MEMORANDUM

DATE:	September 2017

SUBJECT:	DRAFT Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations in the Metal Coil Category

FROM:	Eastern Research Group, Inc.

TO:		Paula Hirtz, OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

1.0	INTRODUCTION

Section 112 of the CAA requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish technology-based standards for listed source categories of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). These technology-based standards are often referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. The Surface Coating of Metal Coil NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS), hereafter referred to as the Metal Coil NESHAP, regulates HAP emissions from facilities that are major sources of HAP and are engaged in the surface coating of metal coil. The final NESHAP was promulgated on June 10, 2002, and a technical correction was published on March 17, 2003.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.5090(c), the rule requires the use of MACT to reduce HAP emissions from a coil coating line on which more than 15 percent of the metal coil coated, based on surface area, is equal to or greater than 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) thick. If the facility also has a coating line that is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ (NESHAP for Paper and Other Web Coating), then the facility can demonstrate compliance with subpart JJJJ by demonstrating compliance with subpart SSSS for all coating lines under certain circumstances.

Section 112 also contains provisions requiring the EPA to periodically revisit these standards. Specifically, section 112(d)(6) states:

      (6) REVIEW AND REVISION.  -  The Administrator shall review, and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), emissions standards promulgated under this section no less often than every 8 years.

To comply with this CAA requirement, the EPA conducted a technology review for the Metal Coil NESHAP standard for major sources. This memorandum addresses the technology review for metal coil surface coating operations.

For the purposes of this review, the EPA considers a "development" in practices, processes, and control technologies to be:

 Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during MACT standard development;
 Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that was identified and considered during MACT standard development) that could result in additional emission reduction;
 Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standard;
 Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry that was not identified and considered during MACT standard development; and
 Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards).

Section 2 of this memorandum presents a summary of the sources of data that were used to conduct the technology review and Section 3 presents the coil coating process description, the existing level of MACT control and control measures identified for the technology review for metal coil surface coating operations.
2.0	SOURCES OF AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION

To identify any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that could be applicable to surface coating operations in the metal coil industry, we consulted the following sources of data: RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, the California Statewide Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Clearinghouse, regulatory actions promulgated for other surface coating NESHAP subsequent to the Metal Coil NESHAP, state regulations and operating permits, site visits, and industry information from individual facilities and the industry trade association. Our findings are discussed in the following sections.

2.1	RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse Database

Under the EPA's New Source Review (NSR) program, if a company is planning to build a new plant or modify an existing plant such that criteria air pollution emissions will increase by a certain amount, then the company must obtain an NSR permit. The NSR permit is a construction permit which generally requires the company to minimize air pollution emissions by modifying the process to incorporate pollution prevention measures and/or installing air pollution control equipment.

The terms "RACT," "BACT," and "LAER" are acronyms for different program requirements relevant to the NSR program.  RACT, or Reasonably Available Control Technology, is required on existing sources in areas that are not meeting national ambient air quality standards (non-attainment areas). BACT, or Best Available Control Technology, is required on new or modified major sources in clean areas (attainment areas). LAER, or Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, is required on new or modified major sources in non-attainment areas.

BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a case-by-case basis, usually by state or local permitting agencies. The EPA established the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, or RBLC, to provide a central database of air pollution technology information (including past BACT and LAER decisions contained in NSR permits) to promote the sharing of information among permitting agencies and to aid in future case-by-case determinations. However, data in the RBLC are not limited to sources subject to RACT, BACT, and LAER requirements. Noteworthy pollution prevention and control technology decisions and information on cost effectiveness may be included even if they are not related to past RACT, BACT, or LAER decisions.

The RBLC contains over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that can help identify appropriate technologies to mitigate most air pollutant emission streams. It was designed to help permit applicants and reviewers make pollution prevention and control technology decisions for stationary air pollution sources, and includes data submitted by U.S. territories and all 50 states on over 200 different air pollutants and 1,000 industrial processes.

The RBLC provides several options for searching the permit database on-line to locate applicable control technologies. On December 29, 2016, we conducted a search of the RBLC.  Our search specified processes in the metal coil surface coating category, with permits dating back to 1970. The search results included the following data fields:

       RBLC ID;
       Facility Name, and State;
       Permit Date;
       Process name;
       Pollutant;
       Control technology; and
       Percent efficiency of control.

A search conducted on September 19, 2017, revealed that the EPA's RBLC and the state of California's BACT clearinghouse have no records specific to coil coating operations.  The EPA's RBLC had no records specific to the coil coating process code (except for an erroneous entry for dip coating the copper wire coils used in electric motors), and no records were found for a search on the key words "coil," "roll coating," or "roller coating." The search of the state of California's BACT clearinghouse did not result in a BACT determination for the only known major source metal coil coating facility in California. We also collected and conducted a comprehensive review of state operating permits, discussed in Section 2.3 of this report.

2.2	Subsequent Regulatory Actions

Regulatory actions promulgated subsequent to the March 10, 2002, NESHAP were identified for similar surface coating operations. These regulatory actions, listed in Table 1, were reviewed for developments in practices, processes and control technologies.

Table 1. Subsequent Regulatory Actions for Sources Similar to Metal Coil Coating Operations

