DUNN

- EDWARDS CORPORATION

4885 East 52 nd Place, Los Angeles, CA 900 58

ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS Phone: (323) 826

- 2663 Fax: (323) 826

- 2653

VIA E

- MAIL monicasoucier@co.imperial.ca.us

February 22, 2010

Ms. Monica Soucier Imperial County APCD

150 South 9 th Street El Centro, CA 92243

RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO IMPERIAL COUNTY APCD RULE 1 01 : DEFINITIONS, AND RULE 424 : ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS

Dear M s

. Soucier :

Dunn

- Edwards Corporation is a California

- based manufacturer and distributor of architectural coatings, serving the Southwestern United States. Our Main Office & Factory Complex, as well as a majority of our retail outlets, are located in California, where we provide good jobs for more than 1, 3 00 people directly and contribute indirectly to the livelihoods of thousands more professional painting contractors and maintenance staff painters. Dunn

- Edwards paint and coatings are frequently specified for use on public buildings, including federal, stat e, county and municipal facilities, in addition to residential , commercial, institutional and industrial

structures of all kinds.

This letter is to provide our comments on the above

- referenced proposed

amendments

. In general (except as noted below), to the extent that the proposed amendments implement the California Air Resources Board’s 2007 Suggested

Control Measure (“SCM”) for Architectural Coatings (with the initial effective date extended by one year, as recommended by ARB staff) , Dunn

- Edwards has n o objections. We believe it is very important, for the sake of efficient compliance and enforcement, that local district rules in California provide substantial uniformity

– particularly in terms of definitions, limits, effective dates, and administrative requirements, including labeling.Ms. Monica Soucier

February 22, 2010 Page 2

The only exception would be with respect to two major coating categories

– Flat Coatings and Primers

, Sealers & Undercoaters

– for which the 2007 SCM use s VOC limits fro m South Coast AQMD Rule 1113. In the context of Rule 1113, however, the limits on those categories are, in effect, “average” limits because the categories are subject to the Averaging Compliance Option of Rule 1113. Under that option, a manufacturer may distribute limited amounts of product with VOC contents above the applicable limit, so long as the excess VOC content can be offset by distribution of product with VOC contents below the limit (in accordance with a

District

- approved “Averaging Program” th at requires regular reporting).

Because these “average” limits are used as “absolute” limits in the 2007 SCM (which no longer includes an Averaging Compliance Option) , this means that if local

districts implement the revised SCM as given , California w oul d unfortunately revert

to a two

- tiered regulatory system in which products that are allowed to some users will be denied to other users. In this case, low

- volume high

- performance coatings for certain specialized needs in these two categories w ould continu e to be available to about half the population of California in the South Coast AQMD, but not to the

other half in the rest of the state. This situation w ould likely impede efficient compliance and enforcement on a statewide basis.

Additionally, substit ution of lower

- performing compliant products in place of higher

- performing banned products will cause unintended significant adverse environmental impacts due to (1) increased amount of coating material applied per surface area coated; (2) increased touch

- up and repair coating to maintain surfaces; and (3) increased frequency of re

- application to compensate for lower durability.

Dunn

- Edwards believes that the District may not properly rely upon categorical exemption from the California Environmental Qualit y Act (CEQA) to avoid analyzing these impacts, nor may the District rely upon ARB’s environmental assessment of the SCM to satisfy the District’s CEQA obligations. The general

discussion of environmental 

### impacts presented in the ARB Technical Support

Docu ment (TSD) does not take even the preliminary step of identifying which products would be banned by local district implementation of the SCM, and how the performance of those products would differ from that of remaining alternative products. Instead, the TSD discusses the analysis that was performed for the 2000 SCM, and various studies related to other rule requirements. Consequently, we believe that a new and comprehensive assessment would be needed before the current proposal may be lawfully adopted.Ms. Monica Soucier

February 22, 2010 Page 3

To remedy this situation, by allowing a reasonable amount of additional time to formulate and test adequately performing substitute products that meet the proposed limits, we request that the District re

- schedule the effective date of the proposed lower limits for Flat Coatings and Primers, Sealers & Undercoaters from January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2012. This approach was used in the 2007 SCM to resolve concerns regarding the lower limits proposed for Ru st Preventative Coatings and Specialty Primers, and we think the same solution would be appropriate for Flat Coatings and Primers, Sealers & Undercoaters. Also, V entura County APCD has taken this approach with respect to Flat Coatings and Primers, Sealers &

Undercoaters in its recently amended Rule 74.2 for Architecural Coatings , which was supported by Dunn

- Edwards

.

To streamline the definitions section of the proposed rule, we would recommend eliminating a number of definitions that no longer serve any useful purpose within the context of the rule. This would include definitions of the following terms:

Nonindustrial Use

Sealer Swimming Pool Repair and Maintenance Coating

Undercoater

Also, we request a modification of the definition for Speci alty Primer, Sealer and Undercoater, in the same manner (and for the same reason) that the Bay Area AQMD modified the definition to include the following statement: “Until January 1, 2011, the Specialty Primer, Sealer and Undercoater category includes coat ings formulated to seal excessively chalky surfaces. An excessively chalky surface is one that is defined as having a chalk rating of four or less as determined by ASTM Designation D 4214

- 98, incorporated in Section [ G ] .” This will prevent the revision

o f the definition from banning chalky surface primers immediately upon adoption of the proposed amended rule , which was not intended in the SCM

.

We are supportive of the comments submitted by the American Coatings

Association and concur in their recommend ation s, including (but not limited to) the

recommendation to include current limits as well as future limits in the Table of Standards, and to include transitional language in the definition of any category to be deleted. We would modify the suggested lan guage as follows: “Effective January 1, 2011, a coating meeting this definition will be subject to the VOC limit for the applicable category in Table of Standards 1 or Table of Standards 2, except as provided in Section D .2 (Most Restrictive VOC Limit) and Section D .3 (Sell

- Through of Coatings).”Ms. Monica Soucier

February 22, 2010 Page 4

Thank you for your consideration of our views. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to call me at (323) 826

- 2663.

Very truly your s,

DUNN

- EDWARDS CORPORATION



# RWendoll

Robert Wendoll

Director of Environmental Affairs

Cc: David Darling, NPCA