[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 57 (Monday, March 24, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15604-15631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5589]
[[Page 15603]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 51 and 59
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol
Coatings; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 15604]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51 and 59
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971; FRL-8498-6]
RIN 2060-AN69
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol
Coatings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for the
aerosol coatings (aerosol spray paints) category under section 183(e)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The standards implement section 183(e) of
the CAA, as amended in 1990, which requires the Administrator to
control volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from certain
categories of consumer and commercial products for purposes of reducing
VOC emissions contributing to ozone formation and ozone nonattainment.
This regulation establishes nationwide reactivity-based standards for
aerosol coatings. States have previously promulgated rules for the
aerosol coatings category based upon reductions of VOC by mass;
however, EPA has concluded that a national rule based upon the relative
reactivity approach will achieve more reduction in ozone formation than
may be achieved by a mass-based approach for this specific product
category. This rule will better control a product's contribution to
ozone formation by encouraging the use of less reactive VOC
ingredients, rather than treating all VOC in a product alike through
the traditional mass-based approach. We are also revising EPA's
regulatory definition of VOC. This revision is necessary to include
certain compounds that would otherwise be exempt in order to account
for the reactive compounds in aerosol coatings that contribute to ozone
formation. Therefore, certain compounds that would not be VOC under the
otherwise applicable definition will count towards the applicable
reactivity limits under this final regulation. The initial listing of
product categories and schedule for regulation was published on March
23, 1995 (60 FR 15264). This final action announces EPA's final
decision to list aerosol coatings for regulation under Group III of the
consumer and commercial product category for which regulations are
mandated under section 183(e) of the CAA.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective March 24, 2008. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 24,
2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business
Information (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 form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971, EPA Headquarters Library, Room 3334 in the
EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center telephone
number is (202) 566-1744, and the facsimile number for the EPA Docket
Center is (202) 566-9744. EPA visitors are required to show
photographic identification and sign the EPA visitor log. After
processing through the X-ray and magnetometer machines, visitors will
be given an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times.
Informational updates will be provided via the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm as they are available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the final rule,
contact Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, 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, NC 27711;
telephone number (919) 541-2509; facsimile number (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: [email protected]. 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, facsimile number (919) 541-3470, e-
mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Entities Potentially Affected by This Action. The entities
potentially affected by this regulation encompass all steps in aerosol
coatings operations. This includes manufacturers, processors, wholesale
distributors, or importers of aerosol coatings for sale or distribution
in the United States, or manufacturers, processors, wholesale
distributors, or importers who supply the entities listed above with
aerosol coatings for sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the
United States. The entities potentially affected by this action
include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS code Examples of regulated
Category \a\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paint and Coating Manufacturing.. 32551 Manufacturing of
lacquers, varnishes,
enamels, epoxy
coatings, oil and alkyd
vehicle, plastisols,
polyurethane, primers,
shellacs, stains, water
repellant coatings.
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical 325998 Aerosol can filling,
Production and Preparation aerosol packaging
Manufacturing. services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether you would be affected by this action, you
should examine the applicable industry description in section I.E of
the promulgation preamble. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
appropriate EPA contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this notice.
Docket. The docket number for the National Volatile Organic
Compounds Emission Standards for Aerosols Coating (40 CFR part 59,
subpart E) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971.
[[Page 15605]]
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the final rule is also available on the WWW.
Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the final rule will
be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), judicial review of the final rule is available only by filing a
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by May 23, 2008. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final action may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``if the person raising the objection can demonstrate
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such an objection [within the
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration
to EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of
the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004.
Organization of This Document. The information presented in this
notice is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. The Ozone Problem
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
C. Photochemical Reactivity
D. Role of Reactivity in VOC/Ozone Regulations
E. The Aerosol Coating Industry
II. Summary of the Final Standards and Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability of the Standards and Regulated Entities
B. VOC Regulated Under This Rule
C. Regulatory Limits
D. Compliance Dates
E. Labeling Requirements
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
G. Variance
H. Test Methods
III. Response to Significant Comments
A. Format of Regulation
B. Downwind Effects and Robustness of Relative Reactivity Scale
C. Consideration of Other Factors in the Consideration of Best
Available Control
D. Variance, Small Quantity Manufacturers and Extended
Compliance Date
E. Additional Reporting Requirements
IV. Summary of Impacts
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Energy Impacts
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
V. 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. Background
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 ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of
human health effects, as well as agricultural crop loss, and damage to
forests and ecosystems. Controlled human exposure studies show that
acute health effects are induced by short-term (1 to 2 hour) exposures
(observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)),
generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion,
and by prolonged (6 to 8 hour) exposures to ozone (observed at
concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm and possibly lower), typically while
individuals are engaged in moderate exertion. Transient effects from
acute exposures include pulmonary inflammation, respiratory symptoms,
effects on exercise performance, and increased airway responsiveness.
Epidemiological studies have shown associations between ambient ozone
levels and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased
hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Groups at increased risk
of experiencing elevated exposures include active children, outdoor
workers, and others who regularly engage in outdoor activities. Those
most susceptible to the effects of ozone include those with pre-
existing respiratory disease, children, and older adults. The
literature suggests the possibility that long-term exposures to ozone
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 section 183(e) of the CAA, 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
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and to
establish criteria for regulating VOC emissions from these products.
Section 183(e) of the CAA directed 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
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
listed for regulation, in order to achieve an effective regulatory
program in accordance with EPA's discretion under CAA section 183(e).
EPA has revised the list several times. 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). The aerosol spray paints (aerosol
coatings) category currently is listed for regulation as part of Group
III of the CAA section 183(e) list.
CAA section 183(e) directs EPA to regulate consumer and commercial
products using ``best available controls'' (BAC). CAA section
183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC as ``the degree of emissions reduction that
the Administrator
[[Page 15606]]
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 CAA
section 183(e)(4), EPA can impose ``any system or systems of regulation
as the Administrator deems appropriate, including requirements for
registration and labeling, self-monitoring and reporting, prohibitions,
limitations, or economic incentives (including marketable permits and
auctions of emissions rights) concerning the manufacture, processing,
distribution, use, consumption or disposal of the product.'' Under
these provisions, EPA has previously issued national regulations for
architectural coatings, autobody refinishing coatings, consumer
products, and portable fuel containers.\1\ \2\ \3\ \4\ \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings'' 63 FR 48848, (September 11, 1998).
\2\ ``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Automobile Refinish Coatings'' 63 FR 48806, (September 11, 1998).
\3\ ``Consumer and Commercial Products: Schedule for
Regulation'' 63 FR 48792, (September 11, 1998)
\4\ National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Consumer Products'' 63 FR 48819, (September 11, 1998).
\5\ ``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Portable Fuel Containers'' 72 FR 8428, (February 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For any category of consumer or commercial products, the
Administrator may issue control techniques guidelines (CTG) in lieu of
national regulations if the Administrator determines that such guidance
will be substantially as effective as a national regulation in reducing
emissions of VOC which contribute to ozone levels in areas which
violate the NAAQS for ozone. In many cases, a CTG can be an effective
regulatory approach to reduce emissions of VOC in nonattainment areas
because of the nature of the specific product and the uses of such
product. A critical distinction between a national rule and a CTG is
that a CTG may include provisions that affect the users of the
products. For other product categories, such as wood furniture coatings
and shipbuilding coatings, EPA has previously determined that, under
CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), a CTG would be substantially as effective as
a national rule and, therefore, issued CTGs to provide guidance to
States for development of appropriate State regulations. Most recently,
EPA determined that a CTG would be substantially as effective as a
national rule for three other Group III categories: Paper, Film and
Foil Coating; Metal Furniture Coating; and Large Appliance Coating.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques
Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Paper, Film, and Foil
Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and Large Appliance Coatings''
72 FR 57215, (October 9, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the category of aerosol coatings, EPA has determined that a
national rule applicable nationwide is the best system of regulation to
achieve necessary VOC emission reductions from this type of product.
Aerosol coatings are typically used in relatively small amounts by
consumers and others on an occasional basis and at varying times and
locations. Under such circumstances, reformulation of the VOC content
of the products is a more feasible way to achieve VOC emission
reductions, rather than through a CTG approach that would only affect a
smaller number of relatively large users.
Aerosol coatings regulations are already in place in three States
(California, Oregon, and Washington), and other States are considering
developing regulations for these products. For the companies that
market aerosol coatings in different States, trying to fulfill the
differing requirements of State rules may create administrative,
technical, and marketing problems. Although Section 183(e) does not
preempt States from having more stringent State standards, EPA's
national rule is expected to provide some degree of consistency,
predictability, and administrative ease for the industry. A national
rule also helps States reduce potential compliance problems associated
with noncompliant coatings being transported into nonattainment areas
from neighboring areas and neighboring States. A national rule will
also enable States to obtain needed VOC emission reductions from this
sector in the near term, without having to expend their limited
resources to develop similar rules in each State.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Courts have already approved EPA's creation of national
rules under section 183(e). See, ALARM Caucus v. EPA, 215 F.3d 61,76
(D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1018 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Photochemical Reactivity
There are thousands of individual species of VOC that can
participate in a series of reactions involving nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and the energy from sunlight, resulting in the
formation of ozone. The impact of a given species of VOC on formation
of ground-level ozone is sometimes referred to as its ``reactivity.''
It is generally understood that not all VOC are equal in their effects
on ground-level ozone formation. Some VOC react extremely slowly and
changes in their emissions have limited effects on ozone pollution
episodes. Some VOC form ozone more quickly than other VOC, or they may
form more ozone than other VOC. Other VOC not only form ozone
themselves, but also act as catalysts and enhance ozone formation from
other VOC. By distinguishing between more reactive and less reactive
VOC, however, EPA concludes that it may be possible to develop
regulations that will decrease ozone concentrations further or more
efficiently than by controlling all VOC equally.
Assigning a value to the reactivity of a specific VOC species is a
complex undertaking. Reactivity is not simply a property of the
compound itself; it is a property of both the compound and the
environment in which the compound is found. Therefore, the reactivity
of a specific VOC varies with VOC:NOX ratios, meteorological
conditions, the mix of other VOC in the atmosphere, and the time
interval of interest. Designing an effective regulation that takes
account of these interactions is difficult. Implementing and enforcing
such a regulation requires an extra burden for both industry and
regulators, as those impacted by the rule must characterize and track
the full chemical composition of VOC emissions rather than only having
to track total VOC content as is required by traditional mass-based
rules. EPA's September 13, 2005, final rule approving a comparable
reactivity-based aerosol coating rule as part of the California State
Implementation Plan for ozone contains additional background
information on photochemical reactivity.\8\ Recently, EPA issued
interim guidance to States regarding the use of VOC reactivity
information in the development of ozone control measures.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan and
Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)-
Removal of VOC Exemptions for California's Aerosol Coating Products
Reactivity-based Regulation'' 70 FR 53930, (September 13, 2005).
\9\ ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
in Ozone State Implementation Plans'') 70 FR 54046, (September 13,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What Research Has Been Conducted on VOC Reactivity?
Much of the initial work on reactivity scales was funded by the
California Air
[[Page 15607]]
Resources Board (CARB), which was interested in comparing the
reactivity of emissions from different alternative fuel vehicles. In
the late 1980s, CARB provided funding to William P. L. Carter at the
University of California to develop a reactivity scale. Carter
investigated 18 different methods of ranking the reactivity of
individual VOC in the atmosphere using a single-cell trajectory model
with a state-of-the-art chemical reaction mechanism.\10\ Carter
suggested three scales for further consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Carter, W. P. L. (1994) ``Development of ozone reactivity
scales for organic gases,'' J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 44: 881-
899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) scale--an ozone yield scale
derived by adjusting the NOX emissions in a base case to
yield the highest incremental reactivity of the base reactive organic
gas mixture.
ii. Maximum Ozone Incremental Reactivity (MOIR) scale--an ozone
yield scale derived by adjusting the NOX emission in a base
case to yield the highest peak ozone concentration.
iii. Equal Benefit Incremental Reactivity (EBIR) scale--an ozone
yield scale derived by adjusting the NOX emissions in a base
case scenario so VOC and NOX reductions are equally
effective in reducing ozone.
Carter concluded that, if only one scale is used for regulatory
purposes, the MIR scale is the most appropriate.\11\ The MIR scale is
defined in terms of environmental conditions where ozone production is
most sensitive to changes in hydrocarbon emissions and, therefore,
represents conditions where hydrocarbon controls would be the most
effective. CARB used the MIR scale to establish fuel-neutral VOC
emissions limits in its low-emitting vehicle and alternative fuels
regulation.\12\ \13\ Subsequently, Carter has updated the MIR scale
several times as the chemical mechanisms in the model used to derive
the scale have evolved with new scientific information. CARB
incorporated a 1999 version of the MIR scale in its own aerosol
coatings rule. The latest revision to the MIR scale was issued in 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Initial Statement of Reasons for the California Aerosol
Coatings Regulation, California Air Resources Board,'' 2000.
\12\ California Air Resources Board ``Proposed Regulations for
Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels--Staff Report and Technical
Support Document,'' State of California, Air Resources Board, P.O.
Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812, August 13, 1990.
\13\ California Air Resources Board ``Proposed Regulations for
Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels--Final Statement of Reasons,''
State of California, Air Resources Board, July 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to Carter's work, there have been other attempts to
create reactivity scales. One such effort is the work of R.G. Derwent
and co-workers, who have published articles on a scale called the
photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) scale.\14\ \15\ This
scale was designed for the emissions and meteorological conditions
prevalent in Europe. The POCP scale is generally consistent with that
of Carter, although there are some differences because it uses a
different model, chemical mechanism, and emission and meteorological
scenarios. Despite these differences, there is a good correlation of
r\2\=0.9 between the results of the POCP and the MIR scales.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin, S.M. Saunders and M.J. Pilling
(2001) ``Characterization of the Reactivities of Volatile Organic
Compounds Using a Master Chemical Mechanism,'' J. Air Waste
Management Assoc., 51: 699-707.
\15\ Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin, S.M. Saunders and M.J. Pilling
(1998) ``Photochemical Ozone Creation Potentials for Organic
Compounds in Northwest Europe Calculated with a Master Chemical
Mechanism,'' Atmos. Env., 32(14/15):2429-2441.
\16\ See http://www.narsto.org/section.src?SID=10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As CARB worked to develop reactivity-based regulations in
California, EPA began to explore the implications of applying
reactivity scales in other parts of the country. In developing its
regulations, CARB has maintained that the MIR scale is the most
appropriate metric for application in California, but cautioned that
its research has focused on California atmospheric conditions and that
the suitability of the MIR scale for regulatory purposes in other areas
has not been demonstrated. In particular, specific concerns have been
raised about the suitability of using the MIR scale in relation to
multi-day stagnation or transport scenarios or over geographic regions
with very different VOC:NOX ratios than those of California.
In 1998, EPA participated in the formation of the Reactivity
Research Working Group (RRWG), which was organized to help develop an
improved scientific basis for reactivity-related regulatory
policies.\16\ All interested parties were invited to participate. Since
that time, representatives from EPA, CARB, Environment Canada, States,
academia, and industry have met in public RRWG meetings to discuss and
coordinate research that would support this goal.
The RRWG has organized a series of research efforts to explore:
i. The sensitivity of ozone to VOC mass reductions and changes in
VOC composition under a variety of environmental conditions;
ii. The derivation and evaluation of reactivity scales using
photochemical airshed models under a variety of environmental
conditions;
iii. The development of emissions inventory processing tools for
exploring reactivity-based strategies; and
iv. The fate of VOC emissions and their availability for
atmospheric reactions.
This research has led to a number of findings that increase EPA's
confidence in the ability to develop regulatory approaches that
differentiate between specific VOC on the basis of relative reactivity.
The first two research objectives listed above were explored in a
series of three parallel modeling studies that resulted in four reports
and one journal article.\17\ \18\ \19\ \20\ \21\ EPA commissioned a
review of these reports to address a series of policy-relevant science
questions.\22\ In 2007, an additional peer review was commissioned by
EPA to assess the appropriateness of basing a national aerosol coatings
regulation on reactivity. Generally, the peer reviews support the
appropriateness of the use of the box-model based MIR metric nationwide
for the aerosol coatings category. The results are available in the
rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Carter, W.P.L., G. Tonnesen, and G. Yarwood (2003)
Investigation of VOC Reactivity Effects Using Existing Regional Air
Quality Models, Report to American Chemistry Council, Contract SC-
20.0-UCR-VOC-RRWG, April 17, 2003.
\18\ Hakami, A., M.S. Bergin, and A.G. Russell (2003) Assessment
of the Ozone and Aerosol Formation Potentials (Reactivities) of
Organic Compounds over the Eastern United States, Final Report,
Prepared for California Air Resources Board, Contract No. 00-339,
January 2003.
\19\ Hakami, A., M.S. Bergin, and A.G. Russell (2004a) Ozone
Formation Potential of Organic Compounds in the Eastern United
States: A Comparison of Episodes, Inventories, and Domains, Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 6748-6759.