                             Major Source Standard
                                    Subpart
                               Date Promulgated
           Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies Evaluated
                      Surface Coating of Large Appliances
                                     NNNN
                                   7/23/2002
Emission limit as mass HAP per volume solids used. Controls include low-HAP coatings, permanent total enclosures and add-on controls (carbon adsorbers, condensers, thermal and catalytic oxidizers).
                          Paper and Other Web Coating
                                     JJJJ
                                   12/4/2002
Emission limit as wt % HAP reduction, wt % HAP in coating, mass HAP emitted per mass solids used, and thermal oxidizer outlet concentration. Controls include low solvent, waterborne, UV-cure, hot melt, and reactive resin coatings; oxidizers (thermal and catalytic), carbon adsorbers, condensers.
          Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles
                                     OOOO
                                   5/29/2003
Coating and Printing: Emission limit as mass HAP per mass solids used. Controls include low solvent, waterborne, UV-cure, hot melt, and reactive resin coatings; oxidizers (thermal, regenerative thermal, and catalytic); and carbon adsorbers.
           Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
                                     MMMM
                                   1/2/2004
Emission limit as mass HAP per volume solids used. Controls include low-HAP coatings, ultraviolet (UV) curable electron beam (EB) curable coatings, powder coatings, add-on controls.
                 Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products
                                     PPPP
                                   4/19/2004
Emission limit as mass HAP per mass solids used. Controls include low-HAP coatings, UV and EB curable coatings, add-on controls.
             Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
                                     IIII
                                   4/26/2004
Emission limit as mass HAP per volume solids deposited. Develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP. Controls include low-HAP coatings, high efficiency application methods, and add-on controls.
                      Technology Review of MACT Standard
                                    Subpart
                               Date Promulgated
   Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies Identified as Developments
                                 Magnetic Tape
                                      EE
                                   4/7/2006
                                No developments
                            Printing and Publishing
                                      KK
                                   4/21/2011
          Permanent total enclosures installed on controlled presses.
                         Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
                                      II
                                  11/21/2011
 Concentrator/RTO installed on spray booths to achieve 95% control efficiency.
                         Wood Furniture Manufacturing
                                      JJ
                                  11/21/2011
RTO; Lower VOC coating limits based on California regional rules; more efficient spray guns; limit formaldehyde emission to 400 lb per rolling 12-month period. Bans conventional spray guns except when the overspray is routed to a control device.
                 Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities
                                      GG
                                   12/7/2015
                                No developments

Developments identified in the regulatory actions listed in Table 1 are discussed in more detail in Section 3 (Technology Review for Surface Coating Operations).

2.3 State Regulations and Operating Permits

Using a collection of data sources, including the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) and the National Emission Inventory (NEI) databases, a total of 54 facilities from 21 states were identified as metal coil coating operations.

Because there were no RBLC records for coil coating, we conducted a comprehensive review of the state operating permits that were available on-line. In total, 39 permits were collected. The permit review revealed that 37 of the 39 facilities had add-on controls and 3 of the 39 facilities had only partial control (i.e., not all coil coating lines had control).

The VOC emission limits in the state permits have various units of measure. Several permits restrict the emission rate (e.g., lb/hr, ton/yr) to avoid major source status while others are linked to VOC content delivered to the coater head. No permit had a VOC limit lower than the Metal Coil NSPS published in 1982 (40 CFR 60, subpart TT).

Eight states and one local jurisdiction listed in the table below were identified that had regulations that control VOC emissions from metal coil coating. All of the eight states require the 2.6 lb VOC/gallon coating (less water and exempt volatiles) limit included in the 1977 EPA CTG (Pennsylvania specifies an equivalent limit in lb VOC /gallon coating solids). Chicago, IL, specifies a VOC content limit more stringent than the CTG limit. Five rules (Chicago, MO, OH, SC, and WI) also define the performance expectations for control systems.

Table 2. State and Local VOC Regulations

                          State or Local Jurisdiction

                                   Citation

                              VOC Content Limits*

                               Additional Limits
Chicago, Illinois
35 IAC 218.204(d)
1.7 lb/gallon
Restricts VOC emissions over time (8.0 lb/hr). As an emission limit alternative, a capture/control system must provide 81% reduction and the control device must have 90% efficiency.
Indiana
326 IAC 8-2-4
2.6 lb/gallon
None
Missouri
10 CSR 10-5.330
2.6 lb/gallon
Limits can be achieved with low solvent technology and add-on control. A control system must have 90% efficiency or greater.**
New Jersey
N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.7(c)1
2.6 lb/gallon
-
Ohio
OAC 3745-21-09(B)(3)(n)(6) and
OAC 3745-21-09(E)

2.6 lb/gallon
If a control system is employed, the limit is 4.0 lb VOC/gallon solids.
A control system must provide no less than 81% reduction of overall emissions and an efficiency of no less than 90%.
Pennsylvania
25 Pa. Code §129.52
4.02 lb/gallon coating solids
Restricts VOC emissions over time (3.0 lb/hr; 15 lb/day; 2.7 ton/yr).
South Carolina
61-62.5, Standard No. 5, Section II(F)(2)(b)
2.6 lb/gallon
Ways to meet the limit: 1) low solvent technology; 2) incineration that oxidizes 90% of non-methane VOC; 3) others approved case-by-case.
Texas
30 TAC Chapter 115
2.6 lb/gallon
None
Wisconsin
NR 422.06(2)
2.6 lb/gallon

Cleaning:
0.42 lb/gallon *** (beginning 3/1/2013)
Incineration or catalytic oxidation must oxidize 90% of non-methane compounds [see NR 422.04(2)(c)].

Cleaning operations also have work practice requirements.
*    Unless noted otherwise, all VOC content limits are in units of pounds VOC per gallon coating, less water and
       exempt volatiles. The Pennsylvania limit is equivalent to 2.6 lb/gallon coating.
**   State regulation control system efficiency calculations do not consider gas capture efficiency.
*** The WI rule is not clear whether this is less water and exempt solvents. However, it is not unusual to have
       VOC limits for cleaning solvents that do not exclude water and exempt solvents because many cleaning
       solvent alternatives are water-based and they are not designed to leave behind a solid film on the cleaned
       equipment.

The operating permits for three facilities listed in Table 3 below include a limit on individual HAP. While the NESHAP restricts the total HAP relative to the amount of coating solids used, the three permits limit the HAP emissions released over time (i.e., lb/hr or tons/year). The individual HAP were formaldehyde, methanol, cresols and cresylic acid.

Table 3. Operating Permits with Individual HAP Limits

                                   Facility
                                     State
                                  Permit Date
                                   Pollutant
                                     Limit
Agfa Corp.
                                      NJ
                                  10/21/2013
                                   Methanol
                             Cresols/Cresylic Acid
                                2.00 tons/year
                                0.12 tons/year
Precoat Metals
                                      WV
                                  8/26/2008*
                                 Formaldehyde
                                 0.04 lb/hour
Jupiter Aluminum Corp.
                                      WV
                                  11/10/2012
                                 Formaldehyde
                                 0.26 lb/hour
                               (0.37 tons/year)
* This permit remains active; the renewal application was submitted prior to the due date.

