EPA

Office of Air Quality

Pla nnin g a nd S ta nd a rds

C Air

lean

United States Office of Air Quality EPA-453/R-99-003

Environmental Protection Planning and Standards July 1999

Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/

183e/aim/aimpg.html

Air

SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE GUIDE

National Volatile Organic Compound

Emission Standards for Architectural

Coatings 
Small Entity Compliance Guide

2

Disclaimer

This guide was prepared pursuant to section 212 of the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121. This guide is

intended solely to help regulated entities comply with the published national regulation,

"National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings”

(Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 176, pages 48848 - 48887, September 11, 1998,

included here in Appendix A). Technical corrections were published on June 30, 1999

(Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 125, pages 34997-35002, included here in Appendix A.)

This guide is not intended to replace the regulation and corrections and may not

cover all parts of the regulation and corrections. Final authority rests solely with the

regulation and corrections to the regulation. However, in any civil or administrative

action against a small business, small government, or small non-profit organization for a

violation of the architectural coatings regulation, the content of this guide may be

considered as evidence of the reasonableness or appropriateness of proposed fines,

penalties or damages.

Acknowledgments

This document was prepared by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

(OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and approved for publication. This

document was provided for review to State Small Business Assistance Programs, the

Small Business Administration, the National Paint and Coatings Association, and a

number of small business owners. 
Small Entity Compliance Guide

3

CONTENTS

Section

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................. 7

1.1 Who should use this guide? .................................. 8

1.2 What does the guide cover? .................................. 8

1.3 How do I use the guide? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.4 How do I obtain a complete copy of the regulation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.0 WHAT DOES THE REGULATION REQUIRE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.1 What environmental or human health issues does this regulation

address? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2 Why is it important to regulate architectural coatings? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.3 Summary of the architectural coatings regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4 How do I demonstrate compliance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.5 Compliance timetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.6 How does the national architectural coatings regulation relate to State and

local requirements? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.0 STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH 

THE REGULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.1 How do I determine if I am subject to the regulation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.1.1 Am I a manufacturer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.1.2 Am I an importer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.1.3 Is the coating that I manufacture or import an architectural 

coating? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.1.4 Is the architectural coating that I manufacture or import exempt

from the regulation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.1.5 How does the regulation apply to me if I am a toll manufacturer or a

private-label manufacturer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.2 What requirements must I meet? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.3 When do I need to comply? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.4 What do I need to do to comply? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3.5 How do I determine the category for my coating? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.6 How do I determine the VOC content of my coating? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.7 What must I do if all of my coatings meet the VOC content limits? . . . . 49

3.8 How can I use the tonnage exemption? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3.9 How can I use the exceedance fee? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

3.10 How can I use more than one compliance option? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

3.11 What reports and records are required? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

3.12 How do I comply with the container labeling requirements? . . . . . . . . . 76

3.13 How does the regulation affect me if I apply traffic markings? . . . . . . . 78
Small Entity Compliance Guide

4

4.0 OTHER QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

4.1 How might I conduct a self-audit to help me evaluate whether I am in

compliance with this regulation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

4.2 If I am subject to this regulation, do I have to obtain a Federal 

operating permit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4.3 What are the implications for my existing operating permits? . . . . . . . . 84

4.4 What is pollution prevention and how can it affect my operations? . . . 85

4.5 Are there opportunities for flexibility or waivers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

4.6 Where do I go for further assistance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

5.0 THE COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5.1 How will EPA determine compliance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

5.2 If I discover a violation, how can I work with the EPA to correct it? . . . 88

5.3 If EPA discovers a violation, what might be its response? . . . . . . . . . . 89

5.4 What is the legal status of this guide? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Small Entity Compliance Guide

5

FIGURES 

Figure

1 Volatile organic compound (VOC) content limits for architectural 

coatings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2 State and local architectural coatings regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3 Who is responsible when more than one coating company is 

involved in manufacturing a coating? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4 What must I do if all of my coatings meet the VOC content limits? . . . . . . . . . 50

5 How can I use the tonnage exemption? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

6 How can I use the exceedance fee? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

7 Self-audit checklist for determining compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Small Entity Compliance Guide

6

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Final rule: National Volatile Organic Compound Emission