\20\ Hakami, A., M. Arhami, and A.G. Russell (2004b) Further
Analysis of VOC Reactivity Metrics and Scales, Final Report to the
U.S. EPA, Contract 4D-5751-NAEX, July 2004.
\21\ Arunachalam S., R. Mathur, A. Holland, M.R. Lee, D. Olerud,
Jr., and H. Jeffries (2003) Investigation of VOC Reactivity
Assessment with Comprehensive Air Quality Modeling, Prepared for
U.S. EPA, GSA Contract GS-35F-0067K, Task Order ID:
4TCG68022755, June 2003.
\22\ Derwent, R.G. (2004) Evaluation and Characterization of
Reactivity Metrics, Final Draft, Report to the U.S. EPA, Order No.
4D-5844-NATX, November 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the RRWG-organized study and the subsequent reviews
suggest that there is good correlation between different relative
reactivity metrics calculated with photochemical airshed models,
regardless of the choice of model, model domain, scenario, or averaging
times. Moreover, the scales calculated with photochemical airshed
models correlate relatively well with the MIR metric derived with a
single cell, one-dimensional box model. Prior to the
[[Page 15608]]
RRWG-organized studies, little analysis of the robustness of the box-
model derived MIR metric and its applicability to environmental
conditions outside California had been conducted. Although these
studies were not specifically designed to test the robustness of the
box-model derived MIR metrics, the results suggest that the MIR metric
is relatively robust.
D. Role of Reactivity in VOC/Ozone Regulations
Historically, EPA's general approach to regulation of VOC emissions
has been based upon control of total VOC by mass, without
distinguishing between individual species of VOC. EPA considered the
regulation of VOC by mass to be the most effective and practical
approach based upon the scientific and technical information available
when EPA developed its VOC control policy.
EPA issued the first version of its VOC control policy in 1971, as
part of EPA's State Implementation Plan (SIP) preparation guidance.\23\
In that guidance, EPA emphasized the need to reduce the total mass of
VOC emissions, but also suggested that substitution of one compound for
another might be useful when it would result in a clearly evident
decrease in reactivity and thus tend to reduce photochemical oxidant
formation. This latter statement encouraged States to promulgate SIPs
with VOC emission substitution provisions similar to the Los Angeles
County Air Pollution Control District's (LACAPCD) Rule 66, which
allowed some VOC that were believed to have low to moderate reactivity
to be exempted from control. The exempt status of many of those VOC was
questioned a few years later, when research results indicated that,
although some of those compounds do not produce much ozone close to the
source, they may produce significant amounts of ozone after they are
transported downwind from urban areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ``Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of
Implementation Plans'', Appendix B, 36 FR 15495, (August 14, 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1977, further research led EPA to issue a revised VOC policy
under the title ``Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds,'' (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977), offering its own, more
limited, list of exempt organic compounds. The 1977 policy identified
four compounds that have very low photochemical reactivity and
determined that their contribution to ozone formation and accumulation
could be considered negligible. The policy exempted these ``negligibly
reactive'' compounds from VOC emissions limitations in programs
designed to meet the ozone NAAQS. Since 1977, EPA has added other
compounds to the list of negligibly reactive compounds based on new
information as it has been developed. In 1992, EPA adopted a formal
regulatory definition of VOC for use in SIPs, which explicitly excludes
compounds that have been identified as negligibly reactive [40 CFR
51.100(s)].
To date, EPA has exempted 54 compounds or classes of compounds in
this manner. In effect, EPA's current VOC exemption policy has
generally resulted in a two bin system in which most compounds are
treated equally as VOC, and are controlled. A separate smaller group of
compounds are treated as negligibly reactive, and are exempt from VOC
controls.\24\ This approach was intended to encourage the reduction of
emissions of all VOC that participate in ozone formation. From one
perspective, it appears that this approach has been relatively
successful. EPA estimates that, between 1970 and 2003, VOC emissions
from man-made sources nationwide declined by 54 percent. This decline
in VOC emissions has helped to decrease average ozone concentration by
29 percent (based on 1-hour averages) and 21 percent (based on 8-hour
averages) between 1980 and 2003. These reductions occurred even though,
between 1970 and 2003, population, vehicle miles traveled, and gross
domestic product rose 39 percent, 155 percent and 176 percent,
respectively.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ For some analytical purposes, EPA has distinguished between
VOC and ``highly reactive'' VOC, such as in the EPA's initial
evaluation of consumer products for regulation. See, ``Final
Listing,'' 63 FR 48792, 48795-6 (Sept. 11, 1998) (explaining EPA's
approach); see also, ALARM Caucus v. EPA, 215 F. 3d 61, 69-73 (D. C.
Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1018 (2001) (approving EPA's
approach as meeting the requirements of CAA section 183(e)).
\25\ ``Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 Status and
Trends,'' EPA 454/K-03-001, (August 2003); and ``The Ozone Report
Measuring Progress through 2003,'' EPA 454/K-04-001, (April 2004);
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, some have argued that a reactivity-based
approach for reducing VOC emissions would be more effective than the
current mass-based approach. One group of researchers conducted a
detailed modeling study of the Los Angeles area and concluded that,
compared to the current approach, a reactivity-based approach could
achieve the same reductions in ozone concentrations at significantly
less cost or, for a given cost, could achieve a significantly greater
reduction in ozone concentrations.\26\ The traditional approach to VOC
control that focused on reducing the overall mass of emissions may be
adequate in some areas of the country. However, EPA's recent SIP
guidance recognizes that approaches to VOC control that differentiate
between VOC based on relative reactivity are likely to be more
effective and efficient under certain circumstances.\27\ In particular,
reactivity-based approaches are likely to be important in areas for
which aggressive VOC control is a key strategy for reducing ozone
concentrations. Such areas include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ A. Russell, J. Milford, M. S. Bergin, S. McBride, L.
McNair, Y. Yang, W. R. Stockwell, B. Croes, ``Urban Ozone Control
and Atmospheric Reactivity of Organic Gases,'' Science, 269: 491-
495, (1995).
\27\ ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
in Ozone State Implementation Plans,'' 70 FR 54046, September 13,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas with persistent ozone nonattainment problems;
Urbanized or other NOX-rich areas where ozone
formation is particularly sensitive to changes in VOC emissions;
Areas that have already implemented VOC reasonably
available control technology (RACT) measures and need additional VOC
emission reductions.
In these areas, there are a variety of possible ways of addressing
VOC reactivity in the SIP development process, including:
Developing accurate, speciated VOC emissions inventories.
Prioritizing control measures using reactivity metrics.
Targeting emissions of highly-reactive VOC compounds with
specific control measures.
Encouraging VOC substitution and composition changes using
reactivity-weighted emission limits.
The CARB aerosol coatings rule is an example of this last
application of the concept of reactivity. CARB's reactivity-based rule
for aerosol coatings was designed to encourage the use of compounds
that are less effective at producing ozone. It contains limits for
aerosol coatings expressed as grams of ozone formed per gram of product
instead of the more traditional limits expressed as percent VOC by
mass. EPA approved CARB's aerosol coatings rule as part of the
California SIP for ozone. EPA's national aerosol coatings rule builds
largely upon CARB's efforts to regulate this product category using the
relative reactivity approach.
E. The Aerosol Coating Industry
Aerosol coatings include all coatings that are specially formulated
and
[[Page 15609]]
packaged for use in pressurized cans. They are used by both
professional and do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers. The DIY segment
accounts for approximately 80 percent of all sales. The remainder of
aerosol coatings is sold for industrial maintenance and original
equipment manufacturer use. Aerosol coatings are used for a number of
applications including small domestic coating jobs, field and
construction site marking, and touch-up of marks and scratches in
paintwork of automobiles, appliances and machinery.
The aerosol coatings industry includes the formulators and
manufacturers of the concentrated product. These manufacturers may
package the product or they may use toll fillers (processors). These
toll fillers may work not only with the large manufacturers, but for
other coating manufacturers who do not have the specialized equipment
necessary to fill aerosol containers. The fillers may then supply the
product to coating dealers, home supply stores, distributors, company-
owned stores and industrial customers.
An aerosol consists of a gas in which liquid or solid substances
may be dispensed. Aerosol coatings are pressurized coatings that, like
other coatings, consist of pigments and resins and solvents. However,
aerosol coatings also contain a propellant that dispenses the product
ingredients. A controlled amount of propellant in the product vaporizes
as it leaves the container, creating the aerosol spray. The combination
of product and propellant is finely tuned to produce the correct
concentration and spray pattern for an effective product.
Aerosol coatings can be packaged in disposable cans for hand-held
applications or for use in specialized equipment in ground traffic/
marking applications. As with other coatings, aerosol coatings are
available in both solvent-based and water-based formulations.
In developing the final national rule for aerosol coatings, EPA has
used the same coating categories, and the same definitions for those
categories, previously identified by CARB in its comparable regulation
for aerosol coatings. We believe these categories adequately categorize
the industry and encompass the range of products included in our own
analysis of this category that we conducted in preparing EPA's Report
to Congress (EPA-453/R-94-066-A). Use of the same definitions and
categories has the added benefit of providing regulated entities with
consistency between the CARB and national rules. The categories of
aerosol coatings regulated in the final rule include six general
categories and 30 specialty categories. Based on a survey of aerosol
coating manufacturers conducted by CARB in 1997, VOC emissions from the
six general categories together with the specialty category of Ground
Traffic/Marking Coatings account for approximately 85 percent of the
ozone formed as a result of the use of aerosol coatings. These
categories are defined in this regulation and are described in more
detail in the docket to this rulemaking.
There are currently no national regulations addressing VOC
emissions from aerosol coatings. California, Oregon and Washington are
the only States that currently regulate aerosol coating products and
Oregon's and Washington's rules are identical to the Tier 1 VOC mass-
based limits developed by CARB that became effective in 1996. Unlike
other EPA or State regulations and previous CARB regulations for
aerosol coatings that regulate VOC ingredients by mass in the
traditional approach, the current California regulation for aerosol
coatings is designed to limit the ozone formed from VOC emissions from
aerosol coatings by establishing limits on the reactivity of the
cumulative VOC ingredients of such coatings.
II. Summary of the Final Standards and Changes Since Proposal
This section presents a summary of the major features of the final
rule, as well as a summary of the changes made to the proposed rule.
The reasons for the changes in the final rule are explained in Section
III.
A. Applicability of the Standards and Regulated Entities
The final Aerosol Coatings Reactivity Rule (ACRR) will apply to
manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of
aerosol coatings used by both the general population (i.e., the ``Do It
Yourself'' market) and industrial applications (e.g., at original
equipment manufacturers and other industrial sites). This regulation
will apply to distributors, if the name of the distributor appears on
the label of the aerosol products.
The final rule includes an exemption from the limits in Table 1 of
the rule for those manufacturers that make a small annual volume of
aerosol coating products, i.e., with a total VOC content by mass of no
more than 7,500 kilograms of VOC per year in the aggregate for all
aerosol coating products. EPA notes that an exemption under EPA's
national rule for aerosol coatings under section 183(e) does not alter
any requirements under any applicable State or local regulations. The
regulatory language in this final rule has been changed from the
proposed rule to clarify the regulated entity that is responsible for
compliance with each portion of the regulation.
The final rule includes a provision in section 59.501(f) that
allows foreign manufacturers to qualify for the small quantity
manufacturer exemption in section 59.501(e). Although foreign
manufacturers are not regulated entities under this rule, some may
choose to voluntarily become regulated entities in order to qualify for
the small quantity manufacturer exemption. To qualify, the foreign
manufacturer must (1) meet the same 7500 kilogram per year VOC mass
limit that domestic small volume manufacturers must meet; (2) comply
with the same recordkeeping and reporting requirements that domestic
manufacturers must fulfill; and (3) comply with certain provisions in
40 CFR 59.501(f)(3), which are similar to those used in other EPA rules
to ensure that EPA may effectively monitor and implement this rule with
respect to foreign entities.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Baseline
Requirements for Gasoline Produced by Foreign Refiners, Final Rule,
62 FR 45,533, 45,537-38 (August 28, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. VOC Regulated Under This Rule
This rule regulates emissions of VOC from aerosol coatings. Because
even less reactive VOC contribute to ozone formation, we are amending
the regulatory definition of VOC for purposes of this rule by adding 40
CFR 51.100(s)(7). As provided in that new subsection, any organic
compound in the volatile portion of an aerosol coating is counted
towards the product's reactivity-based limit if it: (1) Has a
reactivity factor (RF) value greater than that of ethane (0.3), or (2)
is used in amounts greater than 7.3 percent of the product weight in
the product formulation.
Table 2A currently includes those organic compounds we know to be
used in aerosol coatings that have an RF value greater than that of
ethane (0.3). Under the proposed rule, we had a single de minimis
threshold that provided that a compound would not be counted towards
the applicable limit, regardless of its reactivity, if the compound
represented less than 0.1 percent of the product weight. In the final
rule, we have provided a two-part threshold: (1) A 0.1 percent
threshold for compounds with an RF value greater than 0.3; and (2) a
7.3 percent threshold
[[Page 15610]]
for compounds with an RF value of 0.3 or less.
The rationale for the 7.3 percent threshold is that compounds with
an RF value of 0.3 or less will contribute minimally to ozone formation
from this product category. We calculated the 7.3 percent figure as
follows. We first determined the maximum RF value for a compound, which
is 22.04 (the default value for compounds of unknown reactivity). We
then multiplied that value by 0.1(the proposed percentage threshold for
all organic compounds irrespective of their RF value), which resulted
in a value of 2.2. To determine an appropriate percentage threshold for
organic compounds with an RF value of 0.3 or less, we then divided 2.2
by 0.3 (the RF for ethane) which resulted in the 7.3 percent threshold
for such compounds. Therefore, in determining compliance with the
limits of this rule, this rule does not require inclusion of de minimis
amounts of ingredients taking into consideration the relative
reactivity of the compound.
As provided in 40 CFR 59.505(e)(2), if in the future, compounds
with an RF value of 0.3 or less are used in amounts greater than or
equal to 7.3 percent of a particular aerosol coatings product
formulation, then those compounds will be counted towards the
applicable limits of this rule at that time.
The emission limits in the rule are expressed in terms of weight of
ozone generated from the VOC ingredients per weight of coating
material, rather than the traditional weight of VOC ingredients per
weight (or volume) of product. EPA has concluded that this approach
will reduce the overall amount of ozone that results from the VOC
emitted to the atmosphere from these products, while providing
regulated entities with greater flexibility to select VOC ingredients
for their products. This approach provides incentives to regulated
entities to use VOC ingredients that have lower reactivity and that
will therefore generate less ozone.
EPA has revised the list of compounds in Table 2A in order to
include only those compounds actually used as ingredients in aerosol
coating products. In addition, EPA has provided a mechanism to add
additional compounds to the table if a regulated entity elects to use
them as an ingredient in aerosol coatings.
C. Regulatory Limits
The regulatory limits for the final rule are a series of reactivity
limits for six general coating categories and 30 specialty categories
of specialty coatings. These reactivity limits are expressed in terms
of grams of ozone generated per gram of product. The reactivity of each
VOC ingredient is specified in the table of values included in the
regulation. No changes have been made to the regulatory limits since
proposal.
D. Compliance Dates
The final rule requires all regulated entities to comply by January
1, 2009, for all aerosol coating products, except those that require
registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (7 U.S.C. 40 CFR 136-136y) (FIFRA), which are not subject to the
requirements of this rule until January 1, 2010. The rule also includes
a provision that allows regulated entities to seek a compliance
extension if they have not previously manufactured, imported, or
distributed in California or elsewhere any aerosol coating product that
complies with applicable California regulations. This extension would
give the regulated entity until January 1, 2011, to comply with the
requirements of the final rule.
Beginning on the compliance date, the regulated entities under this
rule will be required to conduct initial compliance demonstration
calculations for all coating formulations manufactured or filled at
each of their facilities, and to maintain compliance demonstration data
for each batch of aerosol coating. These calculations and the
underlying documents must be maintained for at least 5 years after the
product is manufactured, processed, distributed, or imported, and must
be submitted to the EPA upon request. The regulated entity may use
formulation data to make the compliance calculations; however, EPA is
adopting California Air Resources Board Method 310 as the underlying
test method (i.e., formulation data must be verifiable with California
Air Resources Board Method 310, if requested). Facilities are also
allowed to use EPA's Test Method 311.
EPA has added a provision allowing the extension of the compliance
date for FIFRA-registered compounds as a revision to the proposed rule.
This provision was added to the final rule due to the additional
approvals (e.g., approval of labels and formulation changes) that must
be obtained for all FIFRA-registered products.
E. Labeling Requirements
The final rule also includes labeling requirements to facilitate
implementation and enforcement of the limits. Labels must clearly
identify the product category or the category code provided in Table 1
of the regulation, the limit for that product category, and the product
date code. If the product date is not obvious from the date code, an
explanation of the code is required in the initial notification
discussed below. In the final rule, EPA has made a change to allow a
regulated entity to develop a facility-specific category code system,
if the system is explained in the initial notification.