The EPA also identified four facilities, all from the same company, that are sources of hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI) from coil coating operations, according to the 2011 NEI. We found no operating permits that included a limit on Cr-VI. Industry information indicated that for the past 20 years, the coil coating producers have worked unsuccessfully to replace the hexavalent chromate ion with more benign corrosion-inhibiting species that give the same long-term protection to metals. The EPA contacted representatives from the National Coil Coaters Association (NCCA) and the company reporting the Cr-VI to ask about the specific emissions and emission sources. The company reporting the chromium compound emissions reported that it had always assumed that a small percentage of the chromium compounds deposited on the metal coil during the coil pretreatment and the curing of the prime coat were emitted as aerosolized chromium but did not provide a mechanism to explain why that would happen and did not have the analytical data to support the claim. The EPA reviewed all studies related to Cr-VI and did not find a study on the aerosolization of chromium from processes similar to the coil coating processes. The industry representatives also reported that they had communicated with the pretreatment process and coating vendors, who all reported that the chromium compounds in the pretreatment process and in the coatings should not enter the atmosphere because they are not volatilized at the temperatures of the curing ovens or the thermal oxidizers used as controls.

2.4 Site Visits

The EPA conducted two site visits to metal coil surface coating facilities in support of this technology review. These facilities were: Precoat Industries located in Columbia, South Carolina and Alcoa Warrick Operations located in Evansville, Indiana. Site visit reports for these facilities are included in the Metal Coil docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0685).

2.5 Industry Information

Industry Background

We gathered industry background information from a variety of sources to support the coil coating technology review including the National Coil Coaters Association (NCCA) and the American Coatings Association's (ACA) Industry Market Analysis (9[th] edition). The NCCA is the industry's trade association. It lists 73 members on its web site, some of which are coating manufacturers and material suppliers to the industry and are not coil coaters.

The ACA market analysis of the coil coating industry is concentrated in Chapter 14 titled "Metal Building Products for Aluminum Extrusions and Siding." The ACA market analysis noted that about 75 percent of coil coated metal is used in metal building products for sidewalls, siding, roofing, garage doors, and entry doors; 11 percent of coil coated metal is used to construct appliances and metal office furniture; 9 percent of coil coated metal is used by the transportation sector for side panels for trailers and numerous automotive parts; and the remaining 5 percent of coil coated metal is used in miscellaneous applications. Pre-coated coil substrate provides an alternative to in-house painting by facilities that manufacture the metal products (original equipment manufacturers or OEMs) because coil coating eliminates OEM paint lines and the resulting HAP and VOC emissions. The ACA market analysis reported that using coil coating as an alternative to in-house liquid coatings for OEMs has grown, particularly during the 2010-2012 period.

The market analysis reported that in 2014, coil and extrusion coatings accounted for 28.7 million gallons worth $908 million and described the coil coating market as a mature market. Some products, such as cementitious board, stucco, vinyl siding, and structural plastic substrates, compete with coil coated metal as a building product and the use of OEM powder coating competes with coil coated metal in the home appliances market. However, the growth in metal roofs could lead to increased demand for coil coated metal. The market analysis also reported that coil coaters have put an emphasis on thinner film coatings, and this practice has contributed to flat volume growth of coil coating consumption.

The market analysis reported that three coating companies supply 80 percent of the market with coil coatings and that 75 percent of coil coated metal, by area, is steel and the remainder is aluminum.

Coating Chemistry Background

The ACA market analysis reported that a variety of unique coating chemistries with special properties (formability, durability, weatherability, damage resistance, and corrosion, chemical and stain resistance) are used in the coil coating market. The coatings used for coil coating are often determined by the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) who fabricate products from the coated metal and bring them to market. These coatings include:

 Polyester coatings especially engineered for appliance needs require properties for appearance, stain resistance, and resistance to damage during shipping.
 Weatherable polyester coatings dominate the industry among non-architectural coatings, such as the sidewalls of truck trailers. Other common coating types include epoxies, epoxyacrylics, and acrylics.
 Fluropolymer coatings, such as polyvinylidenedifluoride (PVDF), have excellent weatherability characteristics and provide 20- to 40-year or lifetime warranties. These coatings are typically used on exterior metal cladding and roofing in commercial and residential applications and are more expensive than non-fluorinated resins.
 Siliconized polyesters are also used on exterior construction panels. They are intermediate in price between PVDF coatings and weatherable polyester coatings.
 Plastisol coatings, based on polyvinyl chloride, are used in construction applications where chemical resistance is needed, such as chemical plants, smelting operations, and agricultural animal containment.
 Chromated coatings, such as primers containing strontium chromate (hexavalent chromium) are used for their corrosion protection properties.

The ACA market analysis notes that coil coaters have been working for the past 20 years to replace primers that contain hexavalent chromium (associated with strontium chromate) with primers that have the same performance in long term protection of metal. The analysis noted that this has been an issue in Europe and could also become an issue in the Asia Pacific region.

Waterborne coatings are seldom used and powder coatings are not used for coil coating applications. The ACA market analysis stated that less than 1 percent of all coil coatings were waterborne coatings in 2014. The analysis predicted that the use of waterborne coatings was not likely to increase because they do not have the same properties as solvent borne coatings and require greater heat to drive off water and cure than solvent borne coatings. Powder coatings are not feasible for coil coating because they require slower line speeds, and film thickness is harder to control, compared to liquid coatings, according to the ACA market analysis.

Background on Control of Emissions

The ACA market analysis reported that U.S. coil coating facilities generally have thermal oxidizers to control VOC and HAP emissions, which agrees with our permit review. State operating permits showed that all but two facilities were equipped with a thermal oxidizer on at least one coil production line. The thermal oxidizers use the organic paint solvent vapors as a fuel supplement and return the heat to their curing ovens or use the heat elsewhere in the facility. The ACA market analysis also noted that because the solvent emissions are already controlled, coil coaters have little incentive to convert to waterborne coatings. Similarly, the coil coaters have little interest in ultraviolet or electron beam cured coating technologies because coil coaters believe that the energy costs would be higher than with thermally cured coatings.

3.0	TECHNOLOGY REVIEW FOR SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS

Process Description and Emission Sources

The metal coil coating process is a continuous operation that begins with a roll or "coil" of bare sheet metal and ends with a coated roll or coil of sheet metal that has a surface finish on one or both sides. Coil coated metals (generally steel and aluminum) are used in the manufacturing of products that require bending and stretching the coated metal into the appropriate shape for the final product with little or no cracking of the coating.

A typical coil coating line consists of an inlet station, where the metal strip is unrolled from the coil and enters the process; a metal cleaning and pretreatment section, where the metal is prepared for the coating application; a coating section, which may consist of a single coating station and curing oven or may consist of a prime coating station and curing oven and a finish coating station and curing oven; and an exit station, where the finished metal strip is repackaged into a roll or coil.