Standards for Architectural Coatings (40 CFR Part 59, Subpart D,

63 FR 48848, September 11, 1998)

Final rule; corrections and amendments. National Volatile Organic

Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings;

Correction (40 CFR Part 59, Subpart D, 64 FR 34997, June 30,

1999)

Appendix B: Fact sheets for each architectural coating category, including the

definitions and VOC content limits

Appendix C: Summary of the exceptions to meeting the most restrictive coating

category VOC content limit

Appendix D: Organic compounds that have been exempted from EPA’s

definition of a VOC in 40 CFR 51.100

Appendix E: EPA’s Test Method 24: Determination of volatile matter content,

water content, density, volume solids, and weight solids of surface

coatings 

Appendix F: When do I include or exclude water, exempt compounds, and

colorant from my coating VOC and volume calculations?

Appendix G: EPA Regional Office addresses for information and sending

notifications, reports, and fees

Appendix H: Worksheets for estimating and computing total mass of VOC for

the tonnage exemption and calculating exceedance fees 

Appendix I: Initial notification report template

Appendix J: Contacts and resources

Appendix K: Glossary 

Appendix L: Questionnaire: How useful was this guide?
1.0 Introduction

7

1.0 INTRODUCTION

 After reading this introduction, you should know whether you need to use

this guide, what this guide covers, and where to get the latest information on

the regulation.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the regulation

entitled “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural

Coatings” (Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 176, pages 48848 - 48887) on September 11,

1998 under authority of Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act. This guide explains how to

tell if you are subject to the regulation and what to do if you are required to comply.

The EPA published this document as a compliance guide for small entities, as

required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. As you

use the guide, you should know that the information in this guide was written and

published in July 1999. The EPA published technical corrections to the architectural

coatings final regulation. The technical corrections were published in the Federal

Register on June 30, 1999 (64 FR 34997). This guide incorporates the regulation

corrections, which are noted with an asterisk (*) and a footnote to explain the correction. 

You can determine whether EPA has published further corrections to the regulation or

revised the information in this guide by checking the architectural coatings web site at:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/183e/aim/aimpg.html.

The regulation applies to manufacturers and

importers of architectural coatings—not to

distributors or users. An architectural coating is a

coating recommended for field application to

stationary structures, their appurtenances, to

portable buildings, to pavements or to curbs.

The Office of Federal Register (OFR) tracks whether any part of the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) changed. To see if EPA has published changes to this
1.0 Introduction

8

regulation (40 CFR part 59, subpart D), browse the OFR list of CFR sections affected at

http://www.access.gpo/nara/lsa/browslsa.html. If you do not have access to the

Internet, you can contact EPA’s Clean Air Technology Center (CATC) at 919-541-0800.

1.1 Who should use this guide?

If you manufacture or import an architectural coating for sale or distribution in the

United States, then you should use this guide to help you understand the requirements

you are subject to under EPA’s architectural coatings national regulation. As the

manufacturer or importer of an architectural coating, you may have to meet certain

requirements limiting the amount of pollutants (i.e., volatile organic compounds) in the

products that you manufacture or import on or after September 13, 1999. If you apply

traffic marking coatings, you are not subject to the regulation, but you should read

section 3.13 of this guide to determine how you may be affected indirectly.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act (SBREFA) requires the EPA to

prepare this compliance guide to help small businesses comply with the regulation. 

The regulation has the same requirements for all affected manufacturers and importers

regardless of the size of the company. Therefore, this guide is also helpful for large

businesses that must comply and to government staff who must implement and enforce

the regulation.

1.2 What does the guide cover?

The purpose of this guide is to help small entities and others affected by the

architectural coatings regulation comply with the regulation. This guide answers the

following questions:

& Why is the architectural coatings regulation important?

& Am I subject to the architectural coatings regulation?

& What must I do to comply with the architectural coatings regulation?
1.0 Introduction

9

1.3 How do I use the guide?

This guide is organized into 5 major sections and 12 appendices.

& Section 1 introduces you to this guide and the architectural coatings regulation. 

You should be able to determine if you are affected by the architectural coatings

regulation, and therefore, whether you need to use this guide.

& Section 2 provides an overview of the regulatory requirements. This section

explains the environmental and health issues that this regulation addresses. 

