[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 193 (Thursday, October 5, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58745-58753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-16485]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 59
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0672; FRL-8228-4]
Consumer and Commercial Products, Group II: Control Techniques
Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Flexible Packaging Printing
Materials, Lithographic Printing Materials, Letterpress Printing
Materials, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, and Flat Wood Paneling
Coatings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of final determination and availability of final control
techniques guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
EPA has determined that control technique guideline (CTG) documents
will be substantially as effective as national regulations in reducing
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in ozone national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) nonattainment areas from the following
Group II product categories: Lithographic printing materials,
letterpress printing materials, flexible packaging printing materials,
flat wood paneling coatings, and industrial cleaning solvents. EPA is
taking final action to list these product categories pursuant to CAA
section 183(e). Based on this determination, EPA is issuing final CTGs
in lieu of national regulations for the control of VOC emissions from
each of these product categories. These CTGs provide guidance to the
States concerning EPA(s recommendations for reasonably available
control technology (RACT)-level controls for the product categories.
DATES: This final action is effective on October 5, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established the following dockets for these actions:
Consumer and Commercial Products, Group II--Determination to Issue
Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations, Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2006-0672; Consumer and Commercial Products--Lithographic
Printing Materials and Letterpress Printing Materials, Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2006-0536; Consumer and Commercial Products--Flexible Packaging
Printing Materials, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0537; Consumer and
Commercial Products--Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0535; and Consumer and Commercial Products--Flat Wood Paneling
Coatings, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0538.
All documents in the dockets are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov indexes. Although listed in the indexes, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.) Certain other materials, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0672,
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0535, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0536,
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0537, and/or Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-
0538, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The public reading room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to visit the Public Reading Room to
view documents. Consult EPA's Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147
(July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on docket operations, locations
and telephone numbers. The Docket Center(s mailing address for U.S.
mail and the procedure for submitting comments to
www.regulations.gov are not affected by the flooding and will remain
the same.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the CAA
section 183(e) consumer and commercial products program, contact Mr.
Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce
Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number: (919) 541-5460, fax number (919) 541-3470, e-mail
address: [email protected]. For further information on technical
issues concerning the final determination and final CTG for
lithographic printing materials and letterpress printing materials,
contact: Mr. Dave Salman, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and
Chemicals Group (E143-01), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number: (919) 541-0859, e-mail address:
[email protected]. For further information on technical issues
concerning the final determination and final CTG for flexible packaging
printing materials, contact: Ms. Paula Hirtz, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2618, e-mail address:
[email protected]. For further information on technical issues
concerning the final determination and final CTG for flat wood paneling
coatings, contact: Mr. Lynn Dail, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural
Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2363, e-mail address:
[email protected]. For further information on technical issues
concerning the final determination and final CTG for industrial
cleaning solvents, contact: Dr. Mohamed Serageldin, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2379,
e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in the preamble.
[[Page 58746]]
I. General Information
A. Entities Potentially Affected by This Action
B. Worldwide Web
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information and Final Determination
A. The Ozone Problem
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
C. Significance of Control Technique Guidelines
III. Summary of Changes to the Final CTGs
A. Lithographic Printing Materials and Letterpress Printing
Materials
B. Flexible Packaging Printing Materials
C. Industrial Cleaning Solvents
IV. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's Decision To Take
Final Action To List Product Categories Under CAA Section 183(e)
V. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's Determination
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order: 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Entities Potentially Affected by This Action
The categories and entities potentially affected by this action
include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of affected
Category NAICS code \1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flexible packaging printing 322221, 326112, Facilities that use
materials. 322223, 3265111, rotogravure or
322224, 322225, flexographic
332999. processes to print
materials such as
bags, pouches,
labels, liners, and
wraps using paper,
plastic film,
aluminum foil,
metalized or coated
paper or film, or
any combination of
these materials.
Lithographic printing 323110........... Facilities engaged in
materials. lithographic
printing on
individual sheets or
continuous rolls of
substrate material.
Letterpress printing materials 323119........... Facilities engaged in
letterpress printing
on individual sheets
or continuous rolls
of substrate
material.
Industrial cleaning solvents.. Various \2\...... Facilities using
industrial cleaning
solvents in cleaning
activities
associated with
manufacturing,
repair, and service
operations across a
wide variety of
industry sectors.
Flat wood paneling coatings... 321211, 321212, Flat wood paneling
321219, 321999. coating facilities
that apply
protective,
decorative, or
functional material
to any interior,
exterior, or
hardboard panel
product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Industrial cleaning solvents are used in various manufacturing,
repair, and service operations that span many industry sectors. A
detailed list of affected industries and their respective NAICS codes
are presented in the docket for the final CTG for industrial cleaning
solvents.