The normal technique by which coatings are applied in the coil coating industry is roll coating. In this technique, a roller picks up the coating and transfers the coating to the moving metal strip. Roll coating is considered to have 100 percent transfer efficiency. Coil coatings are applied in two main steps: prime coat and finish coat. Prime coat and finish coat operations both contribute to VOC and HAP emissions.

The VOC and HAP emissions result from the evaporation of organic solvents from the applied coating during the drying process. These coatings generally contain organic solvents such as ketones, esters, ethers, and aromatics. The major HAP emitted from the metal coil coating process, according to the 2011 and 2014 NEI, include xylenes (isomers and mixtures), glycol ethers, toluene, naphthalene, isophorone. ethyl benzene, and methyl isobutyl ketone. Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) is also used as a solvent in these coatings, but MEK was removed from the list of HAP in December of 2005. It is unlikely that this delisting impacted the list of major sources, pursuant to 40 CFR 63.5130(a), because the compliance date for existing metal coil surface coating sources was June 10, 2005, before the MEK delisting date.

3.1	Summary of Existing MACT Level of Control

The Metal Coil NESHAP promulgated first in 2002 limits emissions of HAP from major sources that coat metal coil. The portions of the metal coil coating line to which the emission limits apply are the coating application stations and associated curing ovens. The wet section/pretreatment and quench operations are part of the metal coil coating line but are not subject to the emission limitations. A coil coating line does not include ancillary operations such as mixing/thinning, cleaning, wastewater treatment, and storage of coating material.

The Metal Coil NESHAP provides options for limiting organic HAP emissions to one of the following specified levels (these compliance options apply to an individual coil coating line, to multiple lines as a group, or to the entire affected source):

 Use only individually compliant coatings with an organic HAP content that does not exceed 0.046 kg/liter of solids applied.
 Use coatings with an average organic HAP content of 0.046 kg/liter of solids on a rolling 12-month average.
 Either a capture system and add-on control device to reduce emissions by 98 percent or use a 100 percent efficient capture system and an oxidizer to reduce organic HAP emissions to no more than 20 ppmv as carbon.
 Use a combination of compliant coatings and control devices to maintain an average equivalent emission rate of organic HAP not exceeding 0.046 kg/liter of solids on a rolling 12-month average basis.

Capture systems are designed to collect solvent-laden air and direct it to a control device. When an entire emission source is enclosed such that 100 percent of the emissions and ventilation air is directed to a control device, the capture system is called a permanent total enclosure (PTE). EPA Method 204 outlines the criteria for the design and operation of a PTE.

A 98-percent facility-wide coating line overall control efficiency (i.e., the PTE capture efficiency multiplied by the HAP destruction efficiency) was determined to be the MACT floor for both existing and new coil coating sources. Most facilities had installed thermal oxidizers to control emissions of VOC per NSPS (40 CFR Part 60 subpart TT) requirements prior to MACT development (see Section 3.3.1 for a more comprehensive breakdown of exiting controls). The thermal oxidizers use the organic solvent vapors from the paint as a fuel supplement and return the heat to curing ovens or use the heat elsewhere in the facility. When developing the Metal Coil NESHAP, the EPA determined whether existing thermal oxidizers would need to be upgraded or replaced according to their remaining useful life and the associated costs and emission reductions. In this analysis for existing sources, the EPA estimated a cost effectiveness of approximately $4,500 to remove each ton of HAP.

The standard also sets operating limits for capture systems and add-on control devices. These limits are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Subpart SSSS Operating Limits for Capture Systems and Add On Control Devices

Control Device
                                Operating Limit
1. Thermal oxidizer
a. The average combustion temperature in any 3-hour period must not fall below the combustion temperature limit established according to §63.5160(d)(3)(i).

Note: Per the U.S. EPA's Applicability Determination Index Control Number M040025, for facilities using thermal incinerators, the MACT subpart SSSS effluent gas monitoring requirements may be streamlined with the similar NSPS subpart TT monitoring requirements.
2. Catalytic oxidizer
a. The average temperature measured just before the catalyst bed in any 3-hour period must not fall below the limit established according to §63.5160(d)(3)(ii); and either

b. Ensure that the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed in any 3-hour period does not fall below the temperature difference limit established according to §63.5160(d)(3)(ii); or

c. Develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan according to §63.5160(d)(3)(ii).
3. Emission capture system
Develop a monitoring plan that identifies operating parameters to be monitored and specifies operating limits according to §63.5150(a)(4)

The rule does not specify work practice standards to minimize organic HAP emissions.

To collect data for the MACT floor, the EPA sent a total of 110 companies performing metal coil surface coating surveys in 1996 and 1997 with questions on HAP use and emission controls in metal coil surface coating operations. A total of 89 coil coating facilities representing 105 coil coating lines returned completed questionnaires. All of the 105 coating lines had some sort of add-on emissions control, as follows:

 79 had thermal oxidizers;
 24 had catalytic oxidizers;
 2 had condenser/scrubber systems.

In addition, 45 of the coating lines were reported to be fitted with PTE to capture emissions. Following the survey, the EPA conducted a study to confirm the quality of capture and control efficiency data. Based on the verified data, the EPA determined at proposal that the MACT floor was the use of a PTE and a thermal oxidizer capable of achieving at least 98 percent organic HAP destruction efficiency, for an overall capture and control efficiency of 98 percent. The EPA could not identify any control technologies more stringent than the MACT floor technology. The EPA did not revise the MACT determination in the final rule as a result of any new information received in public comments.

3.2	Identified Control Measures for Surface Coating Operations

The practices, processes, and control technologies evaluated for rules promulgated subsequent to the Metal Coil NESHAP (the area source rules and NESHAP listed in Table 2 above) and their applicability to metal coil coating are discussed in the following sections.

3.2.1	Add-On Control Technology or Other Measures Not Identified and Considered During MACT Development

The following measures were identified and considered during MACT development, but were not considered to be feasible, based on industry comment or on information that was gathered about the coil coating process from industry publications and from various EPA background documents and publications. Therefore, we do not consider these measures to represent a development under CAA section 112(d)(6).