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
The final rule includes a requirement for an Initial Notification
from all regulated entities to EPA at least 90 days before the
compliance date. This notification will provide basic information about
the regulated entity as well as contact information for the certifying
official. In addition, this notification will need to explain the
product date code system used to label products and the category code
system, if the facility is not using the default category codes
included in Table 1. The Initial Notification must also include VOC
formulation data for each aerosol coatings product that is subject to
this rule. The formulation data must provide the weight fraction (g
compound/g product) for each VOC compound used in the product in an
amount equal to or greater than 0.1 percent. The notification must also
identify any volatile organic compound or mixture that is not currently
listed in Table 2A, 2B, or 2C, if that compound or mixture will be used
in an aerosol coatings formulation. Finally, the notification must
include a statement certifying that all of the regulated entity's
products will be in compliance with the limits by the compliance date.
The regulated entity is required to submit a revised notification
if there is a change in the information in the Initial Notification,
with the exception of changes to product formulations. The regulated
entity is not required to submit a revised notification if the VOC
formulations submitted in its Initial Notification change. The
regulated entity is required to submit a revised notification if the
manufacturer, for example, adds a new coating category, changes the
product date code system or batch definition, or begins to use a VOC
that is not listed in Table 2A, 2B, or 2C.
The regulated entity is required to maintain compliance
calculations for each of its aerosol coatings formulations. For each
batch of a particular formulation, the regulated entity must maintain
records of the date(s) the batch was manufactured, the volume of the
batch, and the VOC formula for the formulation. Records of these
calculations must be maintained for 5 years after the product is
manufactured, processed, distributed for
[[Page 15611]]
wholesale, or imported for sale or distribution in interstate commerce
in the United States. The regulated entity must supply this information
to EPA within 60 days of a written request. The final rule includes the
addition of a provision that allows for manufacturers or importers to
accept the responsibility for recordkeeping and reporting requirements
that would otherwise be required of their distributors.
The promulgated rule requires that every 3 years, beginning with
calendar year 2011, each regulated entity must submit a triennial
report. The triennial report would provide updated VOC formulation data
and, for each VOC formulation, the total mass of each individual VOC or
mixture used as ingredients in the aerosol coatings manufactured,
imported, or distributed that year. This information must be provided
only for the second year of the reporting cycle, which in the case of
the first report would be information from 2010. Subsequent reports
will be required at three year intervals. In other words, a report
containing data from 2013 will be due in 2014, a report containing data
from 2016 will be due in 2017, and so forth. EPA intends to provide
mechanisms for regulated entities to provide this information through
the electronic submission facilities being expanded under the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) program and will provide additional
information and guidance to regulated entities before the first report
is due. This report has been added to the final rule to address
concerns raised during the public comment period, as explained in
section III.E of this preamble.
The final rule requires those small manufacturers who qualify for
exemption from the limits of Table 1 of subpart E to make an annual
report to EPA providing necessary information and documentation to
establish that the products made by the entity should be exempt.
EPA notes that the contents of any reports, including the VOC
composition of the coatings subject to this rule, are ``emissions
data'' under section 114 of the CAA and EPA's regulatory definition of
such term in 40 CFR part 2. As such, this information must be available
to the public regardless of whether EPA obtains the information through
a reporting requirement or through a specific request to the regulated
entity. Therefore, such information is not eligible for treatment as
``confidential business information'' under 40 CFR 59.516 of this rule.
G. Variance
The final rule allows regulated entities to submit a written
application to EPA requesting a temporary variance if, for reasons
beyond their reasonable control, they cannot comply with the
requirements of the rule. An approved variance order would specify a
final compliance date and a condition that imposes increments of
progress necessary to assure timely compliance. A variance would end
immediately if the regulated entity failed to comply with any term or
condition of the variance. The Administrator will provide special
consideration to variance requests from regulated entities,
particularly small businesses that have not marketed their products in
areas subject to State regulations for these products prior to this
rulemaking. EPA notes that a variance under EPA's national rule for
aerosol coatings under section 183(e) does not alter any requirements
under any applicable State or local regulations. No changes were made
to this section since the proposal.
H. Test Methods
Although regulated entities may use formulation data to demonstrate
compliance with the reactivity limits, EPA concludes it is also
necessary to have test methods in place that can be used to verify the
accuracy of the formulation data. Therefore, we have included two test
methods that may be used by regulated entities or EPA to determine
compliance with the reactivity limits. In those cases where the
formulation data and test data are not in agreement, data collected
using the approved test methods will prevail. Regulated entities or
regulatory agencies may use either California Air Resources Board
Method 310--Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer
Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products, or
EPA Method 311--Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints
and Coatings in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas
Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) to determine the reactive
organic compound content of an aerosol coating. California Air
Resources Board Method 310 includes some test procedures that are not
required to determine the VOC content of aerosol coatings; for example,
California Air Resources Board Method 310 incorporates EPA Method 24
for determining the VOC content of a coating. We have identified those
sections of California Air Resources Board Method 310 that are not
required for compliance demonstration purposes in the regulation. EPA
Method 311--Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and
Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,
appendix A) was originally developed for liquid coatings, so it does
not include provisions for the collection of the propellant portion of
an aerosol coating. Therefore, those choosing to use EPA Method 311--
Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by
Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, appendix A)
must separate the aerosol propellant from the coating using either ASTM
D3063-94 or ASTM D 3074-94. There were no changes to the test methods
in the final rule.
III. Response to Significant Comments
During the public comment period, we received a total of 18 comment
letters. Of these, seven were brief letters in support of the proposed
regulation. A summary of the most significant comments is presented
below. A summary of all comments received on this rule, as well as
complete responses to each of these comments, are presented in the
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971).
A. Format of Regulation
Several commenters discussed the use of a reactivity-based rule
versus a mass-based rule. Two commenters fully supported the
reactivity-based rule, while five commenters raised some concerns over
some aspects of this approach.
The commenters supporting the rule generally supported the use of a
reactivity-based approach both nationally and in California. One
commenter stated that EPA did a good job in evaluating the reactivity
regulation in California and the feasibility of making it apply
nationwide, calling it a ``bold step forward in the arena of air
quality regulations.'' Another commenter stated that ``[t]he rule is an
important advancement in the use of reactivity-based emissions
regulations for VOC.'' The commenter provided the following points in
support of this rule and the future use of reactivity-based VOC
emission limits in other consumer product and coating standards:
1. Reactivity-based VOC emission regulations are more
appropriate and effective for addressing the environmental concern
of interest, ozone formation potential.
2. This national proposed rule is based on an established CARB
regulation for aerosol coatings which has already been approved by
EPA and in use for several years.
[[Page 15612]]
3. Reactivity-based VOC emission regulations provide product
formulators with more options for meeting environmental performance
standards while providing technically feasible product performance,
and stimulating future product development enhancements.
4. There is evidence that lower mass-based VOC limits in some
products may be leading to the increased use of more photochemically
reactive VOC, eliminating some of the anticipated environmental
benefit (ozone reduction) of these regulations, and possibly
increasing the actual ozone formation potential of the products
themselves.
This commenter also stated that the reactivity-based approach is
consistent with EPA's September 2005 ``Interim Guidance on Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans,'' which
specifically ``encourages States to consider recent scientific
information on the photochemical reactivity of volatile organic
compounds in the development of state implementation plans designed to
meet the national ambient air quality standards for ozone [70 FR 54046-
54051; September 13, 2005].''
The commenter concluded that reactivity-based VOC standards should
not be considered ``only as a supplement to mass-based approaches, but
as a scientifically valid and appropriate means for controlling ozone
formation.'' The commenter also stated that in its approval of the CARB
regulation, EPA appropriately stated that the reactivity-based rule
will improve the SIP in part by ``creating an incentive for the use of
solvents with relatively low contribution to ozone formation [70 FR
1642].'' The commenter further stated that some VOC mass-based limits
in the previous version of CARB's aerosol coatings rule ``presented
particularly difficult reformulation challenges'' for product
manufacturers [70 FR 1642]. The commenter stated that EPA correctly
noted that CARB's regulation will preserve the air quality benefits of
its previous rule, while at the same time allowing manufacturers
greater flexibility in reformulating their products, by replacing
existing mass-based VOC limits for aerosol spray coatings with
reactivity-based limits that are designed to achieve equivalent air
quality benefits [70 FR 1642]. The commenter concluded that expanding
this aerosol coating regulation to the rest of the United States
expands the benefits of this working reactivity-based VOC regulation to
other areas of the United States where ozone formation is a concern,
while allowing aerosol coating manufacturers to develop single
formulations for the entire United States.
Several commenters raised concerns over some aspects of an approach
based on reactivity. These commenters stated that a reactivity-based
approach may have merit, but only if EPA first addresses numerous
``unanswered questions'' about the potential adverse impact of such an
approach on other equally, if not more, important components of air
quality management programs, such as the effect on ambient fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) levels and air toxics. The commenters also
raised the issues of downwind ozone impacts and enforceability. One
commenter provided an extensive history of the evolution of EPA's use
of reactivity, noting that EPA is not obligated to issue a reactivity-
based regulation, stating that the required reactivity-based portion of
EPA's obligation under Sec. 183(e) was fulfilled during the listing
process. The commenter questioned whether EPA had adequately addressed
all possible impacts of a reactivity-based approach before proceeding
with the proposal.
Some commenters advocated that EPA should issue a mass-based rule,
rather than one based on reactivity. The commenters pointed to the
uncertainty of the use of a reactivity-based approach, including
concerns over the toxicity of pollutants that are used as substitutes,
the potential inter-relationship with PM2.5 issues, downwind ozone and
enforceability concerns. The commenters concluded that, given these
concerns, and the fact that a fully implemented rule only yields a
benefit equivalent to a 19 percent reduction of VOC, that EPA may be
``better served to establish a National rule based on the 1996 CARB
rule amended with 2002 mass-based limits known to be feasible.'' The
commenters stated that this is the approach used by two other States,
Oregon and Washington, that have aerosol coating rules. One commenter
further stated that because these limits would be feasible for all
manufacturers, the small manufacturer exemption, the extended
compliance date, and the variance provisions would all be unnecessary.
Therefore, the commenter concluded that a mass-based approach would
achieve the most reductions and would allow EPA time to conduct the
required investigations to address issues and not ``rely on
expectations that may not hold to be true.'' One commenter stated that
``EPA appears to have neglected to consider an approach that combines
mass-based and reactivity-based components.''
EPA considered these comments, but we still conclude that the
reactivity-based approach for this rule is appropriate. Under CAA
section 183(e), EPA is charged with developing regulations that
implement BAC for the purposes of decreasing ground-level ozone
formation. For aerosol coatings, EPA has determined that the proposed
reactivity-based regulation remains BAC. The reactivity-based limits
are based on those adopted in CARB's reactivity-based rule and are
designed to achieve a comparable decrease in ozone formation that would
have been achieved by CARB's 2002 mass-based limits, which are lower
than CARB's 1996 mass-based limits. Moreover, while some of CARB's 2002
mass-based limits are now considered unfeasible and are not in force,
the reactivity-based limits are now in effect and many manufacturers
are producing and selling compliant products. Oregon and Washington
have adopted CARB's 1996 mass-based limits. However, even if these
limits were lowered for some categories to the 2002 limits, where
deemed feasible, this hybrid approach proposed by the commenters would
not achieve the same level of ozone decrease that the reactivity-based
limits will. Furthermore, it is not clear that manufacturers who are
not currently subject to the CARB reactivity-based limits would have
any more or less difficulty meeting the hybrid mass limits than they
would meeting the reactivity-based limits in the proposed rule. In
other words, any mass-based rule would also likely include provisions
for small businesses and other variances.
The determination of BAC depends on EPA's determination that the
proposed relative reactivity factors can be used to reasonably predict
the changes in the ozone formation that will occur due to changes in
the emissions from this source category. After thoughtful consideration
of the available research, EPA has concluded that this determination is
justified. EPA has followed and contributed to the development of the
science underlying reactivity-based regulations since such an approach
was considered in the early 1990s. EPA's position on the acceptability
of reactivity scales has evolved along with the science. The most
recent results of research performed under the RRWG, cited in section I
of this preamble, provide evidence that the relative reactivity factors
in the proposed rule are reasonably robust over a wide variety of
environmental conditions. Concerns about the potential for increased
ozone downwind are addressed in a separate section below.
[[Page 15613]]
Although recent research suggests that other reactivity scales may
more accurately represent the behavior of ozone in current air quality
models, it is not clear that emission limits based on these scales
would be achievable or that the use of a different scale would lead to
significantly different ozone decreases from this source category.
Furthermore, emission limits based on a different scale than that used
by CARB would lead to increased costs to comply. Therefore, EPA has
determined that use of the proposed relative reactivity factors is
reasonable and will lead to net decreases of ground-level ozone. The
consideration of fine particle formation, toxics exposures, and
stratospheric ozone depletion are addressed below in a separate
section, as are concerns about the complexity of enforcement.
One commenter disagreed with EPA's statement in the preamble that
this regulation was needed because there are areas of the country that
need VOC substitution strategies to address nonattainment issues. The
commenter argued that there are many opportunities to reduce VOC mass
by implementing readily available and proven programs ``before
embarking into VOC substitution.'' The commenter continued that most
nonattainment areas around the country have not taken aggressive steps
to limit VOC. Therefore, the commenter contended that there are
significant reductions that can be obtained from programs, such as
implementing RACT or updating decades-old RACT programs, fuel
strategies, and other area source regulations like consumer products,
architectural coatings, and Stage I vapor recovery.
EPA disagrees with this commenter. Several of the commenters on the
proposed rule inaccurately portray the choice between mass-based
emission limits and reactivity-based emission limits as a choice
between emission reductions and emission substitutions. For aerosol
coating products, any new emission limitation, whether it is mass-based
or reactivity-based, will be achieved by reformulating the product,
thereby changing the composition of the associated emissions. With a
reactivity-based limit, the reformulation will be guided by relative
reactivity factors that will encourage manufacturers to use lower
reactivity compounds and will limit the overall ozone formation
associated with the product. All VOC components with an RF value
greater than 0.3 are included in the calculation. With a mass-based
limit, manufacturers may shift to more powerful solvents, some of which
may often be higher in reactivity, and which cumulatively may
contribute more to ozone formation. There is no explicit limit on the
ozone formation associated with the product. The precise impacts (on
ozone, fine particles, air toxics, or other environmental endpoints of
concern) of either reactivity-based or mass-based emission limits are
difficult to predict given the reformulations that may be used to
achieve the limits. However, reactivity-based limits derived using a
reasonable set of relative reactivity factors provide the appropriate
incentives to shift formulations to compounds with lower reactivity,
and limit the overall ozone contribution of the regulated products.
The commenter's assertion that reactivity-based regulations should
not be pursued until other mass-based VOC control measures, including
RACT, have been implemented or strengthened is not a factor in the
decision of how EPA fulfills its obligations under CAA section 183(e)
to implement best available controls. However, EPA does believe that
traditional mass-based VOC control measures continue to be effective
tools for addressing VOC contributions to ozone nonattainment problems
in many situations and that reactivity-based control measures are most
useful where mass-based controls have reached the limits of
technological feasibility. In the case of aerosol coatings, EPA has
determined that it is possible to use reactivity-based limits to go
beyond what is achievable with mass-based limits, and therefore, has
found reactivity-based limits to be BAC for this product category.
B. Downwind Effects and Robustness of Relative Reactivity Scale
Several commenters discussed the state of the science of reactivity
and whether EPA's statements about the science of reactivity were
correct. Some commenters questioned EPA's statement that the expected
realistic changes in the formulation of aerosol products are unlikely
to result in noticeable increases in ozone downwind of the source,
stating that EPA does not know this to be the case. The commenters
asserted that this issue is important ``for the simple fact that ozone
nonattainment areas in the Northeastern United States have the highest
recorded ozone values downwind of urban centers, and this effort has
the potential to increase ozone in the very place where ozone
reductions are most needed, confounding the ozone attainment plans that
are being developed by the states.'' The commenters also stated that
increased ozone downwind from urban centers could result in more
impacts to agricultural and forested areas of the country.
One commenter further stated that the statements made in the
preamble related to future ozone levels seem to be based on
expectations rather than demonstrations based on modeling efforts. The
commenter encouraged EPA, given the potential for further tightening of
the current ozone NAAQS, to perform studies demonstrating that there
would be no increase in downwind ozone ``so that the implementation of
this rule does not worsen ozone nonattainment problems found in the
Northeastern United States.''
EPA recognizes the commenters' concerns about downwind ozone
formation but has concluded that the VOC reformulations resulting from
this reactivity-based regulation will reduce overall ozone formation
and exposure. First, any enhancements of downwind ozone caused by
upwind substitution of larger amounts of less reactive VOC are expected
to be smaller than the concurrent reductions of upwind ozone. Carter et
al. (2003), in modeling large-scale VOC substitution scenarios, found
larger local ozone reductions and smaller downwind ozone increases.