B. World Wide Web (WWW)
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of EPA's final
determination is available only by filing a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by December
4, 2006. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to
the final determination that was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial
review.
II. Background Information and Final Determination
A. The Ozone Problem
Ground-level ozone, a major component of smog, is formed in the
atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen in the presence
of sunlight. The formation of ground-level ozone is a complex process
that is affected by many variables.
Exposure to sufficient concentrations of ground-level ozone is
associated with a wide variety of human health effects, agricultural
crop loss, and damage to forests and ecosystems. Acute respiratory
symptoms can be induced by short-term exposures (observed in some
studies at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)).
Other studies have shown effects on exercise performance while
individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion, and by prolonged
exposures to ozone (observed at concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm),
typically while individuals are engaged in moderate exertion. Other
health effects seen in studies of ambient exposures include increased
airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to respiratory
infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and
pulmonary inflammation. Groups at increased risk of experiencing
elevated exposures include active children, outdoor workers, and others
who regularly engage in outdoor activities. Those with preexisting
respiratory disease may be more susceptible to ozone exposure.
Currently available information also suggests that long-term exposures
to sufficiently elevated ozone levels may cause chronic health effects
(e.g., structural damage to lung tissue and accelerated decline in
baseline lung function).
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
Under CAA section 183(e), EPA conducted a study of VOC emissions
from the use of consumer and commercial products to assess their
potential to contribute to levels of ozone that violate the NAAQS for
ozone, and to establish criteria for regulating VOC emissions from
these products. Section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to list for
regulation those categories of products that account for at least 80
percent of the VOC emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from
consumer and commercial products in areas that violate the NAAQS for
ozone (i.e., ozone
[[Page 58747]]
nonattainment areas), and to divide the list of categories to be
regulated into four groups. EPA published the initial list in the
Federal Register on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15264). In that notice, EPA
stated that it may amend the list of products for regulation, and the
groups of product categories, in order to achieve an effective
regulatory program in accordance with the Agency's discretion under CAA
section 183(e). EPA has revised the list several times. See 70 FR
69759, November, 17, 2005; 64 FR 13422, March 18, 1999. Most recently,
in May 2006, EPA revised the list to add one product category, portable
fuel containers, and to remove one product category, petroleum dry
cleaning solvents. See 71 FR 28320, May 16, 2006. As a result of these
revisions, Group II of the list now comprises the five product
categories that are the subject of this action.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pursuant to the Court's order in Sierra Club v. EPA, 1:01-
CV-01597-PLF (D.C. Cir., March 31, 2006), EPA must take final action
on the product categories in Group II by September 30, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any regulations issued under section CAA 183(e) must be based on
``best available controls'' (BAC). CAA section 183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC
as ``the degree of emissions reduction that the Administrator
determines, on the basis of technological and economic feasibility,
health, environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the
application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes,
methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation,
product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for use,
consumption, storage, or disposal.'' CAA section 183(e) also provides
EPA with authority to use any system or systems of regulation that EPA
determines is the most appropriate for the product category. Under
these provisions, EPA has previously issued ``national'' regulations
for architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, autobody
refinishing coatings and consumer products.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 63 FR 48792 (September 11, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) further provides that EPA may issue a CTG
in lieu of a national regulation for a product category where the EPA
determines that the CTG will be ``substantially as effective as
regulations'' in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment
areas. The statute does not specify how EPA is to make this
determination, but does provide a fundamental distinction between
national regulations and CTGs. Specifically, for national regulations,
CAA section 183(e) defines regulated entities as:
(i) * * * manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or
importers of consumer or commercial products for sale or
distribution in interstate commerce in the United States; or (ii)
manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers that
supply the entities listed under clause (i) with such products for
sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States.
Thus, under CAA section 183(e), a regulation for consumer or
commercial products is limited to the measures applicable to
manufacturers, processors, distributors, or importers of the solvents,
materials, or products supplied to the consumer or industry. CAA
section 183(e) does not authorize EPA to issue regulations that would
directly regulate end-users of these products. By contrast, CTG are
guidance documents that recommend RACT measures that States can adopt
and apply to the end users of products. This dichotomy (i.e., that EPA
cannot directly regulate end-users under CAA section 183(e), but can
address end-users through a CTG) created by Congress is relevant to
EPA's evaluation of the relative merits of a national regulation versus
a CTG.