Section 2 also explains how EPA’s national architectural coatings regulation

relates to other architectural coating regulations at the State and local levels. 

& Section 3 gives step-by-step procedures for determining if you are subject to the

regulation and how to demonstrate compliance. 

& Section 4 covers facility-specific questions regarding topics such as self-audits

and existing air permits.

& Section 5 discusses how the EPA will determine compliance and how the EPA

will enforce the regulation.

The appendices of this guide contain tools and information that will be useful to

you in complying with the architectural coatings regulation.

Regulation provisions are cited using brackets, i.e., [§ 59.400] so you can cross

reference the regulation if necessary.
1.0 Introduction

10

1.4 How do I obtain a complete copy of the regulation?

A complete copy of the regulation and technical corrections is included in

Appendix A. The National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for

Architectural Coatings (40 CFR part 59, Subpart D) was published in the Federal

Register, Vol. 63, No. 176, pages 48848 - 48887 on September 11, 1998. The

technical corrections were published in the Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 125,

page 34997 on June 30, 1999. You may also obtain a copy of the regulation and

technical corrections on the Internet at 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
2.0 What does the regulation require?

11

2.0 WHAT DOES THE REGULATION REQUIRE?

 After reading section 2, you should understand the benefits of this

regulation, the general requirements of the regulation, compliance dates, and

how this national regulation relates to State and local architectural coatings

regulations.

2.1 What environmental or human health issues does this regulation

address?

The architectural coatings regulation is part of an integrated EPA approach to

reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, or "VOC," which have been

associated with a variety of health and welfare impacts. Section 183(e) of the Clean Air

Act directs EPA to list and schedule for regulation categories of consumer and

commercial products because of their potential VOC emissions. VOC react with

nitrogen oxides (NO ) in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone (a primary x

component of smog). To protect the public health and welfare, EPA has established

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS are a measure of

acceptable and unacceptable levels of certain pollutants across the country. More than

half of the U.S. population lives or works in areas that exceed the national standards for

ozone. In order to reduce national ground-level ozone levels, emissions of VOC and

NO must be reduced. x

Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with agricultural crop loss and

damage to forests and ecosystems. Human exposure to ozone primarily affects the

lungs. Exposure to ozone is responsible for reduced exercise performance, increased

susceptibility to respiratory infection, and pulmonary inflammation. When ozone levels

are high, more asthmatics have asthma attacks that require a doctor’s attention or the

use of additional asthma medication. 

About one out of every three people in the United States is at a higher risk of

experiencing ozone-related health effects. Four groups of people are particularly
2.1 Health and environmental issues

12

sensitive to ozone: children; adults who are active outdoors; people with respiratory

diseases such as asthma; and people with unusual susceptibility to ozone. These

groups become sensitive to ozone when they are active outdoors because physical

activity (such as jogging or outdoor work) causes people to breathe faster and more

deeply. During activity, ozone penetrates deeper into the parts of the lungs that are

more vulnerable to injury.

Ozone's most perceptible effects on human health are acute respiratory

symptoms such as coughing and painful deep breathing. These acute health effects

are induced by short-term exposures to ozone (observed at concentrations as low as

0.12 parts per million [ppm]), generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or

heavy exertion. Acute health effects also are induced by prolonged exposures to ozone

(observed at concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm), typically while individuals are

engaged in moderate exertion. Moderate exertion levels are more frequently

experienced by individuals than heavy exertion levels. 

Exposure to ozone may make it uncomfortable to breathe, causing throat

irritation or more rapid and shallow breathing. Ozone can also inflame and temporarily

damage the lining of the lung. Scientists are concerned that repeated short-term

damage from exposure to ozone may permanently change the lung. For example,

there is concern that repeated ozone impacts on the developing lungs of children may

lead to reduced lung function as adults.

Elevated concentrations of ozone are also associated with adverse welfare

effects. Among the welfare impacts from exposure to ozone are damage to selected

commercial timber species and economic losses for commercially valuable crops, such

as soybeans and cotton. The typical concentration level of ozone found in rural areas

is thought to depress crop yields and cause visible damage to other plant life such as

premature aging and leaf loss. 
2.2 Why is it important to regulate architectural coatings?

