DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION

4885 East 52nd Place, Los Angeles, CA 90058

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 9th Street

El Centro, CA 92243

RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO IMPERIAL COUNTY APCD RULE 101: 

DEFINITIONS, AND RULE 424: ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS

Dear Ms. 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 1,300 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, state, 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 no 

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 uses

VOC limits from 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” that 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 would 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 would continue 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 would likely impede efficient 

compliance and enforcement on a statewide basis.

Additionally, substitution 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 Quality 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 

Document (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 Rust Preventative Coatings 

and Specialty Primers, and we think the same solution would be appropriate for Flat 

Coatings and Primers, Sealers & Undercoaters. Also, Ventura 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 Specialty 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 coatings 

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 

of 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 recommendations, 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 language 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 yours,

DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION

RWendoll

Robert Wendoll

Director of Environmental Affairs

Cc: David Darling, NPCA