C. Significance of Control Technique Guidelines
CAA section 172(c)(1) provides that State implementation plans
(SIP) for nonattainment areas must include ``reasonably available
control measures'', including RACT, for sources of emissions. Section
182(b)(2) provides that States must revise their ozone SIP to include
RACT for VOC sources covered by any CTG document issued after November
15, 1990, and prior to the date of attainment. Those ozone
nonattainment areas that are subject to CAA section 172(c)(1) and
submit an attainment demonstration seeking more than 5 years from the
date of designation to attain must also meet the requirements of CAA
section 182(b)(2) and revise their ozone SIP in response to any CTG
issued after November 15, 1990, and prior to the date of attainment.
Other ozone nonattainment areas subject to CAA section 172(c)(1) may
take action in response to this guidance, as necessary to attain the
NAAQS. For the specific requirements, see 40 CFR 51.912.
EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility'' (44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979). In subsequent
Federal Register notices, EPA has addressed how States can meet the
RACT requirements of the CAA. Significantly, RACT for a particular
industry is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering issues of
technological and economic feasibility.
EPA provides States with guidance concerning what types of controls
could constitute RACT for a given source category through issuance of a
CTG. The recommendations in the CTG are based on available data and
information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the
circumstances. States can follow the CTG and adopt State regulations to
implement the recommendations contained therein, or they can adopt
alternative approaches. In either event, States must submit their RACT
rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process. EPA
will evaluate the rules and determine, through notice and comment
rulemaking in the SIP process, whether they meet the RACT requirements
of the CAA and EPA's regulations. To the extent a State adopts any of
the recommendations in a CTG into its State RACT rules, interested
parties can raise questions and objections about the substance of the
guidance and the appropriateness of the application of the guidance to
a particular situation during the development of the State rules and
EPA's SIP approval process.
We encourage States in developing their RACT rules to consider
carefully the facts and circumstances of the particular sources in
their States because, as noted above, RACT is determined on a case-by-
case basis, considering issues of technological and economic
feasibility. For example, a State may decide not to require increased
control efficiency at facilities that are already well controlled, if
the additional emission reductions would not be cost-effective. States
may also want to consider reactivity-based approaches, as appropriate,
in developing their RACT regulations.\3\ Finally, if States consider
requiring more stringent VOC content limits than those recommended in
the final CTGs, States may also wish to consider averaging, as
appropriate. In general, the RACT requirement is applied on a short-
term basis up to 24 hours.\4\ However,
[[Page 58748]]
EPA guidance permits averaging times longer than 24 hours under certain
conditions.\5\ EPA's ``Economic Incentive Policy'' \6\ provides
guidance on use of long-term averages with regard to RACT and generally
provides for averaging times of no greater than 30 days. Thus, if the
appropriate conditions are present, States may consider the use of
averaging in conjunction with more stringent limits. Because of the
nature of averaging, however, we would expect that any State RACT Rules
that allow for averaging also include appropriate recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
in Ozone State Implementation Plans,'' 70 FR 54046 (September 13,
2005).
\4\ See, e.g. 52 FR 45108 (November 24, 1987), col. 2,
``Compliance Periods.'' ``VOC rules should describe explicitly the
compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit (e.g.,
instantaneous or daily). However, where rules are silent on
compliance time, EPA will interpret it as instantaneous.''
\5\ Memorandum from John O'Connor, Acting Director of the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ``Averaging
Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits-SIP Revision Policy.''
\6\ ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,
January 2001,'' available at http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/policy/search.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By this action, we are issuing four final CTGs that cover the five
product categories in Group II of the CAA section 183(e) list. We have
consolidated lithographic printing materials and letterpress printing
materials into one CTG document. These CTGs are guidance to the States
and provide recommendations only. A State can develop its own strategy
for what constitutes RACT for each of the Group II product categories,
and EPA will review that strategy in the context of the SIP process and
determine whether it meets the RACT requirements of the CAA and its
implementing regulations.
Finally, CAA section 182(b)(2) provides that a CTG issued after
1990 specify the date by which a State must submit a SIP revision in
response to the CTG. In the final CTGs at issue here, EPA provides that
States should submit their SIP revisions within 1 year of the date that
the CTGs are finalized.
III. Summary of Changes to the Final CTGs
Based on information received during the public comment period, we
made several substantive changes to the lithographic printing materials
and letterpress printing materials CTG and the flexible packaging
printing materials CTG. In addition, based on public comment, we
incorporated an option into the industrial cleaning solvents CTG on
which we had requested comments at proposal. Although we made some
minor clarifying changes to the flat wood paneling coatings CTG, no
changes were made regarding EPA's recommendations concerning the nature
or applicability of control measures for that product category.
Significant changes are described below.
A. Lithographic Printing Materials and Letterpress Printing Materials
Several significant changes were made to the draft CTG for offset
lithographic printing and letterpress printing as a result of comments
received during the comment period. Each of the changes is discussed
briefly below.