Similarly, Arunachalam et al. (2003) found that ``high-versus-low
reactivity substitution'' is ``an effective strategy for reducing high
levels of ozone,'' especially in, or downwind of, urban areas. In a
modeling exercise conducted to inform this rulemaking, Luecken (2007;
see docket) substituted lower reactivity VOC for higher reactivity VOC
in the Chicago area and found the resulting downwind ozone disbenefits
to be much smaller than the upwind ozone benefits. In general, upwind
ozone reductions are expected to occur in or near densely populated
urban areas, where ozone levels are highest, thus reducing overall
population exposure. Second, downwind areas, particularly remote,
rural, or suburban areas, are likely to be NOX-limited
(Sillman, 1999; AQCD, 2006), thus restricting ozone formation from
small additional amounts of upwind anthropogenic VOC. The
implementation of other regulations such as the Clean Air Interstate
Rule will likely reduce NOX further in such areas. Third, in
downwind areas that may be VOC-limited, the simultaneous VOC
substitutions occurring in these areas may counterbalance, to some
extent, the introduction of VOC from upwind. Fourth, the reductions in
upwind reactivity and ozone formation are likely to reduce the direct
transport of ozone and ozone precursors such as aldehydes downwind from
urban areas.
[[Page 15614]]
EPA agrees that modeling can be useful for demonstrating the
impacts of regulatory changes. While EPA did not perform nationwide
modeling specific to this regulation, the three studies cited above
support the EPA's contention that downwind ozone increases are likely
to be small, especially compared to upwind ozone reductions. Thus,
while additional modeling will continue to shed light on VOC
reactivity, there is an adequate basis for proceeding with this
reactivity-based regulation. As the science evolves, EPA will continue
to invest and participate in research into VOC chemistry and the use of
reactivity measures.
One commenter stated that, while reactivity-based approaches may
provide significant benefits ``where the science is sufficiently robust
to ensure that the expected benefits are achieved in practice,'' the
commenter stated that, based on the proposal, ``it is not clear that
EPA has adequately addressed all the relevant technical issues or that
this reactivity-based regulation is appropriate at this time.'' The
commenter notes that EPA must adequately (and accurately) account for
the differences in the various environmental conditions (and resulting
variations in VOC behavior) throughout the United States. The commenter
stated that the complexity of the interactions of VOC in the ambient
air makes it extremely difficult to accurately predict the actual VOC
forming capacity of a chemical compound. The commenter stated that
``assuming an essentially uniform ``reactivity'' for a compound used in
any coating product anywhere in the country presents the potential for
an inaccurate assessment of the actual VOC-related effects of the
product nationwide.'' The commenter further stated that ``EPA's half-
hearted assertion in the proposed rule that its scientific
understanding of VOC reactivity has evolved sufficiently to allow it to
reliably and accurately predict the behavior of individual species of
VOC in a regulatory context is far from unequivocal.''
Another commenter had a different position and asserted that:
Controlling VOC emissions from coatings and consumer products
based on photochemical reactivity is a scientifically sound and
appropriate means of addressing ozone formation potential. There can
be enormous differences in the capacity of various VOC to react in
the atmosphere to form tropospheric ozone. As reflected in EPA's
proposal, scientific research shows that photochemical reactivity
has a more direct correlation to the ozone-forming potential (i.e.,
potential air quality impacts) of VOC emissions than does a simple
mass-based measure of emissions. The impact of mass-based VOC
emissions reductions on ozone formation potential is uncertain and
can vary greatly depending on the VOC substitution decisions made to
meet specific mass limits. Reactivity-based VOC emissions limits, by
considering the rate and mechanism of photo oxidation in the
troposphere, are reflective of the actual processes that lead to
ozone formation. Relative photochemical reactivity thus provides a
more rigorous scientific approach to assessing an individual
compound's potential contribution to ozone accumulation than does
consideration of its mass alone.
Accordingly, this commenter concluded that EPA's approach is
scientifically sound and represents a significant step forward in
aerosol coatings regulation.
EPA recognizes the concerns raised by the commenters, but agrees
with the latter commenter. EPA acknowledges the difficulty in assessing
reactivity in widely different environmental conditions. As noted in
the proposal, a compound's reactivity can depend on the
VOC:NOX ratio, meteorological conditions, and the mix of
other VOC. Many different methods have been suggested for measuring the
reactivity of individual compounds. EPA has chosen the MIR scale, which
is an ozone yield scale derived by adjusting the NOX
emissions in a base case simulation to yield the highest incremental
reactivity of the base reactive organic gas mixture. These are
environmental conditions where ozone production is most sensitive to
changes in VOC emissions and, therefore, where VOC controls would be
most effective. These tend to reflect conditions in or near urban areas
where VOC emissions are most likely to produce ozone, and thus EPA has
determined the MIR scale is the most appropriate for regulatory
purposes (see also Carter, 1994). Research conducted under the auspices
of the RRWG has shown good correlation between the MIR scale and other
reactivity scales, including those computed with photochemical airshed
models. Also, this research has supported the nationwide applicability
of reactivity scales, and peer reviews of the RRWG reports have
specifically supported the use of the MIR scale for a nationwide
aerosol coatings regulation (see docket). For more detail, refer to the
proposal (72 FR 38952). As noted above, EPA will continue to invest and
participate in research into VOC chemistry and the use of reactivity
measures.
C. Consideration of Other Factors in the Consideration of Best
Available Controls
Several commenters presented arguments for numerous factors that
should be included in EPA's determination of BAC for aerosol coatings.
These factors include the potential impact on ambient PM levels, the
potential for increase in emissions of certain hazardous air pollutants
(HAP), and potential stratospheric ozone impacts. In addition, one
commenter stated that EPA should consider the impact of the rule on
agricultural and forest areas.
The commenters concerned with contribution to PM levels were
primarily concerned about the aerosol fraction of measured ambient
PM2.5. The commenters stated that EPA should consider ``negative co-
effects'' of the rule on fine particulate matter, because the
substitution with compounds with low reactivities could increase the
mass of emissions of low reactive compounds, which could impact both
primary and secondary ozone formation. The commenter stated that this
would be even more important in the near future, as the PM2.5 NAAQS is
revised and given the fact that PM2.5 nonattainment is coincident with
ozone nonattainment in many areas in the country. The commenter
concluded that EPA must examine the impacts of increasing low reactive
VOC on PM2.5 before establishing a regulatory framework that encourages
substitution.
Several commenters were concerned that EPA did not consider the
toxicity of compounds when establishing BAC for this category. Some
commenters identified several examples of HAP, including benzene and
diisocyanates, with relatively low reactivity factors and noted that
EPA overlooked the fact that all VOC are not equal when it comes to
their individual toxic potential. The commenters stated that toxicity
should be considered in setting emission limits, with one commenter
suggesting that EPA consider a substitution protocol for VOC that
includes ``low to high'' toxicity in addition to ``low to high''
reactivity.
Another commenter also noted that the table of reactivity factors
also includes compounds that have been banned under Title VI of the CAA
because they are considered stratospheric ozone depletors.
EPA has addressed the impacts of the factors mentioned by the
commenters in the final rule to the extent allowed by the CAA.
With respect to the commenter's concerns about HAP emissions from
aerosol coatings, EPA notes that section 183(e) only provides the EPA
with authority to regulate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial
products for purposes of reducing ozone nonattainment. Other provisions
of the Act, such as section 112, provide the statutory mechanism for
reduction of
[[Page 15615]]
HAP emissions. Thus, although EPA shares the concerns of the commenter
about unnecessary exposure to HAPs, the EPA does not have authority
like that of the State of California to restrict or ban the use of
specific HAPs as ingredients in aerosol coatings. Nevertheless, EPA
believes that sufficiently stringent limits can have the beneficial
effect of reducing the use of certain HAPs such as toluene and benzene.
Because these compounds are highly reactive, the limits of the final
rule will serve to restrict the use of these compounds as ingredients
in aerosol coatings as a practical matter.
With respect to the comment concerning compounds that are banned
under Title VI, EPA is clarifying that the compounds included in 72 FR
38951 are not a list of compounds ``approved'' for use in aerosol
coatings. On the contrary, it is merely a list of compounds for which
relative reactivity factors have been derived. Therefore, if a compound
had been banned by Title VI, or banned for use for any other reason,
they cannot be used as ingredients in aerosol coatings.
However, EPA has revisited the decision to include an exhaustive
list of compounds in Table 2A. Based on concerns raised by commenters
and an internal review at EPA, we have revised Table 2A. That table
currently includes those organic compounds we know to be used in
aerosol coatings products that: (1) Have an RF value greater than that
of ethane (0.3), and (2) are used in amounts greater than 7.3 percent
of the product weight. This changes the role of Table 2A from a listing
of available reactivity factor (RF) values to a table defining the
compounds that have defined RF factors for this rule.
If a regulated entity identifies a compound or mixture of compounds
that is not on Table 2A, 2B, or 2C, the regulated entity can still use
the compound or mixture as an ingredient, as follows:
(1) The regulated entity can inform EPA that it intends to use the
compound and request that the compound be added to Table 2A, 2B, or 2C,
pursuant to the procedures in section 59.511(j) of the final rule.
However, if the compound has a reactivity factor that is less than 0.30
g O3/g VOC, and the compound is less than or equal to 7.3 percent by
weight in any of your products, the regulated entity can use an RF
equal to zero in all calculations. Any requests submitted to EPA on or
before June 1, 2008 will be considered, and if appropriate,
incorporated into the appropriate Table on or before January 1, 2009.
(2) If the compound does not have an established reactivity factor
listed in Table 2A, 2B, or 2C, the compound can be used, provided an RF
of 22.04 g O3/g compound is used in all calculations for that compound.
This value, which is equal to the highest RF identified to date, was
selected to ensure that the environment is protected while additions to
the list are being considered.
In the proposed regulation, we proposed to eliminate all of the
exemptions from the definition of VOC listed in the first clause
subparagraphs of Sec. 51.100(s). This inadvertently included certain
inorganic compounds listed in Sec. 51.100(s) that are not VOC. On
further review, EPA concluded that there is no need to eliminate the
exemption for organic compounds that have an RF value of 0.3 or less
and that represent less than 7.3 percent of a given product
formulation.
However, if a regulated entity intends to use an organic compound
that is not listed in Table 2A in the final rule as an ingredient in an
aerosol coating, then the regulated entity is required to notify EPA
via its Initial Notification or an update to that notification. EPA
will then add such compounds and their reactivity factors to Table 2A.
Until listed in Table 2A, such compounds may be used in aerosol coating
products but are assigned the default reactivity factor of 22.04 g
O3/g compound.
Several commenters also provided input on the question raised in
the proposal preamble related to a voluntary program for the reduction
of HAP. The commenters were all opposed to an additional program,
citing existing programs and requirements that already address the
inclusion of toxic materials in coatings. For example, the Federal
Hazardous Substance Act (FHSA), which requires specific labeling of
products that it classifies as ``hazardous substances.'' The FHSA
includes any products containing methylene chloride on that list.
EPA is not establishing a voluntary HAP reduction program at this
time. Existing programs appear to be sufficient to help ensure that the
unwanted outcome of increased toxicity of aerosol coating products does
not occur. EPA reserves the right to revisit the potential for such a
program, for this or another reactivity-based rulemaking, at a later
date.
D. Variance, Small Quantity Manufacturers, Extended Compliance Date
Several commenters expressed concern about both the need for, and
equity of, the three provisions in the proposed rule that either
extended the compliance date or provided an exemption from the rule.
These provisions were the variance provisions in the rule, the
exemption for small quantity manufacturers, and the extended compliance
date for regulated entities that have not previously marketed coatings
compliant with CARB's reactivity based rules.
A few commenters were concerned about the potential for unfair
economic advantage created by the small quantity manufacturer
exemption. One commenter stated that the exemption for small
manufacturers provides a competitive advantage that they could
``readily use'' to expand market share. Some commenters believed that
the small quantity exemptions should be available to regulated entities
of all sizes and be based on the size of the batch. This commenter gave
the example of a coating supplier that provided most coating in bulk,
but would supply a small quantity of matching paint in aerosol cans for
exact match touch-ups. Another commenter stated that they were unable
to support a proposal that specifically exempts manufacturers of
certain products from regulatory requirements unless the exemption was
available to all manufacturers of that type of product. The latter
commenter was concerned with the anti-trust ramifications of providing
such an exemption, since it could create a beneficial climate for one
manufacturer, but not another.
Some commenters expressed concern that EPA overstated the emission
reductions in the rule, given the number of sources that would
potentially take advantage of the exemption, variances, and extensions.
One commenter stated that the small quantity manufacturer exemption, in
particular, would have a substantial impact on the VOC emission
reductions achieved by the rule and cautioned that EPA should closely
monitor the impacts of these provisions on the overall rule efficacy.
EPA does not agree that the exemption and variance provisions are
likely to have a significant impact on the overall effectiveness of
this rule. EPA has tailored the small quantity manufacturer exemption
to provide relief only to those particularly small entities that would
otherwise bear particularly high costs for compliance relative to the
small amount of products they produce and, therefore, the small amount
of total VOC emissions from such products. The variance provision is,
likewise, narrowly tailored and provides only temporary variance from
the limits of the rule. Each of these provisions is targeted to small
subsets of
[[Page 15616]]
regulated entities that would otherwise be disproportionately impacted
by this rule.
The two-year compliance extension for facilities that have not
previously manufactured coatings compliant with CARB coating limits is
provided to ensure that facilities have adequate time to reformulate
products to meet the rule. If a regulated entity has not previously
developed compliant products, it may take longer (i.e., beyond January
1, 2009) to reformulate and market a new product. However, because EPA
estimates that well over 85 percent of the aerosol coatings in the
United States have already been reformulated to meet the California
limits, we do not expect many facilities to qualify for this provision.
Similarly, EPA does not anticipate that a large number of regulated
entities will need to request a variance under this rule. In
California, only one variance request was ever requested for the
comparable CARB aerosol coating rule.
EPA established the small quantity manufacturer exemption with the
primary focus of assisting small businesses that may make only a small
quantity of aerosol coatings. Because small businesses do not always do
business across the country, EPA concluded that it was possible that
some may not have previously been subject to the reactivity-based
requirements in California. While we have included the costs of
developing reformulated products in the cost assessment of this rule,
we also recognize that the average cost (i.e., cost on a ``per can''
basis) could be higher for a company producing a smaller product line.
Recognizing this, we established this provision to exempt those most
likely to experience the highest per-can reformulation costs.
EPA also does not concur with the commenter's concerns that the
small quantity manufacturer exemption creates an unfair competitive
advantage or antitrust issues. The total mass of VOC per exemption
(7500 kg) represents less than 0.01 percent of the total VOC used in
aerosol coatings (based on the 1990 survey). Even adjusting for
emission reductions that have occurred since 1990, the mass for this
exemption would remain well below one percent of the market. We
disagree that this small fraction of the total aerosol coating market
could give anyone a competitive advantage. Further, a significant
expansion in a small quantity manufacturer's market share would likely
result in the manufacturer no longer qualifying for the exemption.
Finally, EPA also does not agree that creation of the exemption for
small quantity manufacturers creates an antitrust issue. Such issues
generally arise where members of an industry collude to create unfair
market advantage, as by agreeing not to compete on prices for their
respective products. EPA, in its capacity as government regulator, can
promulgate regulations with features such as exemptions for certain
members of an industry without violation of the applicable statutes and
regulations pertaining to antitrust issues. Moreover, EPA is obligated
to take the specific concerns of small entities into account in the
regulatory process and, where appropriate, to provide mechanisms such
as exemptions in order to mitigate disproportionate and unnecessary
impacts upon small businesses. In the case of this regulation, EPA has
determined that it is appropriate to provide an exemption of this type
because it will permit the implementation of a rule that will achieve
significant VOC emission reductions across the industry as a whole and
the percentage of emissions reductions that will be foregone by virtue
of the exemption are anticipated to be de minimis.
As discussed in the air impacts section of this preamble, we do not
expect any of these provisions to have a significant impact on overall
VOC emission reductions that will result from the rule, largely due to
the small number of regulated entities that we expect to qualify for
these exemptions. Therefore, EPA has concluded that all exemptions
should remain in the rule, as proposed. We have made some changes to
the regulatory language, particularly with respect to the small
quantity manufacturer, to ensure that the provisions are clear.
One commenter asked EPA to clarify whether an importer's products
are exempt as specified under the small quantity manufacturer exemption
in Sec. 59.501(e). First, EPA notes that the small quantity
manufacturer exemption is only available to manufacturers. Second, in
response to this comment, EPA has added a provision in Sec. 59.501(f)
that specifies how foreign manufacturers may qualify for the small
quantity manufacturer exemption.