13

2.2 Why is it important to regulate architectural coatings?

In many States, architectural coatings represent one of the largest identifiable

sources of unregulated VOC emissions. Consequently, EPA and many States consider

the regulation of architectural coatings to be an important component of the overall

approach to reducing those emissions that contribute to excess levels of ozone.

Architectural coating regulations are already in place in a number of States, and

other States may develop regulations in the future. For the companies that market

architectural coatings in different States, trying to fulfill the differing requirements of

State regulations has created administrative, technical, and marketing problems. Both

large and small manufacturers have noted the additional burden associated with

differences in State and local requirements. These industry representatives have noted

that a national regulation would provide some degree of consistency, predictability, and

administrative ease for the industry. For a list of States that have architectural coatings

regulations in place, see Section 2.6. 

The architectural coatings standards will reduce

nationwide emissions of VOC by 103,000 megagrams

per year (Mg/yr) (113,500 tons per year [tpy]). These

reductions are from a 1990 "baseline" emissions

estimate and represent a 20 percent reduction in VOC

emissions from architectural coatings . 
2.3 Summary of regulation

14

2.3 Summary of the architectural coatings regulation

The architectural coatings regulation sets VOC content limits for 61 categories of

architectural coatings that are manufactured on or after September 13, 1999 (March 13,

2000 for products subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act).

The regulation has... for... and you must comply by...

VOC content limits 61 categories of architectural choosing one or more of the

coatings listed in Figure 1 following for coatings that do not

meet the limits:

& reformulate the coating to

meet the limit

& designate a limited volume as

exempt using the tonnage

exemption

& pay an annual exceedance fee

on the amount of VOC in

excess of the limit 

Labeling requirements each coating sold or providing specific information on

distributed in the United States each container

Coating categories. Manufacturers and importers must classify each of their

architectural coatings as belonging to at least one of the categories. The 61 categories

of architectural coatings are listed in Figure 1. Manufacturers and importers should

classify their coatings into categories based on the definitions in the regulation. If a

coating meets the definition of more than one coating category, the manufacturer or

importer must comply with the lowest applicable VOC content limit, unless one of the

specified exceptions applies. Section 3.5 and Appendices B and C of this guide

provide information to help you determine the category and VOC content limit for each

of your coatings. [§§ 59.400, 59.401, 59.402]

VOC content limits. Manufacturers and importers may either reformulate their

coatings to meet the VOC content limits in Figure 1 or choose to comply by using one of

the compliance options described below. Manufacturers and importers who reformulate

their coatings to meet the VOC content limits in Figure 1, or whose coatings already

meet the limits, are only required to submit an initial report and meet the labeling

requirements. However, manufacturers who choose to comply with the regulation by

using the "tonnage exemption," paying the "exceedance fee," or using the adjusted
2.3 Summary of regulation

15

VOC content of recycled coatings must keep records and submit further reports in

addition to submitting the initial report and meeting the labeling requirements. 

[§ 59.402]

Tonnage exemption. This compliance option allows each manufacturer and

importer to sell or distribute limited quantities of architectural coatings that do not

comply with the VOC content limits and for which no exceedance fee is paid. The

tonnage exemption can be used for multiple products, but the total mass of VOC

allowed under the tonnage exemption is a specified total limit each year. The total

mass of VOC is calculated based on the volume of coatings manufactured or imported

and the total amount of VOC contained in each of the coatings for which an exemption

is claimed. [§ 59.404]

Exceedance fee. This compliance option is an economic incentive approach

whereby manufacturers and importers may choose to comply with the regulation by

paying an annual fee in lieu of meeting the VOC content limits for their coating

products. The fee is $0.0028 per gram, or approximately $2,500 per ton, of excess

VOC. The fee is calculated using the coating’s amount of VOC in excess of the

applicable VOC content limit and the volume of coating manufactured. The

exceedance fee is paid annually. [§ 59.403]

Labeling. Each container of architectural coating sold or distributed in the

United States must be clearly labeled with the following information: date of

manufacture (or a date code), recommendations for thinning, and VOC content of the

coating. If the coating is an industrial maintenance coating, then the container must

also display one of the specified statements that indicates the coating is not intended

for general consumer use. If the manufacturer or importer claims a credit for recycled

coatings, then the container must indicate the post-consumer content in percent by

volume. [§ 59.405]