(1) Cleaning
The scope of the recommendations for cleaning has been clarified to
include blanket wash, roller wash, plate cleaner, metering roller
cleaner, impression cylinder cleaner, rubber rejuvenator and other
cleaners used for cleaning a press, press parts or to remove dried ink
from areas around a press; and to exclude cleaners used to clean
electronic components of a press, cleaning in pre-press (e.g.,
platemaking) or post-press (e.g., binding) operations, use of
janitorial supplies (e.g., detergents or floor cleaners) to clean areas
around a press, and cleaning done in parts washers or cold cleaners. We
also agree with commenters that in order to carry out all of these
cleaning tasks, some cleaning materials with VOC composite greater than
10 millimeters (mm) mercury (Hg) at 20[deg] C may be required. Many of
the cleaning tasks that cannot be carried out with low VOC composite
vapor pressure cleaning materials can be carried out with reduced VOC
content cleaning materials. We have, therefore, added a recommendation
for cleaning materials which contain 70 weight percent or less VOC. A
small number of cleaning tasks cannot be carried out with low VOC
composite vapor pressure cleaning materials or reduced VOC content
cleaning materials. We have, therefore, added a recommendation to
exclude 110 gallons per year of cleaning materials which meet neither
the low VOC composite vapor pressure recommendation nor the lower VOC
content recommendation.
(2) Fountain Solution
The recommendations for fountain solution have been clarified as
applying to the on-press (as-applied) fountain solution, not to the
fountain solution concentrate. We also agree with commenters that for
certain small presses, the recommended VOC (alcohol or alcohol
substitute) content levels would yield a small emission reduction
relative to the cost of achieving that reduction (e.g., changing and
maintaining rollers). We have, therefore, modified our recommendations
for fountain solution to exclude sheet-fed presses with sheet size
11x17 inches or smaller and to exclude any press with total fountain
solution reservoir of less than 1 gallon.
(3) Heatset Dryers
The draft CTG recommended controlling emissions from heatset dryers
at facilities with potential to emit from all dryers combined, prior to
control, of at least 25 tons per year (tpy) of VOC from heatset inks
and carryover of VOC from other materials. We agree with commenters
that this applicability threshold is more appropriately expressed on a
per press basis. We also believe that it is simpler and sufficient to
make this applicability determination based solely on the emissions
from the heatset inks. In the final CTG, we therefore recommend
controlling emissions from each heatset dryer with potential to emit,
prior to controls, of at least 25 tpy of VOC (petroleum ink oils) from
heatset inks. We recommend providing printers with the option of using
an enforceable limitation on potential emissions to keep an individual
press below this 25 tpy potential to emit threshold. Add-on controls
for heatset presses with potential to emit below 25 tpy may be too
costly for the emission reduction that would be achieved. We also
recommend excluding heatset presses used for book printing and
excluding heatset presses with maximum web width of 22 inches or less.
Add-on controls for such heatset presses may be too costly for the
emission reduction that would be achieved.
The draft CTG recommended 90 percent control device efficiency for
control devices first installed before March 14, 1995, and 95 percent
control device efficiency for control devices first installed on or
after March 14, 1995. We agree with commenters that control devices
first installed on or after March 14, 1995 may, for a variety of
reasons, not be achieving 95 percent control device efficiency, and
that a retroactive 95 percent control device efficiency recommendation
for the control devices is not appropriate. In the final CTG, we
therefore recommend that 95 percent control device efficiency for brand
new control devices installed after the effective date of a new or
revised State or local regulation adopted after publication of the CTG.
(4) Applicability
The draft CTG recommended general applicability levels of 6.8
kilograms per day (kg/day) (15 pounds per day (lb/day)) of VOC before
consideration of controls for offset lithographic printing
[[Page 58749]]
and 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) of VOC before consideration of controls for
letterpress printing. These recommended general applicability levels
were relevant to the draft CTG recommendations for controlling
emissions from cleaning and fountain solution.
The draft CTG recommended higher applicability levels for
controlling emissions from heatset dryers. The final CTG
recommendations for controlling emissions from heatset dryers,
including recommended applicability criteria, are presented in the
discussion of heatset dryers above.
The final CTG recommends these same general applicability levels
for cleaning and fountain solution with the addition of several
exclusions. The reasons for the recommended exclusions are presented in
the discussions of cleaning and fountain solution above.