E. Additional Reporting Requirements
Numerous commenters provided input on the need, or lack of need,
for additional reporting requirements, in general, and the annual
reporting of formulation data, in particular. Some commenters contended
that no additional periodic reporting was warranted, while others
stated their belief that the rule is not enforceable without additional
reporting.
One commenter argued that more detailed records, including
formulation data, must be mandated by this rule. This commenter said
that it would be unreasonable for EPA not to provide for adequate data
reporting that would allow for meaningful oversight and enforcement of
the rule, stating that formulation data are critical to this
assessment. The commenter does not believe that the proposed approach
(i.e., the regulated entity responding to an EPA request for data) is
sufficient. The commenter stated that EPA must include reporting
requirements in the rule that will ensure it can quickly and
effectively verify compliance and intervene appropriately where a
violation occurs. Other commenters supported gathering additional
information, with one stating that they believe that without full
electronic reporting of all formulation data, the burden on EPA's
compliance and enforcement staff would be too great and that any
effective enforcement would be impossible.
Other commenters strongly disagreed that additional reporting is
warranted. These commenters pointed to the requirements to supply
information to EPA on the types of products they manufacture, as well
as contact information. They contended that the requirement to supply
the more detailed information, including formulation data for the
volatile components in their products, is unnecessary. When EPA chose
to make a compliance review, there were provisions in the proposed rule
that gave EPA the ability to obtain the specific information, as
needed. The commenters encouraged EPA to maintain the provisions
related to reporting requirements as they were proposed.
EPA appreciates the comments received on this topic from all sides
and understands both positions. When EPA is establishing the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for a rule, we have the
responsibility to balance the burden imposed by the requirements with
the need for a rule that is implementable as a practical matter. We
must ensure that the information needed to implement the rule is
available, while ensuring that we do not require industry to gather and
submit information that will never be used. This rulemaking, the first
national VOC rule incorporating reactivity-based limits, raises
additional concerns about the types of information that should be
gathered. Based on a thoughtful review of the comments and our own
review, we have concluded that there are two
[[Page 15617]]
basic needs for information: (1) Information that allows EPA (and
others) to ensure that the requirements are being met, and (2)
information that allows EPA (and others) to assess whether the
reactivity-based approach is resulting in the ozone reductions we have
determined, based on information we have analyzed to date, should
occur. Each of these basic information needs warrant a different
approach.
EPA has revised the reporting requirements of the final rule to
ensure that adequate information is available. EPA concurs with the
commenters who believe that we have an obligation to ensure that our
new approach to regulating some VOC sources through the use of
reactivity-based limits is working. In the final rule, EPA has included
a requirement for regulated entities to provide information about the
VOC composition of their products in their Initial Notifications and to
update this information every three years, beginning with data for
calendar year 2010, along with information about the quantities of
individual VOC species in each formulation manufactured, imported, or
distributed in the reporting year. This triennial reporting will enable
EPA to better assess the efficacy of the reactivity-based approach,
including the manner in which the program's requirements are being
achieved. For example, the information will enable us to ascertain how
manufacturers are responding to the regulation, what the impact of the
rule is on the aerosol coatings category, and whether the rule has any
unintended consequences or impacts. The information will also enable us
to compare the changes in VOC emissions under a mass-based approach as
compared to a reactivity-based approach. EPA intends to integrate the
triennial report into the expanded electronic reporting processes being
developed for the National Emissions Inventory. EPA will provide
additional information and guidance to regulated entities prior to the
first required triennial report due in 2011. This information will be
sent to regulated entities, based on contact information submitted in
their Initial Notifications.
IV. Summary of Impacts
This section presents a summary of the impacts expected as a result
of this rule. To ensure that the impacts are not underestimated, we
followed an approach that would provide conservative estimates for each
impact. For environmental impacts, we ensured that our estimated
positive impacts (i.e., emission reduction) were not overstated (i.e.,
we state positive impacts conservatively low). For cost and economic
impacts, we ensured that our estimated impacts were not understated
(i.e., we state cost and economic impacts conservatively high). This
approach ensures that conclusions drawn on the overall impact on
facilities, including small businesses, are based on conservative
assumptions.
A. Environmental Impacts
In accordance with section 183(e), EPA has evaluated what
regulatory approach would constitute ``best available controls'' for
this product category, taking into account the considerations noted in
the statute. EPA has evaluated the incremental increase or decrease in
air pollution, water pollution, and solid waste reduction that would
result from implementing the final standards.
1. Air Pollution Impacts
The final rule will reduce the amount of ozone generated from the
use of aerosol coatings. Because most States will use the VOC emission
reductions resulting from this rule in their ozone SIP planning, we
have calculated the reductions associated with the rule in terms of
mass VOC emissions and we will refer to a reduction in mass VOC
emissions when discussing the impacts of the final regulation. EPA
concludes this is appropriate because the reactivity limits were
designed to ensure that the ozone reductions that would be achieved by
the limits were equivalent to the mass VOC reductions that would have
been achieved by the CARB 2002 mass-based VOC limits. However, because
the limits actually reduce the amount of ozone generated from the VOC
used in aerosol coatings rather than VOC content by mass, the VOC
reductions that we refer to are more accurately described as an
``equivalent reduction in VOC emissions.'' We will use the term
``reduction'' in subsequent discussions. Additional information on the
method used to calculate the air impacts of the rule are included in
the impacts calculation memorandum contained in the docket to this
rulemaking.
EPA has estimated that this rule will reduce nationwide emissions
of VOC from the use of aerosol coatings by an estimated 17,130 tons
(15,570 Mg) from the 1990 baseline. This represents a 19.4 percent
reduction from the 1990 baseline of 88,300 tons (80,270 Mg) of VOC
emissions from the product category. While we believe that the above
numbers accurately assess the impacts of the final rule for SIP credit
purposes, we recognize that significant reductions have already
occurred as the result of the implementation of the CARB aerosol
coatings regulations. Because many manufacturers sell ``CARB
compliant'' coatings across the country, some of these VOC emission
reductions have already been achieved outside of California. We
estimate that approximately 18 percent of the total products sold are
not currently compliant with this rule's limits. Therefore, we estimate
that this rule will result in additional VOC reductions equivalent to
3,100 tons per year (i.e., 18 percent of 17,130 tons per year).
The reduction of 3,100 tons per year of VOC emissions represents
new reductions. However, for ozone SIP purposes, we are providing
States that do not currently have aerosol coating regulations in place
full credit for the 19.4 percent reduction from the 1990 baseline. This
19.4 percent reduction is equivalent to a 0.114 pound of VOC reduction
per capita.
Although we have not quantified the anticipated impacts of this
rule on HAP emissions, EPA expects that the final rule will reduce
emissions of toluene and xylene, two highly reactive toxic and volatile
compounds. Toluene and xylene are hazardous air pollutants that
manufacturers have historically used extensively in some aerosol
coating formulations. However, both of these compounds are also highly
reactive VOC. Therefore, it will be difficult for regulated entities to
continue to use these compounds in significant concentrations and still
meet the reactivity limits in the final rule. EPA maintains that a
regulation based upon VOC reactivity, rather than VOC mass, will
provide a significant incentive for regulated entities to cease or
reduce use of toluene and xylene in their products.
Due to the reduction in equivalent VOC emissions and ozone
formation and the anticipated reduction in hazardous air pollutant
emissions, we believe the rule will improve human health and the
environment.
2. Water and Solid Waste Impacts
There are no adverse solid waste impacts anticipated from the
compliance with this rule. Companies can continue to sell and
distribute coatings that do not meet the applicable limits after the
compliance date, as long as those coatings were manufactured before the
compliance date. Therefore, the industry does not have to dispose of
aerosol cans containing noncompliant product, which would result in an
increase in solid waste. It is possible that the rule will actually
result in a reduction in solid waste, as more concentrated higher
solids coatings may be used as an option for meeting the
[[Page 15618]]
regulatory limits. This will result in fewer containers requiring
disposal when the same volume of solids is applied by product users.
There are no anticipated adverse water impacts from this
rulemaking.
B. Energy Impacts
There are no adverse energy impacts anticipated from compliance
with this rule. EPA expects that regulated entities will comply through
product reformulation, which will not significantly alter energy
impacts. The rule does not include add-on controls or other measures
that would add to energy usage or other impacts.
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
There are four types of facilities that will be impacted by the
final rule. These include the aerosol coating manufacturers, aerosol
coating processors, and aerosol coating wholesale distributors, and
importers of aerosol coatings. For some products, the manufacturer is
also the filler and distributor, while for other products the
manufacturing process, the filling process, and the distribution may be
done by three separate companies. The primary focus of our cost and
economic analysis is the aerosol coating manufacturers as we anticipate
that the costs to the fillers, distributors, or importers will be
minimal.
For the aerosol coating manufacturer, we evaluated three components
in determining the total cost of the final rule. These three components
include the cost of the raw materials that the manufacturer will use to
formulate coatings that comply with the regulatory limits, the cost of
research and development efforts that will be necessary to develop
compliant formulations, and the cost of the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with the rule. These costs are explained in
more detail in the proposed rule.\29\ The only change to this rule
since proposal that could impact the cost analysis from the proposed
rule is the addition of triennial reporting, as discussed elsewhere.
However, the estimated increase in burden from this increased reporting
did not affect the average reporting and recordkeeping burden on a per
can basis. Therefore, there was no change in the economic assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Aerosol Coatings: Proposed Rule'' 72 FR 38951 (July 16, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all of the cans of aerosol coating product subject to the rule
required reformulation, the total nationwide cost of the final rule
would be $20,360,521. However, we know that significant progress has
already been made in reformulating aerosol coatings to meet the
promulgated limits. Even before CARB's regulation became effective, its
survey data showed that for 10 coating categories, 100 percent of the
coatings were complying with the limits in 1997. For the remaining
categories, all but two had complying market shares greater than 20
percent in 1997. With CARB's 2002 reactivity-based regulation in place,
EPA anticipates that the number of coatings already meeting the limits
has increased significantly.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2266.02.
The information collection requirements are based on recordkeeping
and reporting requirements. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 and section
183(e). All information submitted to EPA for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, as appropriate. The content of the
reports required by this rule will not be eligible for treatment as
confidential business information.
The promulgated standards would require regulated entities to
submit an initial notification and other reports as outlined in section
II.F.
We estimate that about 62 regulated entities are subject to the
promulgated standards. New and existing regulated entities would have
no capital costs associated with the information collection
requirements in the promulgated standards.
The estimated recordkeeping and reporting burden in the third year
after the effective date of the promulgated rule is estimated to be
15,818 labor hours at a cost of $1.0 million. This estimate includes
the cost of reporting, including reading instructions, information
gathering, preparation of initial and supplemental reports, triennial
reporting of formulation data, and variance or compliance extension
applications. Recordkeeping cost estimates include reading
instructions, planning activities, calculation of reactivity, and
maintenance of batch information. The average hours and cost per
regulated entity in the third year would be 197 hours and $16,400.
About 62 facilities would respond per year.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose, or
provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 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 this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or
[[Page 15619]]
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 regulatory action, I
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The small entities directly
regulated by this final rule are manufacturers, wholesale distributors,
and importers of aerosol coating products. We have determined that up
to 40 out of a total of 60 entities (or 67%) could experience a cost-
to-sales ratio increase of up to 1.42 percent. This ratio does not
include revenues from other products that small regulated entities may
sell. In addition, significant progress has already been made in
reformulating aerosol coatings to meet previously promulgated CARB
emission limits. Both of these factors would significantly reduce the
cost-to-sales ratio. Consequently it is very unlikely that the cost-to-
sales ratio for any small entity would exceed 1 percent. Thus, a
significant impact is not expected for a substantial number of small
entities.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has made efforts
to reduce the potential impact of the regulation. These efforts include
active participation in National Small Business Environmental
Assistance Program (SBEAP) meetings, and in follow-up meetings with
SBEAP States in Region 5. As a result, several States provided
information to small businesses regarding the rule. The final rule
includes several provisions designed to minimize the potential adverse
impacts on small businesses. They include a small quantity manufacturer
exemption, a compliance extension for entities that have not previously
developed CARB-compliant aerosol coatings formulations, and a variance
provision.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this regulatory action does 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 action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have
determined that this regulatory action contains 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.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order (EO) 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 EO 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 regulatory action does not have federalism implications. The
action does 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 EO 13132. The CAA establishes the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, and this
action does not impact that relationship. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply
to this regulatory action.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order (EO) 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.'' ``Policies that
have tribal implications'' is defined in the EO to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.''
This final action does not have Tribal implications as defined by
EO 13175. The final regulatory action does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, in that this action imposes
no regulatory burdens on Tribes. Furthermore, the action does not
affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The CAA and the
Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) establish the relationship of the Federal
Government and Tribes in implementing the CAA. Because the rule does
not have Tribal implications, EO 13175 does not apply.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order (EO) 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 EO 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 EO directs the EPA to
evaluate the environmental health or
[[Page 15620]]
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 EPA.
This regulatory action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not
an economically significant regulatory action as defined by EO 12866.
In addition, EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the potential
to influence the regulations. This regulatory action is not subject to
EO 13045 because it does 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 rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order (EO) 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy
effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The
VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the EPA does not use available
and applicable VCS.
This final rule involves technical standards. EPA cites the
following standards in this rule: California Air Resources Board Method
310--Determination of VOC in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic
Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products; EPA Method 311--Analysis of
Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct
Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, appendix A), in
conjunction with American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Method D3063-94 or D3074-94 for analysis of the propellant portion of
the coating; South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Method 318-95, Determination of Weight Percent Elemental Metal in
Coatings by X-ray Diffraction, July, 1996, for metal content; and ASTM
D523-89 (Reapproved 1999), Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss for
specular gloss of flat and nonflat coatings.
EPA Method 311--Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in
Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40
CFR part 63, appendix A) also is a compilation of voluntary consensus
standards. The following are incorporated by reference in EPA Method
311--Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and
Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,
appendix A): ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4457-85, ASTM D4747-
87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS9-94.
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards in addition to these methods. No
applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified.
For the methods required by the rule, a source may apply to EPA for
permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring
requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance
specifications, or procedures under Sec. Sec. 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of
subpart A of the General Provisions.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income populations. Further, it establishes national emission standards
for VOC in aerosol coatings.
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. The EPA will submit a report containing the final rule
amendment 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 this final rule amendment in the Federal
Register. The final rule amendment is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule is effective on March 24, 2008.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compound,
Consumer products, Aerosol products, Aerosol coatings, Consumer and
commercial products.
40 CFR Part 59
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 15, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 51 and 59 of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 51--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
2. Section 51.100 is amended by adding paragraph (s)(7) to read as
follows:
[[Page 15621]]
Sec. 51.100 Definitions.
* * * * *
(s) * * *
(7) For the purposes of determining compliance with EPA's aerosol
coatings reactivity based regulation (as described in 40 CFR part 59--
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer and
Commercial Products) any organic compound in the volatile portion of an
aerosol coating is counted towards the product's reactivity-based
limit, as provided in part 59, subpart E. Therefore, the compounds that
are used in aerosol coating products and that are identified in
paragraph (s) of this section as negligibly reactive and excluded from
EPA's definition of VOC are to be counted towards a product's
reactivity limit for the purposes of determining compliance with EPA's
aerosol coatings reactivity-based national regulation, as provided in
part 59, subpart E.
* * * * *
PART 59--[AMENDED]
0
3. The authority citation for part 59 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7511b(e).
0
4. Subpart E is added to read as follows:
Subpart E--National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Aerosol Coatings
Sec.
59.500 What is the purpose of this subpart?
59.501 Am I subject to this subpart?
59.502 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
59.503 What definitions apply to this subpart?
59.504 What limits must I meet?
59.505 How do I demonstrate compliance with the reactivity limits?
59.506 How do I demonstrate compliance if I manufacture multi-
component kits?
59.507 What are the labeling requirements for aerosol coatings?
59.508 What test methods must I use?
59.509 Can I get a variance?
59.510 What records am I required to maintain?
59.511 What notifications and reports must I submit?
59.512 Addresses of EPA regional offices.
59.513 State authority.
59.514 Circumvention.
59.515 Incorporations by reference.
59.516 Availability of information and confidentiality
Table 1 to Subpart E of Part 59--Product-Weighted Reactivity Limits
by Coating Category
Table 2A to Subpart E of Part 59--Reactivity Factors
Table 2B to Subpart E of Part 59--Reactivity Factors for Aliphatic
Hydrocarbon Solvent Mixtures
Table 2C to Subpart E of Part 59--Reactivity Factors for Aromatic
Hydrocarbon Solvent Mixtures
Subpart E--National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards
for Aerosol Coatings
Sec. 59.500 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes the product-weighted reactivity (PWR)
limits regulated entities must meet in order to comply with the
national rule for volatile organic compounds (VOC) emitted from aerosol
coatings. This subpart also establishes labeling, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for regulated entities.