Waterborne coating: Waterborne coatings generally produce lower levels of organic emissions, as compared to uncontrolled solvent borne coatings, but they are not available in formulations that are suitable for all coil coating end-product applications.  Furthermore, coil coaters themselves generally have solvent destruction systems in place, which enables them to use organic paint solvents as a fuel supplement.

Low energy electron beam/ultraviolet (EB/UV) cured coatings: Since the early 1990s (when commercial scale UV/EB surface coating technology production lines began operation) technical advancements in acrylate functional polymer chemistry have increased. These advancements improved weathering characteristics and film adhesion and the use of UV/EB technology.  Compared with conventional hot air drying and curing methods, EB/UV curing may eliminate the need for large thermal ovens and solvent incinerators, and could reduce energy needs. However, US coil coating facilities generally believe that the cost of the energy required to cure UV and or EB coating would be higher than current costs associated with conventional thermally cured coatings.

Powder Coating: Powder coating is not used on U.S. coil coating lines. Coil powder coating would require slower line speeds and would not provide coil coaters the ability to control film thickness and edge overlap.[,] [,]

Carbon Adsorption: Although technologically feasible, the 1998 NESHAP survey confirmed that no U.S. coil coaters used carbon adsorption. The high temperature of the oven exhaust would inhibit adsorption of volatile organic compounds on activated carbon in the adsorber beds. Adsorption is usually used only for coating application exhaust streams at temperatures below and no higher than approximately 100°F. Desorption using heated air or steam, to remove bound pollutants and regenerate the adsorber beds, begins at about 250°F.

Subsequent NESHAPs:

The following subsequent surface coating NESHAP identified PTE and RTO as developments in add-on control technology. The Metal Coil NESHAP already includes a compliance option involving the use of a PTE and an add-on control device and these were considered in the development of the Metal Coil NESHAP, so they do not represent a development in control technology under CAA section 112(d)(6).

Printing and Publishing: The EPA examined the option of retrofitting permanent total enclosures (PTE) onto controlled presses that do not already have PTEs. A PTE improves the capture of solvent HAP from inks and delivers the additional captured solvent HAP to a control device.

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair: The EPA identified an add-on control device, a concentrator/RTO, installed in 2009 at one shipbuilding and ship repair facility in California. The control device consisted of rotary concentrators followed by RTOs on five large, custom-built spray booths to control volatile organic emissions from some of the coating operations. The system is capable of achieving 95 percent control efficiency for the VOHAP emissions captured by the spray booths (which were estimated to capture 90 percent of the VOHAP emissions).

Wood Furniture Manufacturing: The technology review identified the use of a RTO on a spray booth as a development for the coating of flat panels using an automated high-speed coating process. The technology review identified one facility using this control and fewer than five facilities that could install this technology.

3.2.2	Improvements in Add-On Control Technology or Other Equipment for Organic HAP Emissions That Were Identified and Considered During MACT Development

In addition to the review of regulatory actions promulgated subsequent to the Metal Coil NESHAP, other data sources were considered, including the RBLC, state regulations, and industry information, as discussed in sections 2 and 3. Our review concluded that there are no improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment. The add-on controls that are now available have essentially the same emission reduction performance (i.e., 98 percent volatile organic compound destruction efficiency) as those that were available when the NESHAP was proposed and promulgated.

3.2.3	Work Practices and Procedures Not Identified and Considered During MACT Development

No additional work practices or procedures were identified that could be applied to the affected source that were not already identified and considered during MACT development. The facility survey, conducted during MACT development, revealed that several types of work practices and housekeeping techniques were being used.

Identified procedures included:

 Improving substrate pretreatment methods to control the amount of chemicals being discarded.
 Optimizing production run scheduling to generate long production runs per color to reduce color changeovers.
 Keeping all containers covered at all times except during filling and emptying operations.
 Cleaning coating rolls and pans inside enclosed coating booths to ensure that emissions are captured and controlled.
 Keeping all solvent soaked rags in closed containers.
 Reducing paint spillage when filling totes.
 Improving paint inventory systems by tracking and recording paint consumption on a revised manufacturing order which facilitates the prioritization of drums of paint such that the shelf life is not exceeded, thus reducing the amount of hazardous waste resulting from degraded paint.
 Conducting employee training and awareness programs to aid in the implementation of process changes designed to minimize paint-related waste generation.
 Conducting training and department housekeeping inspections.

The facility survey identified the following work practices for coating line cleanup
operations:
 Cleaning solvent is typically transferred into closed containers which are then used to dispense the solvent at the production line.
 Soak tanks used for cleaning rollers or other miscellaneous parts removed from the line are typically equipped with covers.
 Containers that are typically used to collect liquid waste are equipped with covers.
 Solvent-soaked rags are stored in closed containers or are compressed to remove free solvent before storage.

However, the final rule applied only to the coating application stations and the associated curing ovens (i.e., the affected source). The final rule did not apply to coating storage and mixing/thinning operations and did not apply to the equipment cleaning operations which are the primary operations to which the work practices would have been applied. No other work practices or procedures were included in the final rule.

3.2.4	Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied that was not identified and considered during MACT development.

Pollution prevention (P2) alternatives, including coating product reformulations, are currently used by the metal coil industry and were considered during the MACT floor development, specifically high solids and waterborne coatings. Cleaning is excluded from the definition of a coil coating line in the Metal Coil NESHAP, and cleaning operations are not regulated. It should be noted that all subsequent NESHAP, listed above in Table 1, contain P2 measures. Because P2 measures were considered in development of the Metal Coil NESHAP, they do not represent a development in control technology under CAA section 112(d)(6). It should also be noted that any P2 measures that have to do with cleaning would not apply to the coil coating NESHAP since that activity is excluded from the rule. The NESHAP survey data showed that parts and equipment cleaning contribute approximately four percent of HAP emissions from coil coating operations.

 Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards).

As discussed above, a 98-percent facility-wide coating line overall control efficiency was determined to be the MACT floor for both existing and new coil coating sources. Most facilities had installed thermal oxidizers to control emissions of VOC per NSPS (40 CFR Part 60 subpart TT) requirements prior to MACT development. When developing the Metal Coil NESHAP, the EPA determined whether existing thermal oxidizers would need to be upgraded or replaced according to their remaining useful life and the associated costs and emission reductions. In this analysis for existing sources, the EPA estimated a cost effectiveness of approximately $4,500 to remove each ton of HAP.