The final CTG recommendations for cleaning apply to offset
lithographic printing facilities emitting 15 lb/day or more before
consideration of controls from all covered offset lithographic printing
and cleaning activities at the facility with an exclusion provided for
use of 110 gallons per year of offset lithographic cleaning materials
which meet neither the low VOC composite vapor pressure recommendation
nor the lower VOC content recommendation. The final CTG recommendations
for cleaning also apply to letterpress printing facilities emitting 15
lb/day or more before consideration of controls from all covered
letterpress printing and cleaning activities with an exclusion provided
for use of 110 gallons per year of letterpress cleaning materials which
meet neither the low VOC composite vapor pressure recommendation nor
the lower VOC content recommendation. Further, the final CTG
recommendations for fountain solution apply to offset lithographic
printing facilities emitting 15 lb/day or more before consideration of
controls from all covered offset lithographic printing and cleaning
activities at the facility with an exclusion provided for sheet-fed
presses with sheet size 11x17 inches or smaller and an exclusion
provided for any press with total fountain solution reservoir of less
than 1 gallon. State and local agencies have discretion to consider
these applicability levels, equivalent applicability levels expressed
on a monthly basis (e.g., 450 pounds per month (lb/month)), equivalent
applicability levels expressed on a 12-month rolling basis (e.g., 3
tons per 12-month rolling period), or other applicability levels for
their regulations.
B. Flexible Packaging Printing Materials
Four significant changes were made to the draft flexible packaging
printing CTG as a result of comments received during the comment
period. These include: (1) Removing the recommended VOC composite vapor
pressure limit for cleaning solvents; (2) changing the recommended
applicability threshold for controlling VOC emissions from inks,
coatings and adhesives from 25 tpy per facility to 25 tpy per press;
(3) providing additional overall control efficiency recommendations
ranging from 65 to 80 percent and changing the installation date of the
add-on air pollution control device (APCD) from the March 1995 date to
the effective date of state rule; and (4) changing the recommended low
VOC compliance option limits from 0.5 kg VOC/kg solids applied and 0.10
kg VOC/kg material applied to 0.8 kg VOC/kg solids applied and 0.16 kg
VOC/kg material applied. Each of the changes is discussed briefly
below.
(1) VOC Composite Vapor Pressure of Cleaning Solvents
We removed the recommended VOC composite vapor pressure limit for
cleaning solvents. This change was made based on additional information
provided by the commenters related to the vapor pressure of cleaning
solvents typically used in the industry that have vapor pressures above
the suggested 25 mm Hg (20[deg] C) limit and for which material
substitution is not feasible. Within the industry, there are controlled
cleaning operations where cleaning is automated, enclosed, and vented
to an APCD, and vapor pressure limits are not necessary. Use of
recycled solvents for cleaning is also typical in the industry; solvent
mixture components and the corresponding vapor pressure vary
frequently. EPA supports industry's use of recycled solvents for
cleaning and supports minimal usage of effective solvents and
accordingly, for this additional reason, we have removed the vapor
pressure limit. The recommendations for cleaning operations in the
final CTG include the work practice recommendations from the draft CTG.
(2) Applicability Threshold for Controlling Emissions From Inks,
Coatings, and Adhesives
We changed the recommended 25 tpy per facility VOC applicability
threshold for controlling ink, coating and adhesive emissions to 25 tpy
per press. As suggested by several commenters, EPA has reevaluated this
threshold. Rather than basing the annual threshold on all printing
operations at the facility, the recommended applicability threshold has
been revised to apply to each press. We believe an applicability
threshold for control of these emissions on a press-by-press basis is
the most appropriate way to assess the reasonableness of controlling
emissions from inks, coatings and adhesives.
We have not changed the recommended general applicability level of
6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) of VOC before consideration of controls for
flexible packaging printing. This recommended general applicability
level is relevant only to the recommendations for controlling emissions
from cleaning.
The final CTG work practice recommendations for cleaning apply to
flexible packaging printing facilities emitting 15 lb/day or more
actual emissions before consideration of controls from all covered
flexible packaging printing and cleaning activities at the facility.
Since work practices are carried out on a facility-wide basis, we
believe it is most appropriate for the applicability of work practices
to be determined on a facility-wide basis. State and local agencies
have discretion to consider this recommended applicability level, an
equivalent applicability level expressed on a monthly basis (e.g., 450
lb/month), an equivalent applicability level expressed on a 12-month
rolling basis (e.g., 3 tons per 12-month rolling period), or other
applicability levels for the cleaning requirements in their
regulations.
(3) Control Efficiency Recommendations
We provided additional overall control efficiency recommendations
ranging from 65 to 80 percent and changed the installation date of the
APCD from the March 1995 date to the effective date of an applicable
State rule. The recommendations in the draft CTG included control
levels based on the installation date of the press. These control
levels included overall control levels that reflected increased capture
efficiencies and increased control device efficiencies. The commenters'
concern that new presses may be installed at a facility but may be
vented to existing control devices is valid, and EPA agrees that
additional consideration be made regarding the installation date of the
APCD. EPA has added recommendations for control levels related to the
add-on APCD installation date that are based on new control devices
installed after the effective date of the State RACT rule.