Sec. 59.501 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) The regulated entities for an aerosol coating product are the
manufacturer or importer of an aerosol coating product and a
distributor of an aerosol coating product if named on the label.
Distributors whose names do not appear on the label for the product are
not regulated entities. Distributors include retailers whose names
appear on the label for the product. If your name appears on the label,
you are a regulated entity.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the
responsibilities of each regulated entity are detailed in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
(1) If you are a manufacturer or importer, you are the regulated
entity responsible for ensuring that all aerosol coatings manufactured
or imported by you meet the PWR limits presented in Sec. 59.504, even
if your name is not on the label.
(2) If you are a distributor named on the label, you are the
regulated entity responsible for compliance with all sections of this
subpart except for the limits presented in Sec. 59.504. If you are a
distributor that has specified formulations to be used by a
manufacturer, then you are responsible for compliance with all sections
of this subpart.
(3) If there is no distributor named on the label, then the
manufacturer or importer is the regulated entity responsible for
compliance with all sections of this subpart.
(4) If you are a manufacturer or importer, you can choose to
certify that you will provide any or all of the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of Sec. Sec. 59.510 and 59.511 by following the
procedures of Sec. 59.511(g) and (h).
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the
provisions of this subpart apply to aerosol coatings manufactured on or
after January 1, 2009, for sale or distribution in the United States.
Aerosol coatings that are registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136-136y) (FIFRA). For FIFRA
registered aerosol coatings, the provisions of this subpart apply to
aerosol coatings manufactured on or after January 1, 2010, for sale or
distribution in the United States.
(d) You are not a regulated entity under this subpart for the
aerosol coatings products that you manufacture (in or outside of the
United States) that are exclusively for sale outside the United States.
(e) If you meet the definition of small quantity manufacturer for a
given year, the products you manufacture in that year are not subject
to the PWR limits presented in Sec. 59.504 or the labeling
requirements of Sec. 59.507. To qualify for this exemption, small
aerosol coating manufacturers must comply with the applicable
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec. Sec. 59.510 and
59.511.
(f) If you are a person who manufactures or processes aerosol
coatings outside of the United States, you may qualify for the small
quantity manufacturer exemption in paragraph (e) of this section if you
meet the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this
section.
(1) The total VOC by mass included in all aerosol coatings you
manufacture, at all facilities, in a given calendar year, in the
aggregate, is less than 7,500 kilograms.
(2) You comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in
Sec. Sec. 59.510 and 59.511.
(3) You commit to and comply with the requirements of paragraphs
(f)(3)(i) through (f)(3)(vii) of this section.
(i) You must provide an initial notification no later than 90 days
before the compliance date, or at least 90 days before you start
manufacturing aerosol coating products that are sold in the United
States. This initial notification must state that you are a foreign
manufacturer that is intending to qualify for the small quantity
manufacturer exemption in paragraph (e) of this section, provide all of
the information specified in Sec. 59.511(b), and provide all the
information in paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(A) and (f)(3)(i)(B) of this
section.
(A) The name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of an
agent located in the United States who will serve as your point of
contact for communications with EPA.
(B) The address of each of your facilities that is manufacturing
aerosol coatings for sale in the United States.
[[Page 15622]]
(ii) You must notify the Administrator of any changes in the
information provided in your initial notification within 30 days
following the change.
(iii) The agent identified above must maintain a copy of the
compliance records specified in Sec. 59.510(b). Those records must be
kept by the agent such that the agent will be able to provide the
written report which must be submitted upon 60 days notice under Sec.
59.511(d) and able to make those records available for inspection and
review under Sec. 59.511(e).
(iv) You must give any EPA inspector or auditor full, complete, and
immediate access to your facilities and records to conduct inspections
and audits of your manufacturing facilities.
(v) You must agree that United States substantive and procedural
law shall apply to any civil or criminal enforcement action against you
under this subpart, and that the forum for any civil or criminal
enforcement action under this subpart shall be governed by the CAA,
including the EPA administrative forum where allowed under the CAA.
(vi) Any person certifying any notification, report, or other
communication from you to EPA must state in the certification that
United States substantive and procedural law shall apply to any civil
or criminal enforcement action against him or her under this subpart,
and that the forum for any civil or criminal enforcement action under
this section shall be governed by the CAA, including the EPA
administrative forum where allowed under the CAA.
(vii) All reports and other communications with EPA must be in
English. To the extent that you provide any documents as part of any
report or other communication with EPA, an English language translation
of that document must be provided with the report or communication.
Sec. 59.502 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 59.509 and paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section, you must be in compliance with all provisions of this
subpart by January 1, 2009.
(b) The Administrator will consider issuance of a special
compliance extension that extends the date of compliance until January
1, 2011, to regulated entities that have never manufactured, imported,
or distributed aerosol coatings for sale or distribution in California
that are in compliance with California's Regulation for Reducing Ozone
Formed From Aerosol Coating Product Emissions, Title 17, California
Code of Regulations, sections 94520-94528. In order to be considered
for an extension of the compliance date, you must submit a special
compliance extension application to the EPA Administrator no later than
90 days before the compliance date or within 90 days before the date
that you first manufacture aerosol coatings, whichever is later. This
application must contain the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(5) of this section. If a regulated entity remains unable to comply
with the limits of this rule by January 1, 2011, the regulated entity
may seek a variance in accordance with Sec. 59.509.
(1) Company name;
(2) A signed certification by a responsible company official that
the regulated entity has not at any time manufactured, imported, or
distributed for sale or distribution in California any product in any
category listed in Table 1 of this subpart that complies with
California's Regulation for Reducing Ozone Formed From Aerosol Coating
Product Emissions, Title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections
94520-94528;
(3) A statement that the regulated entity will, to the extent
possible within its reasonable control, take appropriate action to
achieve compliance with this subpart by January 1, 2011;
(4) A list of the product categories in Table 1 of this subpart
that the regulated entity manufactures, imports, or distributes; and,
(5) Name, title, address, telephone, e-mail address, and signature
of the certifying company official.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the
compliance date for aerosol coatings that are registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C 136-136y)
(FIFRA) is January 1, 2010.
Sec. 59.503 What definitions apply to this subpart?
The following terms are defined for the purposes of this subpart
only.
Administrator means the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or an authorized representative.
Aerosol Coating Product means a pressurized coating product
containing pigments or resins that is dispensed by means of a
propellant and is packaged in a disposable can for hand-held
application, or for use in specialized equipment for ground traffic/
marking applications. For the purpose of this regulation, applicable
aerosol coatings categories are listed in Table 1 of this subpart.
Art Fixative or Sealant means a clear coating, including art
varnish, workable art fixative and ceramic coating, which is designed
and labeled exclusively for application to paintings, pencil, chalk, or
pastel drawings, ceramic art pieces or other closely related art uses,
in order to provide a final protective coating or to fix preliminary
stages of artwork while providing a workable surface for subsequent
revisions.
ASTM means the American Society for Testing and Materials.
Autobody Primer means an automotive primer or primer surfacer
coating designed and labeled exclusively to be applied to a vehicle
body substrate for the purposes of corrosion resistance and building a
repair area to a condition in which, after drying, it can be sanded to
a smooth surface.
Automotive Bumper and Trim Product means a product, including
adhesion promoters and chip sealants, designed and labeled exclusively
to repair and refinish automotive bumpers and plastic trim parts.
Aviation Propeller Coating means a coating designed and labeled
exclusively to provide abrasion resistance and corrosion protection for
aircraft propellers.
Aviation or Marine Primer means a coating designed and labeled
exclusively to meet federal specification TT-P-1757.
Clear Coating means a coating which is colorless, containing resins
but no pigments except flatting agents, and is designed and labeled to
form a transparent or translucent solid film.
Coating Solids means the nonvolatile portion of an aerosol coating
product, consisting of the film-forming ingredients, including pigments
and resins.
Commercial Application means the use of aerosol coating products in
the production of goods, or the providing of services for profit,
including touch-up and repair.
Corrosion Resistant Brass, Bronze, or Copper Coating means a clear
coating designed and labeled exclusively to prevent tarnish and
corrosion of uncoated brass, bronze, or copper metal surfaces.
Distributor means any person who purchases or is supplied aerosol
coating product for the purposes of resale or distribution in commerce.
Retailers who fall within this definition are distributors. Importers
are not distributors.
Enamel means a coating which cures by chemical cross-linking of its
base resin and is not resoluble in its original solvent.
[[Page 15623]]
Engine Paint means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to
coat engines and their components.
Exact Match Finish, Engine Paint means a coating which meets all of
the following criteria:
(1) The product is designed and labeled exclusively to exactly
match the color of an original, factory-applied engine paint;
(2) The product is labeled with the manufacturer's name for which
they were formulated; and
(3) The product is labeled with one of the following:
(i) The original equipment manufacturer's (O.E.M.) color code
number;
(ii) The color name; or
(iii) Other designation identifying the specific O.E.M. color to
the purchaser.
Exact Match Finish, Automotive means a topcoat which meets all of
the following criteria:
(1) The product is designed and labeled exclusively to exactly
match the color of an original, factory-applied automotive coating
during the touch-up of automobile finishes;
(2) The product is labeled with the manufacturer's name for which
they were formulated; and
(3) The product is labeled with one of the following:
(i) The original equipment manufacturer's (O.E.M.) color code
number;
(ii) The color name; or
(iii) Other designation identifying the specific O.E.M. color to
the purchaser. Notwithstanding the foregoing, automotive clear coatings
designed and labeled exclusively for use over automotive exact match
finishes to replicate the original factory-applied finish shall be
considered to be automotive exact match finishes.
Exact Match Finish, Industrial means a coating which meets all of
the following criteria:
(1) The product is designed and labeled exclusively to exactly
match the color of an original, factory-applied industrial coating
during the touch-up of manufactured products;
(2) The product is labeled with the manufacturer's name for which
they were formulated; and
(3) The product is labeled with one of the following:
(i) O.E.M. color code number;
(ii) The color name; or
(iii) Other designation identifying the specific O.E.M. color to
the purchaser.
Flat Paint Products means a coating which, when fully dry,
registers specular gloss less than or equal to 15 on an 85[deg] gloss
meter, or less than or equal to 5 on a 60[deg] gloss meter, or which is
labeled as a flat coating.
Flatting Agent means a compound added to a coating to reduce the
gloss of the coating without adding color to the coating.
Floral Spray means a coating designed and labeled exclusively for
use on fresh flowers, dried flowers, or other items in a floral
arrangement for the purposes of coloring, preserving or protecting
their appearance.
Formulation Data, unless otherwise specified, means the recipe used
to formulate or manufacture a coating product in terms of the weight
fraction (g compound/g product) of each individual VOC in the product.
Fluorescent Coating means a coating labeled as such, which converts
absorbed incident light energy into emitted light of a different hue.
Glass Coating means a coating designed and labeled exclusively for
use on glass or other transparent material to create a soft,
translucent light effect, or to create a tinted or darkened color while
retaining transparency.
Ground Traffic/Marking Coating means a coating designed and labeled
exclusively to be applied to dirt, gravel, grass, concrete, asphalt,
warehouse floors, or parking lots. Such coatings must be in a container
equipped with a valve and spray head designed to direct the spray
toward the surface when the can is held in an inverted vertical
position.
High Temperature Coating means a coating, excluding engine paint,
which is designed and labeled exclusively for use on substrates which
will, in normal use, be subjected to temperatures in excess of 400
[deg]F.
Hobby/Model/Craft Coating means a coating which is designed and
labeled exclusively for hobby applications and is sold in aerosol
containers of 6 ounces by weight or less.
Importer means any person who brings an aerosol coating product
that was manufactured, filled, or packaged at a location outside of the
United States into the United States for sale or distribution in the
United States.
Ingredient means a component of an aerosol coating product.
Impurity means an individual chemical compound present in a raw
material which is incorporated in the final aerosol coatings
formulation, if the compound is present in amounts below the following
in the raw material:
(1) For individual compounds that are carcinogens each compound
must be present in an amount less than 0.1 percent by weight;
(2) For all other compounds present in a raw material, a compound
must be present in an amount less than 1 percent by weight.
Lacquer means a thermoplastic film-forming material dissolved in
organic solvent, which dries primarily by solvent evaporation, and is
resoluble in its original solvent.
Manufacturer means any person who manufactures or processes an
aerosol coating product for sale or distribution within the United
States. Manufacturers include:
(1) Processors who blend and mix aerosol coatings;
(2) Contract fillers who develop formulas and package these
formulations under a distributor's name; and
(3) Contract fillers who manufacture products using formulations
provided by a distributor.
Marine Spar Varnish means a coating designed and labeled
exclusively to provide a protective sealant for marine wood products.
Metallic Coating means a topcoat which contains at least 0.5
percent by weight elemental metallic pigment in the formulation,
including propellant, and is labeled as ``metallic,'' or with the name
of a specific metallic finish such as ``gold,'' ``silver,'' or
``bronze.''
Multi-Component Kit means an aerosol spray paint system which
requires the application of more than one component (e.g. foundation
coat and topcoat), where both components are sold together in one
package.
Nonflat Paint Product means a coating which, when fully dry,
registers a specular gloss greater than 15 on an 85[deg] gloss meter or
greater than five on a 60[deg] gloss meter.
Ozone means a colorless gas with a pungent odor, having the
molecular form O3.
Person means an individual, corporation, partnership, association,
state, any agency, department, or instrumentality of the United States,
and any officer, agent, or employee thereof.
Photograph Coating means a coating designed and labeled exclusively
to be applied to finished photographs to allow corrective retouching,
protection of the image, changes in gloss level, or to cover
fingerprints.
Pleasure Craft means privately owned vessels used for noncommercial
purposes.
Pleasure Craft Finish Primer/Surfacer/Undercoater means a coating
designed and labeled exclusively to be applied prior to the application
of a pleasure craft topcoat for the purpose of corrosion resistance and
adhesion of the topcoat, and which promotes a uniform surface by
filling in surface imperfections.
[[Page 15624]]
Pleasure Craft Topcoat means a coating designed and labeled
exclusively to be applied to a pleasure craft as a final coat above the
waterline and below the waterline when stored out of water. This
category does not include clear coatings.
Polyolefin Adhesion Promoter means a coating designed and labeled
exclusively to be applied to a polyolefin or polyolefin copolymer
surface of automotive body parts, bumpers, or trim parts to provide a
bond between the surface and subsequent coats.
Primer means a coating labeled as such, which is designed to be
applied to a surface to provide a bond between that surface and
subsequent coats.
Product-Weighted Reactivity (PWR) Limit means the maximum allowed
``product-weighted reactivity,'' as calculated in Sec. 59.505, of an
aerosol coating product that is subject to the limits specified in
Sec. 59.504 for a specific category, expressed as grams of ozone per
gram (g O3/g of product).
Propellant means a liquefied or compressed gas that is used in
whole or in part, such as a co-solvent, to expel a liquid or any other
material from the same self-pressurized container or from a separate
container.
Reactivity Factor (RF) is a measure of the change in mass of ozone
formed by adding a gram of a VOC to the ambient atmosphere, expressed
to hundredths of a gram (g O3/g VOC). The RF values for
individual compounds and hydrocarbon solvent mixtures are specified in
Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C of this subpart.
Retailer means any person who sells, supplies, or offers aerosol
coating products for sale directly to consumers. Retailers who fall
within the definition of ``distributor'' in this section are
distributors.
Retail Outlet means any establishment where consumer products are
sold, supplied, or offered for sale, directly to consumers.
Shellac Sealer means a clear or pigmented coating formulated solely
with the resinous secretion of the lac beetle (Laccifer lacca), thinned
with alcohol, and formulated to dry by evaporation without a chemical
reaction.
Slip-Resistant Coating means a coating designed and labeled
exclusively as such, which is formulated with synthetic grit and used
as a safety coating.
Small quantity manufacturer means a manufacturer whose total VOC by
mass included in all aerosol coatings manufactured at all facilities in
a given calendar year, in the aggregate, is less than 7,500 kilograms.
Spatter Coating/Multicolor Coating means a coating labeled
exclusively as such wherein spots, globules, or spatters of contrasting
colors appear on or within the surface of a contrasting or similar
background.
Stain means a coating which is designed and labeled to change the
color of a surface but not conceal the surface.
United States means the United States of America, including the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
Vinyl/Fabric/Leather/Polycarbonate Coating means a coating designed
and labeled exclusively to coat vinyl, fabric, leather, or
polycarbonate substrates or to coat flexible substrates including
rubber or thermoplastic substrates.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) means any organic compound as
defined in Sec. 51.100(s) of this chapter. As provided in 40 CFR
51.100(s)(7), exemptions from the definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s)
for certain compounds that are used in aerosol coatings are
inapplicable for purposes of this subpart.
Webbing/Veiling Coating means a coating designed and labeled
exclusively to provide a stranded to spider webbed appearance when
applied.