The information collected for this technology review has confirmed that the majority of facilities continue to comply with the emission limits by using thermal oxidizers. It was also confirmed that the thermal oxidizers use the organic solvent vapors from the paint as a fuel supplement and return the heat to curing ovens or use the heat elsewhere in the facility. These cost savings have not been documented but would result in a lower cost effectiveness if they could be quantified.

The EPA did not identify any developments in processes, practices or control technologies for the metal coil source category as a result of this technology review. Therefore, we did not re-evaluate the cost (or cost-effectiveness) of applying additional add-on controls.


[Federal Register: October 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 202)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59164-59166]
[DOCID:fr19oc07-4]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 748

[Docket No. 070817469-7596-01]
RIN 0694-AE11

Approved End-Users and Respective Eligible Items for the People's
Republic of China (PRC) Under Authorization Validated End-User (VEU)

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to list names of
end-users in the People's Republic of China (PRC) approved to receive
exports, reexports and transfers of certain items under Authorization
Validated End-User (VEU). In a final rule published in the Federal
Register, BIS revised and clarified U.S. export control policy for the
PRC, establishing Authorization VEU and identifying the PRC as the
initial eligible destination. This rule identifies five specific
validated end-users.

DATES: This rule is effective November 19, 2007. Although there is no
formal comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome
on a continuing basis.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0694-AE11 (VEU),
by any of the following methods:
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include ``RIN 0694-AE11 (VEU)''
in the subject line of the message.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please alert the Regulatory Policy Division,
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, if you are faxing comments.
    Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Sheila Quarterman, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy
Division, 14th St. & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington,
DC 20230, Attn: RIN 0694-AE11 (VEU).
    Send comments regarding the collection of information associated
with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to David
Rostker, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>; and to the Regulatory

Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of
Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044. Comments on this
collection of information should be submitted separately from comments
on the final rule (i.e. RIN 0694-AE11 (VEU))--all comments on the
latter should be submitted by one of the three methods outlined above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Rithmire, Chairman, End-User
Review Committee, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of
Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044; by telephone (202) 482-
6105; or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Authorization Validated End-User (VEU): Initial List of Approved End-
Users, Eligible Items and Destinations

    Consistent with U.S. Government policy to facilitate trade for
civilian end-uses in the PRC, BIS amended the EAR in a final rule on
June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33646) by creating a new authorization for
``validated end-users'' (VEUs) located in eligible destinations to
which eligible items (commodities, software and technology, except
those controlled for missile technology or crime control reasons) may
be exported, reexported or transferred without a license, in
conformance with Section 748.15 of the EAR. As established in the June
19 rule, the PRC is the initial destination eligible for exports,
reexports and transfers under Authorization VEU.
    Authorization VEU is a mechanism to facilitate increased high-
technology exports to companies in the PRC that have a record of using
such items responsibly. VEUs will be able to obtain eligible items that
are on the Commerce Control List without having to wait for their
suppliers to obtain export licenses from BIS. A wide range of items are
eligible for Authorization VEU. In addition, Authorization VEU may be
used by foreign reexporters, and does not have an expiration date.
    This final rule amends Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR to
identify five companies with 14 eligible facilities in the PRC as VEUs
and to identify the items that may be exported, reexported, or
transferred to them. The VEUs listed in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748
were reviewed and approved by the U.S. Government in accordance with
the provisions of Section 748.15 and Supplement Nos. 8 and 9 to Part
748 of the EAR.
    Approving these five end-users as VEUs is expected to facilitate
exports to civilian end-users in the PRC. After analyzing historical
licensing data, BIS anticipates that approval of these five companies
as VEUs should significantly reduce the value of trade that requires a
license for export or reexport to the PRC. Approximately $54 million of
items described as ``eligible items'' in this notice were licensed for
export to these five end-users in 2006. This $54 million represents
about 18% of all licensed exports to the PRC in 2006. Approval of these
companies as VEUs also represents a significant savings of time for
suppliers and end-users. Authorization VEU will eliminate the burden on
exporters and reexporters of preparing license applications and on BIS
for processing such applications, as exports and reexports will be made
without licenses. This savings will enable exporters and reexporters to
supply the VEUs much more quickly, thus enhancing the competitiveness
of the exporters, reexporters, and end-users in the PRC.
    To ensure appropriate facilitation of exports and reexports, on-
site reviews of the VEUs may be warranted pursuant to paragraph
748.15(a)(2) and Section 7(iv) of Supplement No. 8 to Part 748 of the
EAR. If such reviews are warranted, BIS will inform the PRC Ministry of
Commerce.
    Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act has been in
lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17,
2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp, p. 783 (2002)), as extended most recently by
the Notice of August 15, 2007 (72 FR 46137, August 16, 2007), has
continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Act, as
appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive
Order 13222.

Rulemaking

    1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA),
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves
collections previously approved by the OMB under control number 0694-
0088, ``Multi-Purpose Application'', which carries a burden hour
estimate of 58 minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748; and for
recordkeeping, reporting and review requirements in connection with
Authorization Validated End-User, which carries an estimated burden of
30

minutes per submission. This rule is expected to result in a decrease
in license applications submitted to BIS. Total burden hours associated
with the Paperwork Reduction Act and Office and Management and Budget
control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase significantly as
a result of this rule.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring
notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public
participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because
this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the
United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that
a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment
be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking
and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for
this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law,
the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) are not applicable. Therefore, this regulation is issued
in final form. Although there is no formal comment period, public
comments on this regulation are welcome on a continuing basis. Comments
should be submitted to Sheila Quarterman, Regulatory Policy Division,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273,
Washington, DC 20044.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 748

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

0
Accordingly, part 748 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR
Parts 730-799) is amended as follows:

PART 748--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR Part 748 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66
FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 3, 2006, 71 FR
44551 (August 7, 2006); Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137
(August 16, 2007).