[[Page 58750]]
(4) Low VOC Compliance Option
We changed the recommended low VOC compliance option limits of 0.5
kg VOC/kg solids applied to 0.8 kg VOC/kg solids applied and 0.10 kg
VOC/kg material applied to 0.16 kg VOC/kg material applied. EPA
reanalyzed these limits based on comments and revised the recommended
limits to more readily reflect the overall control efficiency
recommendations in the final CTG.
C. Industrial Cleaning Solvents
In the draft industrial cleaning solvents CTG, we had solicited
comments on possible use of a composite vapor pressure limit (for
example, 8 mmHg at 20[deg] C) either as: (1) A replacement for 50 g/l
VOC content limit entirely; or (2) an alternative limit that may be
used in lieu of the 50 g/l VOC content limit for specific operations as
determined by the State or local agency. We included in the final CTG
the vapor pressure limit of 8 mm Hg at 20[deg] C for cleaning solvents
as an additional control option for the States to consider. This change
was made based on comments received indicating that a number of States
have used low vapor pressure cleaning solvents as a means of
controlling cleaning emissions when aqueous solvents could not be used.
Also, this vapor pressure limit would allow the use of higher VOC
content solvents for specific cleaning applications.
IV. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's Decision To Take Final
Action To List Product Categories Under CAA Section 183(e)
A few commenters on the proposal questioned whether certain product
categories are properly on the CAA section 183(e) list of products for
regulation. As EPA has stated in the past, the list of products for
regulation is not itself a final Agency action and it is, therefore,
appropriate to comment upon the inclusion of the product category on
the list at the time EPA takes action to address the product, whether
through issuance of a national regulation or through issuance of a CTG.
However, the issues raised by the commenters concerned whether EPA had
erred by including the product on the list of product categories for
regulation because of incorrect estimates of the total amount of VOC
emissions from the product category at the time of the initial listing
exercise or subsequently.
As explained in more detail in the Response to Comments document
for this action, EPA believes that these products are appropriate for
regulation under CAA section 183(e). The Agency based the listing on
reasonable estimates of the total VOC emissions as of the base year.
The total VOC emissions were only one factor that EPA considered in the
initial listing decision. Even if the Agency overestimated the total
VOC emissions from this category, that would not alter the Agency's
decision that this category is suitable for regulation, and would only
affect whether EPA has identified sufficient categories to list those
that emitted at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions as required by
the statute. EPA believes that the overarching purpose of CAA section
183(e) is to achieve reasonable VOC emission reductions from consumer
and commercial products because of their aggregate impact on ozone
nonattainment. Thus, the statute contemplates that EPA will regulate
many categories of products, including some that might be relatively
small components of the emissions inventory.
V. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's Determination
With the exception of one commenter, every other commenter that
addressed EPA's proposed CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination that
CTGs will be substantially as effective as national regulations in
reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment areas from the five
Group II consumer and commercial product categories agreed with the
determination. Two commenters stated that the CTG approach provides
flexibility to local air quality districts and enables them to more
readily address local air quality issues. One commenter supported EPA's
decision to issue CTGs rather than promulgating national rules, and
agreed that the CTG approach will result in additional VOC emission
reductions over the rule approach. Another commenter further stated
that the proposed CTGs utilize cost effective approaches to VOC control
that will help States achieve the ambient ozone standards. EPA
appreciates the commenters' support of its CAA section 183(e)(3)(C)
determination.
One commenter disagreed with the proposed CTG approach, stating,
``a national rule designed to limit potential VOC emissions from
industrial solvents is preferred, given that such a rule would not
impose direct regulatory burdens on end users such as dealerships.''
The commenter explained that automobile dealerships use solvents
for: (1) Parts cleaners, in conjunction with mechanical service and
repair; (2) surface preparation, in conjunction with autobody repair;
(3) spray gun cleaning, in conjunction with autobody refinishing; and
(4) various spray applications using refillable or non-refillable
containers, in conjunction with mechanical service and repair and
autobody operations.
In further support for its position that EPA should pursue a
rulemaking for industrial solvents, the commenter stated that ``EPA
presently is considering automobile refinish air toxics controls that
may impact the use of surface preparation and gun cleaning solvents,''
used by automobile and truck dealerships. The commenter suggested that
before moving forward with a CTG that covers, among other things,
controls VOC emissions from autobody cleaning solvents, EPA should
review potential controls under consideration in the air toxics
proceeding. The commenter further stated that if EPA regulates
automobile refinish cleaning solvents, a national rule should be used
to regulate the VOC content of the cleaning solvents themselves,
thereby avoiding any unnecessary and burdensome regulation of end
users.