Weight Fraction means the weight of an ingredient divided by the
total net weight of the product, expressed to thousandths of a gram of
ingredient per gram of product (excluding container and packaging).
Weld-Through Primer means a coating designed and labeled
exclusively to provide a bridging or conducting effect for corrosion
protection following welding.
Wood Stain means a coating which is formulated to change the color
of a wood surface but not conceal the surface.
Wood Touch-Up/Repair/Restoration means a coating designed and
labeled exclusively to provide an exact color or sheen match on
finished wood products.
Working Day means any day from Monday through Friday, inclusive,
except for days that are Federal holidays.
Sec. 59.504 What limits must I meet?
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 59.509, each aerosol coating
product you manufacture, distribute or import for sale or use in the
United States must meet the PWR limits presented in Table 1 of this
subpart. These limits apply to the final aerosol coating, including the
propellant. The PWR limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart are
also applicable to any aerosol coating product that is assembled by
adding bulk coating to aerosol containers of propellant.
(b) If a product can be included in both a general coating category
and a specialty coating category and the product meets all of the
criteria of the specialty coating category, then the specialty coating
limit will apply instead of the general coating limit, unless the
product is a high temperature coating. High-temperature coatings that
contain at least 0.5 percent by weight of an elemental metallic pigment
in the formulation, including propellant, are subject to the limit
specified for metallic coatings.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, if
anywhere on the container of any aerosol coating product subject to the
limits in Table 1 of this subpart, or on any sticker or label affixed
to such product, or in any sales or advertising literature, the
manufacturer, importer or distributor of the product makes any
representation that the product may be used as, or is suitable for use
as a product for which a lower limit is specified, then the lowest
applicable limit will apply.
Sec. 59.505 How do I demonstrate compliance with the reactivity
limits?
(a) To demonstrate compliance with the PWR limits presented in
Table 1 of this subpart, you must calculate the PWR for each coating as
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (2) of this section:
(1) Calculate the weighted reactivity factor (WRF) for each
propellant and coating component using Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24MR08.013
[[Page 15625]]
Where:
WRFi = weighted reactivity factor of component i, g
O3/g component i.
RFi = reactivity factor of component i, g O3/g
component i, from Table 2A, 2B, or 2C.
WFi = weight fraction of component i in the product,
(2) Calculate the PWR of each product using Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24MR08.014
Where:
PWRp = PWR for product P, g O3/g product.
WRF1 = weighted reactivity factor for component 1, g
O3/g component.
WRF2 = weighted reactivity factor for component 2, g
O3/g component.
WRFn = weighted reactivity factor for component n, g
O3/g component.
(b) In calculating the PWR, you must follow the guidelines in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
(1) Any ingredient which does not contain carbon is assigned a RF
value of 0.
(2) Any aerosol coating solid, including but not limited to resins,
pigments, fillers, plasticizers, and extenders is assigned a RF of 0.
These items do not have to be identified individually in the
calculation.
(3) All individual compounds present in the coating in an amount
equal to or exceeding 0.1 percent will be considered ingredients
regardless of whether or not the ingredient is reported to the
manufacturer.
(4) All individual compounds present in the coating in an amount
less than 0.1 percent will be assigned an RF value of 0.
(5) Any component that is a VOC but is not listed in Table 2A, 2B,
or 2C of this subpart is assigned an RF value as detailed in paragraph
(e) of this section.
(c) You may use either formulation data (including information for
both the liquid and propellant phases), California Air Resources Board
Method 310--Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in
Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating
Products (May 5, 2005) (incorporated by reference in 59.515), or EPA's
Method 311--Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and
Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,
appendix A), to calculate the PWR. However, if there are
inconsistencies between the formulation data and the California Air
Resources Board Method 310 (May 5, 2005) (incorporated by reference in
59.515), or EPA Method 311--Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant
Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas
Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) results, the California Air
Resources Board Method 310 (May 5, 2005) (incorporated by reference in
59.515), or EPA Method 311--Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant
Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas
Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) results will govern.
(d) If you manufacture a coating containing either an aromatic or
aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent mixture, you must use the appropriate RF
for that mixture provided in Table 2B or 2C of this subpart when
calculating the PWR using formulation data. However, when calculating
the PWR for a coating containing these mixtures using data from
California Air Resources Board Method 310 (May 5, 2005) (incorporated
by reference in 59.515), or EPA Method 311--Analysis of Hazardous Air
Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a
Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, appendix A), you must identify the
individual compounds that are present in the solvent mixture and use
the weight fraction of those individual compounds and their RF from
Table 2A of this subpart in the calculation.
(e) If a VOC is used in a product but not listed in Table 2A of
this subpart, the Reactivity Factor (RF) is assigned according to
paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3) or (e)(4) of this section.
(1) If the VOC is not listed in Table 2A of this subpart, but has
an RF greater than 0.3, the regulated entity may petition EPA to add
the VOC to Table 2A, as described in Sec. 59.511(j). Based on these
petitions, EPA will periodically update the appropriate table. Once an
RF for a VOC is listed on the appropriate table, that RF will be used
for that VOC for the purposes of this rule. As provided in Sec.
59.511(j), any petitions submitted to EPA on or before June 1, 2008,
will be considered, and if appropriate, incorporated into Table 2A on
or before January 1, 2009.
(2) If the VOC is used in a product but not listed in Table 2A of
this regulation, and has an RF less than or equal to 0.3, and will be
used at a level greater than or equal to 7.3 weight percent (g of
compound/g product) in any of the regulated entity's formulations, the
regulated entity may petition EPA as described in Sec. 59.511(j).
Based on these petitions, EPA will periodically update the appropriate
table. Once an RF for a VOC is listed on the appropriate table, that RF
will be used for that VOC for the purposes of this rule. As provided in
Sec. 59.511(j), any petition submitted to EPA on or before June 1,
2008 will be considered, and if appropriate, incorporated into Table 2A
on or before January 1, 2009.
(3) If a compound has an RF less than or equal to 0.3, and will not
be used at a level greater than or equal to 7.3 weight percent (g of
compound/g product) in any of the regulated entity's formulations, the
RF to be used in all calculations by that entity for this subpart is 0.
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(1), (e)(2) and (e)(3) of
this section, if a VOC is not listed in Table 2A of this subpart, it is
assigned a default RF factor of 22.04 g O3/g VOC. As described in Sec.
59.511(j), regulated entities may petition the Administrator to add a
compound or mixture to Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of this subpart.
(f) In calculating the PWR value for a coating containing an
aromatic hydrocarbon solvent with a boiling range different from the
ranges specified in Table 2C of this subpart, you must assign an RF as
described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section:
(1) If the solvent boiling point is lower than or equal to 420
degrees F, then you must use the RF in Table 2C of this subpart
specified for bin 23;
(2) If the solvent boiling point is higher than 420 degrees F, then
you must use the RF specified in Table 2C of this subpart for bin 24.
(g) For purposes of compliance with the PWR limits, all compounds
listed in Tables 2A, 2B, or 2C that are used in the aerosol coating
products must be included in the calculation. This includes compounds
that may otherwise be exempted from the definition of VOC in Sec.
59.100(s).
Sec. 59.506 How do I demonstrate compliance if I manufacture multi-
component kits?
(a) If you manufacture multi-component kits as defined in Sec.
59.503, then the Kit PWR must not exceed the Total Reactivity Limit.
(b) You must calculate the Kit PWR and the Total Reactivity Limit
as follows:
(1) KIT PWR = (PWR(1) x W1) +
(PWR(2) x W2) +. ...+ (PWR(n) x
Wn)
[[Page 15626]]
(2) Total Reactivity Limit = (RL1 x W1) +
(RL2 x W2) +...+ (RLn x
Wn).
(3) Kit PWR <= Total Reactivity Limit.
Where:
W = the weight of the product contents (excluding container).
RL = the PWR Limit specified in Table 1 of this subpart.
Subscript 1 denotes the first component product in the kit.
Subscript 2 denotes the second component product in the kit.
Subscript n denotes any additional component product.
Sec. 59.507 What are the labeling requirements for aerosol coatings?
(a) The labels of all aerosol products manufactured on and after
the applicable compliance date listed in Sec. 59.502 must contain the
information listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The aerosol coating category code for the coating, based on the
category definitions in Sec. 59.503. This code can be the default
category code shown in Table 1 of this subpart or a company-specific
code, if that code is explained as required by Sec. 59.511(a);
(2) The applicable PWR limit for the product specified in Table 1
of this subpart;
(3) The day, month, and year on which the product was manufactured,
or a code indicating such date;
(4) The name and a contact address for the manufacturer,
distributor, or importer that is the regulated entity under this
subpart.
(b) The label on the product must be displayed in such a manner
that it is readily observable without removing or disassembling any
portion of the product container or packaging. The information may be
displayed on the bottom of the container as long as it is clearly
legible without removing any product packaging.
Sec. 59.508 What test methods must I use?
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 59.505(c), you must use the
procedures in California Air Resource Board Method 310--Determination
of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products and Reactive
Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products (May 5, 2005)
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 59.515) or EPA's Method 311--
Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by
Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, appendix A)
to determine the speciated ingredients and weight percentage of each
ingredient of each aerosol coating product. EPA Method 311--Analysis of
Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct
Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) must be
used in conjunction with ASTM Method D3063-94 or D3074-94 for analysis
of the propellant portion of the coating. Those choosing to use
California Air Resources Board Method 310 (May 5, 2005) (incorporated
by reference in Sec. 59.515) must follow the procedures specified in
section 5.0 of that method with the exception of section 5.3.1, which
requires the analysis of the VOC content of the coating. For the
purposes of this subpart, you are not required to determine the VOC
content of the aerosol coating. For both California Air Resources Board
Method 310 (May 5, 2005) (incorporated by reference in Sec. 59.515)
and EPA Method 311--Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in
Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40
CFR part 63, appendix A), you must have a listing of the VOC
ingredients in the coating before conducting the analysis.
(b) To determine the metal content of metallic aerosol coating
products, you must use South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Method 318-95, Determination of Weight Percent Elemental Metal
in Coatings by X-ray Diffraction, July, 1996, in 40 CFR part 59
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 59.515).
To determine the specular gloss of flat and nonflat coatings you
must use ASTM Method D523-89 (Reapproved 1999), Standard Test Method
for Specular Gloss, in 40 CFR part 59 (incorporated by reference in
Sec. 59.515).
Sec. 59.509 Can I get a variance?
(a) Any regulated entity that cannot comply with the requirements
of this subpart because of circumstances beyond its reasonable control
may apply in writing to the Administrator for a temporary variance. The
variance application must include the information specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.
(1) The specific products for which the variance is sought.
(2) The specific provisions of the subpart for which the variance
is sought.
(3) The specific grounds upon which the variance is sought.
(4) The proposed date(s) by which the regulated entity will achieve
compliance with the provisions of this subpart. This date must be no
later than 3 years after the issuance of a variance.
(5) A compliance plan detailing the method(s) by which the
regulated entity will achieve compliance with the provisions of this
subpart.
(b) Within 30 days of receipt of the original application and
within 30 days of receipt of any supplementary information that is
submitted, the Administrator will send a regulated entity written
notification of whether the application contains sufficient information
to make a determination. If an application is incomplete, the
Administrator will specify the information needed to complete the
application, and provide the opportunity for the regulated entity to
submit written supplementary information or arguments to the
Administrator to enable further action on the application. The
regulated entity must submit this information to the Administrator
within 30 days of being notified that its application is incomplete.
(c) Within 60 days of receipt of sufficient information to evaluate
the application, the Administrator will send a regulated entity written
notification of approval or disapproval of a variance application. This
60-day period will begin after the regulated entity has been sent
written notification that its application is complete.
(d) The Administrator will issue a variance if the criteria
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section are met to
the satisfaction of the Administrator.
(1) Complying with the provisions of this subpart would not be
technologically or economically feasible.
(2) The compliance plan proposed by the applicant can reasonably be
implemented and will achieve compliance as expeditiously as possible.
(e) A variance must specify dates by which the regulated entity
will achieve increments of progress towards compliance, and will
specify a final compliance date by which the regulated entity will
achieve compliance with this subpart.
(f) A variance will cease to be effective upon failure of the party
to whom the variance was issued to comply with any term or condition of
the variance.
Sec. 59.510 What records am I required to maintain?
(a) If you are the regulated entity identified in Sec. 59.501(a)
as being responsible for recordkeeping for a product, and no other
person has certified that they will fulfill your recordkeeping
responsibilities as provided in Sec. 59.511(g), you must comply with
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section:
[[Page 15627]]
(1) All records must be maintained on and after the applicable
compliance date listed in Sec. 59.502.
(2) You are required to maintain records of the following at the
location specified in Sec. 59.511(b)(4) for each product subject to
the PWR limits in Table 1 of this subpart: The product category, all
product calculations, the PWR, and the weight fraction of all
ingredients including: Water, total solids, each VOC, and any other
compounds assigned a RF of zero as specified in Sec. 59.505. Solids do
not have to be listed individually in these records. If an individual
VOC is present in an amount less than 0.1 percent by weight, then it
does not need to be reported as an ingredient. An impurity that meets
the definition provided in Sec. 59.503 does not have to be reported as
an ingredient. For each batch of each product subject to the PWR
limits, you must maintain records of the date the batch was
manufactured, the volume of the batch, the recipe used for formulating
the batch, and the number of cans manufactured in each batch and each
formulation.
(3) You must maintain a copy of each notification and report that
you submit to comply with this subpart, the documentation supporting
each notification, and a copy of the label for each product.
(4) If you claim the exemption under Sec. 59.501(e), you must
maintain a copy of the initial report and each annual report that you
submit to EPA, and the documentation supporting such report.
(5) You must maintain all records required by this subpart for a
minimum of 5 years. The records must be in a form suitable and readily
available for inspection and review.
(b) By providing the written certification to the Administrator in
accordance with Sec. 59.511(g), the certifying manufacturer accepts
responsibility for compliance with the recordkeeping requirements of
this section with respect to any products covered by the written
certification, as detailed in the written certification. Failure to
maintain the required records may result in enforcement action by EPA
against the certifying manufacturer in accordance with the enforcement
provisions applicable to violation of these provisions by regulated
entities. If the certifying manufacturer revokes its certification, as
allowed by Sec. 59.511(h), the regulated entity must assume
responsibility for maintaining all records required by this section.
Sec. 59.511 What notifications and reports must I submit?
(a) If you are the regulated entity identified in Sec. 59.501(a)
and (b) as being responsible for notifications and reporting for a
product, and no other person has certified that they will fulfill your
notification and reporting responsibilities as provided in paragraph
(g) of this section, you are responsible for all notifications and
reports included in this section. If no distributor is named on the
label, the manufacturer or importer of the aerosol coating is
responsible for all requirements of this section, even if not listed on
the label.
(b) You must submit an initial notification no later than 90 days
before the compliance date, or at least 90 days before the date that
you first manufacture, distribute, or import aerosol coatings,
whichever is later. The initial notification must include the
information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(11) of this section.
(1) Company name;
(2) Name, title, address, telephone number, e-mail address and
signature of certifying company official;
(3) A list of the product categories from Table 1 of this subpart
that you manufacture, import, or distribute;
(4) The street address of each of your facilities in the United
States that is manufacturing, packaging, or importing aerosol coatings
that are subject to the provisions of this subpart, and the street
address where compliance records are maintained for each site, if
different;
(5) A description of date coding systems, clearly explaining how
the date of manufacture is marked on each sales unit;
(6) An explanation of the product category codes that will be used
on all required labels, or a statement that the default category codes
in Table 1 of this subpart will be used;
(7) For each product category, an explanation of how the
manufacturer, distributor, or importer will define a batch for the
purpose of the recordkeeping requirements;
(8) A list of any compounds or mixtures that will be used in
aerosol coatings that are not included in Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of this
subpart;
(9) For each product category, VOC formulation data for each
formulation that you anticipate manufacturing, importing, or
distributing for calendar year 2009 or for the first year that includes
your compliance date, if different than 2009. If a regulated entity can
certify that the reporting is being completed by another regulated
entity for any product, no second report is required. The formulation
data must include the weight fraction (g compound/g product) for each
VOC ingredient used in the product in an amount greater than or equal
to 0.1 percent. The formulation data must also include the information
in either paragraph (b)(9)(i) or (b)(9)(ii) of this section for each
VOC ingredient reported.
(i) For compounds listed in Table 2A of this regulation, the
chemical name, CAS number, and the applicable reactivity factor; or
(ii) For hydrocarbon solvent mixtures listed in either 2B or 2C or
this subpart, the trade name, solvent mixture manufacturer, bin number,
and the applicable reactivity factor.
(10) For each product formulation, a list of the unique product
codes by Universal Product Code (UPC), or other unique identifier; and
(11) A statement certifying that all products manufactured by the
company that are subject to the limits in Table 1 of this subpart will
be in compliance with those limits.
