on small entities because no additional
costs will be incurred.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not change any information collection requirements
subject to Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Surface coating of metal
furniture, Automotive and light duty truck surface coating operations,
Graphic arts industry publications rotogravure printing, Pressure
sensitive tape and label surface coating, Industrial surface coating,
Large appliances, Metal coil surface coating, Beverage can surface
coating industry, Flexible vinyl and urethane coating and printing,
Plastic parts for business machine coatings industry, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 23, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
40 CFR part 60 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7601.
2. In Sec. 60.17 of Subpart A, by adding a paragraph (a)(63) to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(63) ASTM D 5403-93 Standard Test Methods for Volatile Content of
Radiation Curable Materials. IBR approved September 11, 1995 for Method
24 of Appendix A.
* * * * *
3. In Method 24 of Appendix A, Section 3.1 is amended by removing
the words ``For all other coatings analyzed as follows'':
4. In Method 24 of Appendix A, Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6,
3.7 are redesignated as Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8,
respectively.
5. In Method 24 of Appendix A, Equations 24-1 through 24-4 are
redesignated as Equations 24-2 through 24-5, respectively.
6. In Method 24 of Appendix A, newly redesignated Section 3.8.1,
last sentence, ``Section 3.4'' is revised to read ``Section 3.5''.
7. In Method 24 of Appendix A, newly redesignated Section 3.8.2,
second sentence, ``Section 3.3'' is revised to read ``Section 3.4''.
8. In Method 24 of Appendix A, newly redesignated Section 3.8.2,
third sentence, ``Section 3.4'' is revised to read ``Section 3.5''.
9. In Method 24 of Appendix A, newly redesignated Section 3.8.2.4,
last sentence, ``Equation 24-1'' is revised to read ``Equation 24-2''.
10. In Method 24 of Appendix A, Sections 2.6, 3.2 and 3.9 are added
to read as follows:
* * * * *
2. * * *
2.6 ASTM D 5403-93 Standard Test Methods for Volatile Content of
Radiation Curable Materials (incorporated by reference--see
Sec. 60.17).
* * * * *
3.2 Non Thin-film Ultraviolet Radiation-cured Coating. To
determine volatile content of non thin-film ultraviolet radiation-cured
(UV radiation-cured) coatings, follow the procedures in Section 3.9.
Determine water content, density and solids content of the UV-cured
coatings according to Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6, respectively. The UV-
cured coatings are coatings which contain unreacted monomers that are
polymerized by exposure to ultraviolet light. To determine if a coating
or ink can be classified as a thin-film UV cured coating or ink, use
the following equation:
C=F A D Eq. 24-1
Where:
A=Area of substrate, in\2\, cm\2\.
C=Amount of coating or ink added to the substrate, g.
D=Density of coating or ink, g/in\3\ (g/cm\3\)
F=Manufacturer's recommended film thickness, in (cm).
[[Page 47097]]
If C is less than 0.2 g and A is greater than or equal to 35 in\2\ (225
cm\2\) then the coating or ink is considered a thin-film UV radiation-
cured coating for determining applicability of ASTM D 5403-93.
Note: As noted in Section 1.4 of ASTM D 5403-93, this method may
not be applicable to radiation curable materials wherein the
volatile material is water. For all other coatings not covered by
Sections 3.1 or 3.2 analyze as follows:
* * * * *
3.9 UV-cured Coating's Volatile Matter Content. Use the procedure
in ASTM D 5403-93 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17) to
determine the volatile matter content of the coating except the curing
test described in NOTE 2 of ASTM D 5403-93 is required.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-21527 Filed 9-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
