Consumer and Commercial Products: Wood Furniture, Aerospace, and Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Coatings: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations

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: [email protected]. 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 td

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