0
2. Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 is added to read as follows:

Supplement No. 7 to Part 748--Authorization Validated End-User (VEU):
List of Validated End-Users, Respective Items Eligible for Export,
Reexport and Transfer, and Eligible Destinations

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Eligible Items (By
     Validated End-User               ECCN)         Eligible Destination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Materials China, Ltd  2B230; 2B350.g.3;     Applied Materials
                               3B001.b.1;            China, Ltd.--
                               3B001.c.2; 3B001.e;   Shanghai Depot c/o
                               3B001.f.2; 3C001;     Shanghai Applied
                               3C002.                Materials Technical
                                                     Service Center, 368
                                                     Zhang Jiang Road,
                                                     Pudong Zhangjiang
                                                     Hi-Tech Park,
                                                     Shanghai, China
                                                     201203.
                                                    Applied Materials
                                                     China, Ltd.--
                                                     Beijing Depot c/o
                                                     Beijing Applied
                                                     Materials Technical
                                                     Service Center,
                                                     Bldg. 9, Area A,
                                                     No. 1 North Di
                                                     Sheng Street, BDA,
                                                     Beijing, China
                                                     100176.
                                                    Applied Materials
                                                     China, Ltd.--Wuxi
                                                     Depot c/o Sinotrans
                                                     Jiangsu Group
                                                     Fuchang Co., J5 A-B
                                                     Wuxi Export
                                                     Processing Zone 287
                                                     Gaolang Road, Wuxi
                                                     New District, Wuxi
                                                     Jiangsu China
                                                     214028.
BHA Aerocomposite Parts Co.,  1A002.a; 1B001.f;     BHA Aerocomposite
 Ltd.                          1C010.b; 1C010.e;     Parts Co., Ltd.,
                               1D001 (limited to     No. 4-388 Heibei
                               ``software''          Road, Tanggu
                               specially designed    Tianjin, China.
                               or modified for the
                               ``development'',
                               ``production'' or
                               ``use'' of
                               equipment
                               controlled by
                               1B001.f); 1E001
                               (limited to
                               ``technology''
                               according to the
                               General Technology
                               Note for the
                               ``development'' or
                               ``production'' of
                               items controlled by
                               1A002.a, 1B001.f,
                               1C010.b & .e, and
                               2B001.a);
                               2B001.e.1.a; 2D001
                               (limited to
                               ``software,'' other
                               than that
                               controlled by
                               2D002, specially
                               designed or
                               modified for the
                               ``development'',
                               ``production'' or
                               ``use'' of
                               equipment
                               controlled by
                               2B001.e.1.a); 2D002
                               (limited to
                               ``software'' for
                               electronic devices,
                               even when residing
                               in an electronic
                               device or system,
                               enabling such
                               devices or systems
                               to function as a
                               ``numerical
                               control'' unit,
                               capable of
                               coordinating
                               simultaneously more
                               than 4 axes for
                               ``contouring
                               control''
                               controlled by
                               2B001.e.1.a).
National Semiconductor        3A001.a.5.a.1;        National
 Corporation.                  3A001.a.5.a.2;        Semiconductor Hong
                               3A001.a.5.a.3;        Kong Limited,
                               3A001.a.5.a.4.        Beijing
                                                     Representative
                                                     Office, Room 604,
                                                     CN Resources
                                                     Building, No. 8
                                                     Jianggumenbei A,
                                                     Beijing, China
                                                     100005.
                                                    National
                                                     Semiconductor Hong
                                                     Kong Limited,
                                                     Shanghai
                                                     Representative
                                                     Office, Room 903-
                                                     905 Central Plaza,
                                                     No. 227 Huangpi
                                                     Road, North
                                                     Shanghai, China
                                                     200003.

                                                    National
                                                     Semiconductor Hong
                                                     Kong Limited,
                                                     Shenzhen
                                                     Representative
                                                     Office, Room 1709
                                                     Di Wang Commercial
                                                     Centre, Shung Hing
                                                     Square, 5002 Shenna
                                                     Road East,
                                                     Shenzhen, China
                                                     518008.
Semiconductor Manufacturing   1C350.c.3;            Semiconductor
 International Corporation.    1C350.d.7;            Manufacturing
                               2B006.b.1; 2B230;     International
                               2B350.d.2;            (Shanghai)
                               2B350.g.3;            Corporation, 18
                               2B350.i.4; 3B001.a;   Zhang Jiang Rd.,
                               3B001.b; 3B001.c;     Pudong New Area,
                               3B001.d; 3B001.e;     Shanghai, China
                               3B001.f; 3C001;       201203.
                               3C002; 3C004;        Semiconductor
                               5B002; 5E002          Manufacturing
                               (limited to           International
                               ``technology''        (Tianjin)
                               according to the      Corporation, 19
                               General Technology    Xing Hua Avenue, Xi
                               Note for the          Qing Economic
                               ``production'' of     Development Area,
                               integrated circuits   Tianjin, China
                               controlled by ECCN    300385.
                               5A002 that has been  Semiconductor
                               successfully          Manufacturing
                               reviewed under the    International
                               encryption review     (Beijing)
                               process specified     Corporation, No. 18
                               in Sec.  Sec.         Wen Chang Road,
                               740.17.b.2 or         Beijing Economic-
                               740.17.b.3 and        Technological
                               742.15 of the EAR).   Development Area,
                                                     Beijing, China
                                                     100176.
                                                    Semiconductor
                                                     Manufacturing
                                                     International
                                                     (Chengdu)
                                                     Corporation,
                                                     Assembly and
                                                     Testing (AT2)
                                                     Facility, 8-8 Kexin
                                                     Road, Export
                                                     Processing Zone
                                                     (West Area),
                                                     Chengdu, China
                                                     611731.
                                                    Cension
                                                     Semiconductor
                                                     Manufacturing
                                                     Corporation, 3/F, 8-
                                                     1 Kexin Road,
                                                     Export Processing
                                                     Zone (West Area),
                                                     Chengdu, China
                                                     611731.
Shanghai Hua Hong NEC         1C350.c.3;            Headquarters and
 Electronics Company, Ltd.     1C350.d.7; 2B230;     Fab. 1 of HHNEC,
                               2B350.d.2 2B350.g.3   No. 1188 Chuan Qiao
                               2B350.i.4;            Rd., Pu Dong,
                               3B001.c.2; 3C002;     Shanghai, China
                               3C004.                201206.
                                                    Fab. 2 of HHNEC, No.
                                                     668 Guo Shou Jing
                                                     Rd., Zhang Jiang
                                                     High Tech Park, Pu
                                                     Dong, Shanghai,
                                                     China 201203.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: October 16, 2007.
Christopher A. Padilla,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-20642 Filed 10-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34778-34780]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14099]

Vol. 77

Monday,

No. 112

June 11, 2012

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Seventieth Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; Receipt of Report
and Request for Comments; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 /
Notices

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0298; FRL-9349-9]

Seventieth Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; Receipt of
Report and Request for Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Interagency Testing
Committee (ITC) transmitted its 70th ITC Report to the EPA
Administrator on May 3, 2012. Under TSCA, the ITC is required to
prepare and submit a report to the EPA Administrator every 6 months
even if there are no changes to the TSCA section 4(e) Priority Testing
List. In the 70th ITC Report, which is included with this notice, the
ITC is not making any changes to the TSCA section 4(e) Priority Testing
List.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0298, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0298. The DCO is open from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2012-0298. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or email. The
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: Dr.
John D. Walker, Interagency Testing Committee (7401M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-7527; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This notice is directed to the public in general. It may, however,
be of particular interest to you if you manufacture (defined by statute
to include import) and/or process TSCA-covered chemicals and you may be
identified by the North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes 325 and 32411. Because this notice is directed to the
general public and other entities may also be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
interested in this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-DOM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.