In summary, the commenter urged EPA to issue a national rule that:
(1) Only regulates parts cleaner solvent formulations with greater than
5 percent VOC, by weight; and
(2) sets a composite vapor pressure limit of 8 mm Hg for such
solvent formulations.
We disagree with the commenter. The commenter's primary argument
supporting a national rule regulating the VOC content of cleaning
solvents is that a national rule ``would not impose direct regulatory
burdens on end users such as dealerships.'' The commenter is correct
that a regulation issued pursuant to section 183(e) would not regulate
end-users because such entities do not qualify as ``regulated
entities'' within the meaning of section 183(e)(1)(C). The burden on
the end-user is, however, not the test for evaluating the
reasonableness of EPA's proposed section 183(e)(3)(C) determination
that CTGs will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing
VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas from the five Group II
product categories. Were that the case, EPA could never pursue the CTG
approach, which is expressly contemplated by section 183(e)(3)(C),
because CTGs apply to end-users.
As explained in the proposed rule, the statute does not specify how
EPA is to make the determination under section 183(e)(3)(C) that a CTG
will be substantially as effective as a national rule in reducing VOC
emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. EPA,
[[Page 58751]]
therefore, has discretion in identifying factors relevant to making
this determination. EPA identified in the proposed rule several factors
that it considered in making its proposed section 183(e)(3)(C)
determination. The commenter neither references these factors, nor
challenges EPA's application of the factors to the Group II product
categories. Although the commenter suggests requirements for a national
rule, it does not address the arguments presented in the proposal,
explaining why regulation of solvent manufacturers is not effective in
reducing VOC emissions. The commenter's blanket assertion that it would
prefer an approach that does not result in a ``direct regulatory burden
on end-users'' does not constitute a basis for changing EPA's
determination regarding the five Group II product categories.
Furthermore, the commenter's concern that the CTG results in a
``direct regulatory burden'' mischaracterizes the nature of a CTG. A
CTG is a guidance document that provides recommendations to State and
local pollution control agencies to consider in determining RACT for a
particular product category. As explained in the proposal and in the
draft CTGs, State and local pollution control agencies are not required
to follow EPA's RACT recommendations contained in the CTG. Instead,
they are free to implement other technically-sound approaches that are
consistent with the CAA and its implementing regulations. Thus, it is
not the CTG itself that has the direct regulatory burden, but rather it
is the regulations that States may develop in response to the CTG that
might impose any such burden. To the extent a State adopts any of the
recommendations in the CTG, interested parties can always raise
questions and objections about the substance of the CTG during the
development of the State rules or during EPA's SIP approval process,
both of which provide for public notice and comment. The commenter's
assertion that the CTG imposes direct regulatory burdens is thus
misplaced.
Finally, that EPA, in the future, intends to develop an air toxics
rule for automobile refinishing provides no basis for changing our
determination that CTGs for the Group II product categories will be
substantially as effective at reducing VOC emissions in ozone
nonattainment areas as national regulations. EPA assumes that the
commenter is referring to the area source automobile refinishing
category that is currently listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3), but it
is not entirely clear from the comment the precise ``air toxics'' rule
to which the commenter is referring. EPA has not yet proposed a rule
under CAA section 112 for automobile refinishing. A future rule
addressing hazardous air pollutants does not provide a basis for
reversing the proposed section 183(e)(3)(C) determination. Moreover, to
the extent an interested facility is concerned about a potentially
duplicative regulatory requirement, it can raise that issue during the
State RACT rulemaking process, as States have discretion to make their
own determination as to what constitutes RACT in their particular
nonattainment area based on the facts and circumstances of the
category. EPA will review that determination in the SIP approval
process.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
OMB has determined that this action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under
the Executive Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain any information collection
requirements and therefore is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district, or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final action on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it
imposes no regulatory requirements. In this notice, EPA is taking final
action to list the five Group II consumer and commercial product
categories for purposes of CAA section 183(e). This listing action
alone does not impose any regulatory requirements. In this notice, EPA
is also taking final action on its determination that a CTG will be
substantially as effective as a national regulation in achieving VOC
emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from the five Group II
product categories. In the determination, EPA has concluded that it is
not appropriate to issue Federal regulations under CAA section 183(e)
to regulate VOC emissions from the five Group II product categories.
Instead, EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to issue guidance in
the form of CTGs that provide recommendations to States concerning
potential methods to achieve needed VOC emission reductions in ozone
nonattainment areas from the Group II product categories. This
determination does not impose any regulatory requirements.
In addition to today's final action, EPA is issuing CTGs for the
five Group II product categories. The CTGs are guidance and thus the
requirements of the RFA do not apply. In any event, EPA does not
directly regulate any small entities through the issuance of a CTG.