(c) If you change any information included in the initial
notification required by paragraph (b) of this section, including the
list of aerosol categories, contact information, records location, the
category or date coding system, or the list required under paragraph
(b)(8) of this section, you must notify the Administrator of such
changes within 30 days following the change. You are also required to
notify the Administrator within 30 days of the date that you begin
using an organic compound in any of your aerosol coating products if
that compound has an RF less than or equal to 0.3, and is used at a
level greater than or equal to 7.3 weight percent (g of compound/g
product) in any of your formulations. You are not required to notify
the Administrator within 30 days of changes to the information provided
as required by paragraph (b)(9) of this section. Changes in formulation
are to be reported in the triennial reporting required by paragraph (i)
of this section.
(d) Upon 60 days written notice, you must submit to the
Administrator a written report with all the information in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (d)(5) of this section for each product you manufacture,
distribute, or import under your name or another company's name.
(1) The brand name of the product;
(2) A copy of the product label;
(3) The owner of the trademark or brand names;
(4) The product category as defined in Sec. 59.503;
(5) For each product, formulation data for each formulation that
manufactured, imported, or distributed in the
[[Page 15628]]
requested time period. The formulation data must include the weight
fraction (g compound/g product) for each VOC ingredient used in the
product in an amount greater than or equal to 0.1 percent, plus the
weight fraction of all other ingredients including: Water, total
solids, and any other compounds assigned an RF of zero. The formulation
data must also include the information in either paragraph (d)(5)(i) or
(ii) of this section.
(i) For compounds listed in Table 2A of this subpart, the chemical
name, CAS number, and the applicable reactivity factor.
(ii) For hydrocarbon solvent mixtures listed in either 2B or 2C or
this table, the trade name, solvent mixture manufacturer, bin number,
and the applicable reactivity factor.
(e) If you claim the exemption under Sec. 59.501(e), you must
submit an initial notification no later than 90 days before the
compliance date or at least 90 days before the date that you first
manufacture aerosol coatings, whichever is later. The initial
notification must include the information in paragraphs (e)(1) through
(e)(6) of this section.
(1) Company name;
(2) Name, title, number, address, telephone number, e-mail address,
and signature of certifying company official;
(3) A list of the product categories from Table 1 of this subpart
that you manufacture;
(4) The total amount of product you manufacture in each category
and the total VOC mass content of such products for the preceding
calendar year;
(5) The street address of each of your facilities in the United
States that is manufacturing aerosol coatings that are subject to the
provisions of this subpart and the street address where compliance
records are maintained for each site, if different; and
(6) A list of the States in which you sell or otherwise distribute
the products you manufacture.
(f) If you claim the exemption under Sec. 59.501(e), you must file
an annual report for each year in which you claim an exemption from the
limits of this subpart. Such annual report must be filed by March 1 of
the year following the year in which you manufactured the products. The
annual report shall include the same information required in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section.
(g) If you are a manufacturer, importer, or distributor who chooses
to certify that you will maintain records for a regulated entity for
all or part of the purposes of Sec. 59.510 and this section, you must
submit a report to the appropriate Regional Office listed in Sec.
59.512. This report must include the information contained in (g)(1)
though (g)(4) of this section.
(1) Name and address of certifying entity;
(2) Name and address(es) of the regulated entity for which you are
accepting responsibility;
(3) Description of specific requirements in Sec. 59.510 and this
section for which you are assuming responsibility and explanation of
how all required information under this subpart will be maintained and
submitted, as required, by you or the regulated entity; and
(4) Signature of responsible official for the company.
(h) An entity that has provided certification under paragraph (g)
of this section (the ``certifying entity'') may revoke the written
certification by sending a written statement to the appropriate
Regional Office listed in Sec. 59.512 and to the regulated entity for
which the certifying had accepted responsibility, giving a minimum of
90 days notice that the certifying entity is rescinding acceptance of
responsibility for compliance with the requirements outlined in the
certification letter. Upon expiration of the notice period, the
regulated entity must assume responsibility for all applicable
requirements.
(i) As a regulated entity in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section, you must provide the information requested in paragraphs
(i)(1) through (i)(4) of this section every three years beginning in
2011 for reporting year 2010. The report shall be submitted by March 31
of the year following the reporting year to the appropriate Regional
Office listed in Sec. 59.512. The first report is due March 31, 2011,
for calendar year 2010.
(1) All identification information included in paragraphs (b)(1),
(b)(2), and (b)(4) of this section;
(2) For each product category, VOC formulation data for each
formulation that was manufactured, imported, or distributed in the
reporting year. The formulation data must include the weight fraction
(g compound/g product) for each VOC ingredient used in the product in
an amount equal to or greater than 0.1 percent. If a regulated entity
can certify that the reporting is being completed by another regulated
entity for any product, no second report is required. The formulation
data must include the information in either paragraph (i)(2)(i) or
(i)(2)(ii) of this section for each VOC present in an amount greater
than or equal to 0.1 percent.
(i) For compounds listed in Table 2A of this subpart, the chemical
name, CAS number, and the applicable reactivity factor; or
(ii) For hydrocarbon solvent mixtures listed in either 2B or 2C of
this subpart, the trade name, solvent mixture manufacturer, bin number,
and the applicable reactivity factor.
(3) For each formulation, the total mass of each individual VOC
species present in an amount greater than or equal to 0.1 percent of
the formulation, that was manufactured, imported, or distributed in the
reporting year; and
(4) For each formulation, a list of the individual product codes by
UPC or other unique identifier.
(j) If a regulated entity identifies a VOC that is needed for an
aerosol formulation that is not listed in Tables 2A, 2B, or 2C of this
subpart, it is assigned a default RF factor of 22.04 g O3/g VOC.
Regulated entities may petition the Administrator to add a compound to
Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of this subpart. Petitions must include the
chemical name, CAS number, a statement certifying the intent to use the
compound in an aerosol coatings product, and adequate information for
the Administrator to evaluate the reactivity of the compound and assign
a RF value consistent with the values for the other compounds listed in
Table 2A of this subpart. Any requests submitted to EPA on or before
June 1, 2008 will be considered and, if appropriate, incorporated into
Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of this subpart on or before January 1, 2009.
Sec. 59.512 Addresses of EPA regional offices.
All requests (including variance requests), reports, submittals,
and other communications to the Administrator pursuant to this
regulation shall be submitted to the Regional Office of the EPA which
serves the State or territory for the address that is listed on the
aerosol coating product in question. These areas are indicated in the
following list of EPA Regional Offices.
EPA Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, Vermont), Director, Office of Environmental Stewardship,
Mailcode: SAA, JFK Building, Boston, MA 02203.
EPA Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands),
Director, Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866.
EPA Region III (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia), Air
[[Page 15629]]
Protection Division, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
EPA Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee), Director, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics, Management Division, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, GA
30365.
EPA Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin),
Director, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
IL 60604-3507.
EPA Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas),
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
EPA Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska), Director, Air and
Toxics Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101.
EPA Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming), Director, Air and Toxics Division, 999 18th Street, 1 Denver
Place, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2405.
EPA Region IX (American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii,
Nevada), Director, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105.
EPA Region X (Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Washington), Director, Air and
Toxics Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
Sec. 59.513 State authority.
The provisions in this regulation will not be construed in any
manner to preclude any State or political subdivision thereof from:
(a) Adopting and enforcing any emission standard or limitation
applicable to a manufacturer, distributor or importer of aerosol
coatings or components in addition to the requirements of this subpart.
(b) Requiring the manufacturer, distributor or importer of aerosol
coatings or components to obtain permits, licenses, or approvals prior
to initiating construction, modification, or operation of a facility
for manufacturing an aerosol coating or component.
Sec. 59.514 Circumvention.
Each manufacturer, distributor, and importer of an aerosol coating
or component subject to the provisions of this subpart must not alter,
destroy, or falsify any record or report, to conceal what would
otherwise be noncompliance with this subpart. Such concealment
includes, but is not limited to, refusing to provide the Administrator
access to all required records and date-coding information, misstating
the PWR content of a coating or component batch, or altering the
results of any required tests to determine the PWR.
Sec. 59.515 Incorporations by reference.
(a) The following material is incorporated by reference (IBR) in
the paragraphs noted in Sec. 59.508. These incorporations by reference
were approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are
incorporated as they exist on the date of approval, and notice of any
changes in these materials will be published in the Federal Register.
(1) California Air Resources Board Method 3-0--Determination of
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products and Reactive
Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products (May 5, 2005), IBR
approved for Sec. 59.508.
(2) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Test
Method 318-95, Determination of Weight Percent Elemental Metal in
Coatings by X-ray Diffraction, (July, 1996), IBR approved for Sec.
59.508.
(3) ASTM Method D523-89 (Reapproved 1999), Standard Test Method for
Specular Gloss, IBR approved for Sec. 59.508.
(b) You may obtain and inspect the materials at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC; the EPA Library, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; you may inspect the materials
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
Sec. 59.516 Availability of information and confidentiality.
(a) Availability of information. The availability to the public of
information provided to or otherwise obtained by the Administrator
under this part shall be governed by part 2 of this chapter.
(b) Confidentiality. All confidential business information entitled
to protection under section 114(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that must
be submitted or maintained by each regulated entity pursuant to this
subpart shall be treated in accordance with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
(c) Reports and Applications. The content of all reports and
applications required to be submitted to the Agency under Sec. 59.511,
Sec. 59.509, or Sec. 59.502 are not entitled to protection under
Section 114(c) of the CAA.
Table 1 to Subpart E of Part 59.--Product-Weighted Reactivity Limits by
Coating Category
[g O3/g product]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reactivity
Coating category Category code \a\ limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Coatings................... CCP 1.50
Flat Coatings.................... FCP 1.20
Fluorescent Coatings............. FLP 1.75
Metallic Coatings................ MCP 1.90
Non-Flat Coatings................ NFP 1.40
Primers.......................... PCP 1.20
Ground Traffic/Marking........... GTM 1.20
Art Fixatives or Sealants........ AFS 1.80
Auto body primers................ ABP 1.55
Automotive Bumper and Trim ABT 1.75
Products.
Aviation or Marine Primers....... AMP 2.00
Aviation Propellor Coatings...... APC 2.50
Corrosion Resistant Brass, CRB 1.80
Bronze, or Copper Coatings.
Exact Match Finish--Engine Enamel EEE 1.70
Exact Match Finish--Automotive... EFA 1.50
Exact Match Finish--Industrial... EFI 2.05
Floral Sprays.................... FSP 1.70
Glass Coatings................... GCP 1.40
[[Page 15630]]
High Temperature Coatings........ HTC 1.85
Hobby/Model/Craft Coatings, HME 1.45
Enamel.
Hobby/Model/Craft Coatings, HML 2.70
Lacquer.
Hobby/Model/Craft Coatings, Clear HMC 1.60
or Metallic.
Marine Spar Varnishes............ MSV 0.90
Photograph Coatings.............. PHC 1.00
Pleasure Craft Primers, Surfacers PCS 1.05
or Undercoaters.
Pleasure Craft Topcoats.......... PCT 0.60
Polyolefin Adhesion Promoters.... PAP 2.50
Shellac Sealers, Clear........... SSC 1.00
Shellac Sealers, Pigmented....... SSP 0.95
Slip-Resistant Coatings.......... SRC 2.45
Spatter/Multicolor Coatings...... SMC 1.05
Vinyl/Fabric/Leather/ VFL 1.55
Polycarbonate Coatings.
Webbing/Veiling Coatings......... WFC 0.85
Weld-Through Primers............. WTP 1.00
Wood Stains...................... WSP 1.40
Wood Touch-up/Repair or WTR 1.50
Restoration Coatings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Regulated entities may use these category codes or define their own
in accordance with Sec. 59.511(b)(6).
Table 2A to Subpart E of Part 59.--Reactivity Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reactivity
Compound CAS No. factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Butanol............................... 71-36-3 3.34
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene.................. 95-63-6 7.18
2-Butanol (s-Butyl alcohol)............. 78-92-2 1.60
2-Butoxy-1-Ethanol (Ethylene glycol 111-76-2 1.67
monobutyl ether).......................
2-Propoxyethanol (ethylene glycol 2807-30-9 3.52
monopropyl ether)......................
Acetone (Propanone)..................... 67-64-1 0.43
Amyl acetate (Pentyl ethanoate, pentyl 628-63-7 0.96
acetate)...............................
Butane.................................. 106-97-8 1.33
Butyl acetate, n........................ 123-86-4 0.89
Cyclohexanone........................... 108-94-1 1.61
Di (2-ethylhexyl phthalate)............. 117-81-7 ..............
Diacetone alcohol....................... 123-42-2 0.68
Diethanolamine.......................... 111-42-2 4.05
Diisobutyl ketone....................... 108-83-8 2.94
Dimethyl ether.......................... 115-10-6 0.93
Ethanol................................. 64-17-5 1.69
Ethyl acetate........................... 141-78-6 0.64
Ethyl benzene........................... 100-41-4 2.79
Ethyl-3-Ethoxypropionate................ 763-69-9 3.61
Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate 111-15-9 1.9
(2-Ethoxyethyl acetate)................
Heptane................................. 142-82-5 1.28
Hexane.................................. 110-54-3 1.45
Isobutane............................... 75-28-6 1.35
Isobutanol.............................. 78-83-1 2.24
Isobutyl Acetate........................ 110-19-0 0.67
Isohexane Isomers....................... 107-83-5 1.80
Isopropyl alcohol (2-Propanol).......... 67-63-0 0.71
Methanol................................ 67-56-1 0.71
Methyl amyl ketone...................... 110-43-0 2.80
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)........ 78-93-3 1.49
Methyl isobutyl ketone.................. 108-10-1 4.31
Methyl n-Propyl Ketone (2-Pentanone).... 107-87-9 3.07
N,N-Dimethylethanolamine................ 108-01-0 4.76
N-Butyl alcohol (Butanol)............... 71-36-3 3.34
Pentane................................. 109-66-0 1.54
Propane................................. 74-98-6 0.56
Propylene glycol........................ 57-55-6 2.75
Propylene glycol monomethyl ether 108-65-6 1.71
acetate................................
Texanol (1,3 Pentanediol, 2,2,4- 25265-77-4 0.89
trimethyl, 1-isobutyrate)..............
Toluene................................. 108-88-3 3.97
Vinyl Chloride.......................... 75-01-4 2.92
Xylene, meta-........................... 108-38-3 10.61
Xylene, ortho-.......................... 95-47-6 7.49
Xylene, para-........................... 106-42-3 4.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15631]]
Table 2B to Subpart E of Part 59.--Reactivity Factors for Aliphatic
Hydrocarbon Solvent Mixtures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Bin boiling point Criteria Reactivity
* (degrees F) factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................. 80-205 Alkanes (< 2% 2.08
Aromatics).
2................. 80-205 N- & Iso-Alkanes (>= 1.59
90% and < 2%
Aromatics).
3................. 80-205 Cyclo-Alkanes (>= 2.52
90% and < 2%
Aromatics).
4................. 80-205 Alkanes (2 to < 8% 2.24
Aromatics).
5................. 80-205 Alkanes (8 to 22% 2.56
Aromatics).
6................. >205-340 Alkanes (< 2% 1.41
Aromatics).
7................. >205-340 N- & Iso-Alkanes ( 1.17
>= 90% and < 2%
Aromatics).
8................. >205-340 Cyclo-Alkanes (>= 1.65
90% and < 2%
Aromatics).
9................. >205-340 Alkanes (2 to < 8% 1.62
Aromatics).
10................ >205-340 Alkanes (8 to 22% 2.03
Aromatics).
11................ >340-460 Alkanes (< 2% 0.91
Aromatics).
12................ >340-460 N- & Iso-Alkanes (>= 0.81
90% and < 2%
Aromatics).
13................ >340-460 Cyclo-Alkanes (>= 1.01
90% and < 2%
Aromatics).
14................ >340-460 Alkanes (2 to < 8% 1.21
Aromatics).
15................ >340-460 Alkanes (8 to 22% 1.82
Aromatics).
16................ >460-580 Alkanes (< 2% 0.57
Aromatics).
17................ >460-580 N- & Iso-Alkanes (>= 0.51
90% and < 2%
Aromatics).
18................ >460-580 Cyclo-Alkanes (>= 0.63
90% and < 2%
Aromatics).
19................ >460-580 Alkanes (2 to < 8% 0.88
Aromatics).
20................ >460-580 Alkanes (8 to 22% 1.49
Aromatics).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Average Boiling Point = (Initial Boiling Point + Dry Point) / 2 (b)
Aromatic Hydrocarbon Solvents
Table 2C to Subpart E of Part 59.--Reactivity Factors for Aromatic
Hydrocarbon Solvent Mixtures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boiling range Reactivity
Bin (degrees F) Criteria factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21................ 280-290 Aromatic Content 7.37
(>=98%).
22................ 320-350 Aromatic Content 7.51
(>=98%).
23................ 355-420 Aromatic Content 8.07
(>=98%).
24................ 450-535 Aromatic Content 5.00
(>=98%).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E8-5589 Filed 3-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P