    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 260l et seq.)
authorizes the EPA Administrator to promulgate regulations under TSCA
section 4(a) requiring testing of chemicals and chemical groups in
order to develop data relevant to determining the risks that such
chemicals and chemical groups may present to health or the environment.
Section 4(e) of TSCA established the ITC to recommend chemicals and
chemical groups to the EPA Administrator for priority testing
consideration. Section 4(e) of TSCA directs the ITC to revise the TSCA
section 4(e) Priority Testing List at least every 6 months.
    You may access additional information about the ITC at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/itc.

A. The 70th ITC Report

    The ITC is not making any changes to the TSCA section 4(e) Priority
Testing List.

B. Status of the Priority Testing List

    The Priority Testing List includes 2 alkylphenols; 16 chemicals
with insufficient dermal absorption rate data, and 164 High Production
Volume (HPV) Challenge Program orphan chemicals; a category of cadmium
compounds including any unique chemical substance that contains cadmium
as part of that chemical's structure; 6 non-phthalate plasticizers; 25
phosphate ester flame retardants; 2 other flame retardants; 9 chemicals
to which children living near hazardous waste sites may be exposed; and
a category of 69 diisocyanates and related compounds (including 14
Action Plan chemicals and 55 related compounds).

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances.

    Dated: June 1, 2012.
Wendy C. Hamnett,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Seventieth Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

Table of Contents

Summary
I. Background
II. ITC's Activities During this Reporting Period (December 2011 to
May 2012)
III. The TSCA Interagency Testing Committee

Summary

    The ITC is not making any changes to the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) section 4(e) Priority Testing List.
    The TSCA section 4(e) Priority Testing List is Table 1 of this
unit.

                           Table 1--TSCA Section 4(e) Priority Testing List (May 2012)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ITC Report                   Date                 Chemical name/group                  Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31...........................  January 1993.......  2 chemicals with insufficient       Designated.
                                                     dermal absorption rate data,
                                                     methylcyclohexane and
                                                     cyclopentane.
32...........................  May 1993...........  10 chemicals with insufficient      Designated.
                                                     dermal absorption rate data.
35...........................  November 1994......  4 chemicals with insufficient       Designated.
                                                     dermal absorption rate data,
                                                     cyclopentadiene, formamide, 1,2,3-
                                                     trichloropropane, and m-
                                                     nitrotoluene.
37...........................  November 1995......  Branched 4-nonylphenol (mixed       Recommended.
                                                     isomers).
41...........................  November 1997......  Phenol, 4-(1,1,3,3-                 Recommended.
                                                     tetramethylbutyl)-.
55...........................  December 2004......  161 High Production Volume (HPV)    Recommended.
                                                     Challenge Program orphan
                                                     chemicals.
56...........................  August 2005........  3 HPV Challenge Program orphan      Recommended.
                                                     chemicals.
68...........................  May 2011...........  Cadmium...........................  Recommended.
69...........................  November 2011......  Cadmium compounds.................  Recommended.
69...........................  November 2011......  6 non-phthalate plasticizers......  Recommended.
69...........................  November 2011......  25 phosphate ester flame            Recommended.
                                                     retardants.
69...........................  November 2011......  2 other flame retardants..........  Recommended.
69...........................  November 2011......  9 chemicals to which children       Recommended.
                                                     living near hazardous waste sites
                                                     may be exposed.
69...........................  November 2011......  69 diisocyanates and related        Recommended.
                                                     compounds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    The ITC was established by section 4(e) of TSCA ``to make
recommendations to the Administrator respecting the chemical substances
and mixtures to which the Administrator should give priority
consideration for the promulgation of rules for testing under section
4(a). * * * At least every six months * * *, the Committee shall make
such revisions to the Priority Testing List as it determines to be
necessary and transmit them to the Administrator together with the
Committee's reasons for the revisions'' (Public Law 94-469, 90 Stat.
2003 et seq., 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). ITC reports are available from
the ITC's Web site (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/itc) within a few days
of submission to the EPA Administrator and from regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) after publication in the Federal Register. The
ITC produces its revisions to the Priority Testing List with
administrative and technical support from the ITC staff, ITC members,
and their U.S. Government organizations, and contract support provided
by EPA. ITC members and staff are listed at the end of this report.

II. ITC's Activities During this Reporting Period (December 2011 to May
2012)

    During this reporting period, the ITC discussed actions taken
during previous reporting periods.

III. The TSCA Interagency Testing Committee

Statutory Organizations with Representatives

Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Dianne L. Poster,
Alternate

Environmental Protection Agency
Robert W. Jones, Member
John E. Schaeffer, Alternate
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Nigel Walker, Member
Scott Masten, Alternate
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Gayle DeBord, Member
Dennis W. Lynch, Alternate
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Janet Carter, Member
Thomas Nerad, Alternate

Liaison Organizations with Representatives

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Glenn D. Todd, Member
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Dominique Johnson, Member
Department of Agriculture
Clifford P. Rice, Member
Cathleen J. Hapeman, Alternate
Department of Defense
Laurie E. Roszell, Member
Department of the Interior
Barnett A. Rattner, Member
Food and Drug Administration
Kirk Arvidson, Member
Ronald F. Chanderbhan, Alternate

ITC Staff

John D. Walker, Director
Carol Savage, Administrative Assistant (NOWCC Employee)
    TSCA Interagency Testing Committee (7401M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>url: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/itc.

[FR Doc. 2012-14099 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P