[[Page 58752]]
EPA issues CTGs to provide States guidance in developing their own
regulations for obtaining VOC emission reductions from affected sources
within certain nonattainment areas. EPA's issuance of a CTG does
trigger an obligation on the part of the States to issue State
regulations, but States are not obligated to issue regulations that
adopt the recommendations in the Agency's CTG. States may follow the
recommendations provided in the CTG or they can adopt other
technically-sound approaches that are consistent with the CAA and EPA's
implementing regulations. The ultimate determination of whether a State
regulation meets the RACT requirements of the CAA is determined through
notice and comment rulemaking in the Agency's action on each State's
SIP. Thus, States retain discretion in determining to what degree to
follow the RACT recommendations contained in the CTGs.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under UMRA section 202, 2 U.S.C.
1532, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with a ``Federal
mandate'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year.
A ``Federal mandate'' is defined under section 421(6), 2 U.S.C.
658(6), to include a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' and a
``Federal private sector mandate.'' A ``Federal intergovernmental
mandate,'' in turn, is defined to include a regulation that ``would
impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,''
section 421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i), except for, among other
things, a duty that is ``a condition of Federal assistance,'' section
421(5)(A)(i)(I). A ``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a
regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the private
sector,'' with certain exceptions, section 421(7)(A), 2 U.S.C.
658(7)(A).
EPA has determined that the listing action and the final
determination that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a
regulation for the Group II product categories do not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Thus, this final action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have
determined that the listing action and the final determination contain
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because they contain no regulatory requirements that
apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore,
this action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
As noted above, the CTGs for the Group II product categories are
guidance and thus the requirements of the UMRA do not apply. The CTGs
do not impose any legally binding requirements on any entity and
consequently do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
The listing action, the final determination that CTGs are
substantially as effective as regulations for these product categories,
and the final CTGs do not have federalism implications. They do not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, and this
action does not impact that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to the final determination and final CTGs.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
The listing action, the final determination that CTGs will be
substantially as effective as regulations to achieve VOC emission
reductions from these product categories, and the final CTGs do not
have tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175. They do
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, in
that the listing action, the final determination, and the final CTGs
impose no regulatory burdens on tribes. Furthermore, the listing
action, the final determination, and the final CTGs do not affect the
relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes. The CAA and the Tribal Authority
Rule establish the relationship of the Federal government and tribes in
implementing the CAA. Because listing action, the final determination,
and the final CTGs do not have tribal implications, Executive Order
13175 does not apply.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, Section 5-501 of the Executive Order directs the Agency
to evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned
rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable
to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
The listing action, the final determination, and the final CTGs are
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are not economically
significant regulatory actions as defined by Executive Order 12866. In
addition, EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to
those regulatory actions that are based on health and safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive
Order has the potential to influence the regulations. The listing
action, the final determination, and the final CTGs are not subject to
Executive
[[Page 58753]]
Order 13045 because they do not include regulatory requirements based
on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This final action is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy;
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in
their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VOC are
technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does
not use available and applicable VCS.
The listing action, the final determination that CTGs will be
substantially as effective as regulations to achieve VOC emission
reductions, and the final CTGs do not involve technical standards and
therefore the NTTAA does not apply.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' provides
for Federal agencies to consider the impact of programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations,
including tribes.
EPA believes that the listing action, the final determination, and
the final CTGs should not raise any environmental justice issues. The
purpose of section 183(e) is to obtain VOC emission reductions to
assist in the attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The health and
environmental risks associated with ozone were considered in the
establishment of the ozone NAAQS. The level is designed to be
protective of the public with an adequate margin of safety. EPA's
listing of the products, determination that CTGs are substantially as
effective as regulations, and final CTGs, are actions intended to help
States achieve the NAAQS in the most appropriate fashion.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this notice and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the notice in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. The final action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will be effective October 5, 2006.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Confidential
business information, Labeling, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 29, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 59 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 59--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 59 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7511b(e).
0
2. Subpart A is added to read as follows:
Subpart A--General
Sec. 59.1 Final determinations under section 183(e)(3)(C) of the
Clean Air Act.
This section identifies the consumer and commercial product
categories for which EPA has determined that control technique
guidelines (CTGs) will be substantially as effective as regulations in
reducing volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in ozone
nonattainment areas:
(a) Wood furniture coatings;
(b) Aerospace coatings;
(c) Shipbuilding and repair coatings;
(d) Lithographic printing materials;
(e) Letterpress printing materials;
(f) Flexible packaging printing materials;
(g) Flat wood paneling coatings; and
(h) Industrial cleaning solvents.
[FR Doc. E6-16485 Filed 10-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P