Reporting and recordkeeping. All manufacturers and importers of affected

coatings must submit an initial report to EPA listing the coating categories from Figure 1

that they manufacture or import. They must also report the locations of their facilities

that produce, package, or repackage architectural coatings in the United States. The

regulation does not require periodic records or reports, unless the manufacturer or
2.3 Summary of regulation

16

importer chooses to use the adjusted VOC content of recycled coatings, pays an

exceedance fee, or uses the tonnage exemption. [§§ 59.407, 59.408]

Recycled coatings. Manufacturers or importers who recycle post-consumer

coatings into their products may take credit for the recycled coating content and meet

less stringent VOC content limits. [§ 59.406(a)(3)]

If you reformulate your coatings to meet the

VOC content limits, or your coatings already

meet the VOC content limits, then you are

subject to fewer recordkeeping and reporting

requirements than if you use the tonnage

exemption or exceedance fee.

Limits are expressed in grams of VOC per liter of coating

thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation

excluding the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or

colorant added to tint bases, except for low solids stains

and low solids wood preservatives.
2.3 Summary of regulation

17

FIGURE 1. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONTENT LIMITS FOR 

ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS

Coating category Grams per liter Pounds per gallon

Antenna coatings 530 4.4

Anti-fouling coatings 450 3.8*

Anti-graffiti coatings 600 5.0

Bituminous coatings and mastics 500 4.2

Bond breakers 600 5.0

Calcimine recoater 475 4.0

Chalkboard resurfacers 450 3.8

Concrete curing compounds 350 2.9

Concrete curing and sealing compounds 700 5.8

Concrete protective coatings 400 3.3

Concrete surface retarders 780 6.5

Conversion varnish 725 6.0

Dry fog coatings 400 3.3

Extreme high durability coatings 800 6.7

Faux finishing/glazing 700 5.8

Fire-retardant/resistive coatings:

Clear 850 7.1

Opaque 450 3.8

Flat coatings:

Exterior 250 2.1

Interior 250 2.1

Floor coatings 400 3.3

Flow coatings 650 5.4

Form release compounds 450 3.8

Graphic arts coatings (sign paints) 500 4.2

Heat reactive coatings 420 3.5

High temperature coatings 650 5.4

Impacted immersion coatings 780 6.5

Industrial maintenance coatings 450 3.8

Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers) 680 5.7

Magnesite cement coatings 600 5.0

Mastic texture coatings 300 2.5

Metallic pigmented coatings 500 4.2

Multi-colored coatings 580 4.8

Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and surface protectants 870 7.3

Nonflat coatings:

Exterior 380 3.2

Interior 380 3.2

Nuclear coatings 450 3.8

Pretreatment wash primers 780 6.5
2.3 Summary of regulation

Coating category Grams per liter Pounds per gallon

**Regulation correction [§ 59.402(a)], see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that the EPA will

determine compliance with the VOC content limits in metric units, expressed in grams

of VOC per liter of coating, rather than English units.

18

Primers and undercoaters 350 2.9

Quick-dry coatings:

Enamels 450 3.8

Primers, sealers, and undercoaters 450 3.8

Repair and maintenance thermoplastic coatings 650 5.4

Roof coatings 250 2.1

Rust preventative coatings 400 3.3

Sanding sealers (other than lacquer sanding sealers) 550 4.6

Sealers (including interior clear wood sealers) 400 3.3

Shellacs:

Clear 730 6.1

Opaque 550 4.6

Stains:

Clear and semitransparent 550 4.6

Opaque 350 2.9

Low solids 120 1.0 a a

Stain controllers 720 6.0

Swimming pool coatings 600 5.0

Thermoplastic rubber coatings and mastics 550 4.6

Traffic marking coatings 150 1.3

Varnishes 450 3.8

Waterproofing sealers and treatments 600 5.0

Wood preservatives:

Below ground wood preservatives 550 4.6

Clear and semitransparent 550 4.6

Opaque 350 2.9

Low solids 120 1.0 a a

Zone marking coatings 450 3.8

Units are grams of VOC per liter (pounds of VOC per gallon) of coating, including water and exempt compounds, thinned to a

 the maximum thinning recommended by the manufacturer.

* Regulation correction [Table 1 to Subpart D], see page 7 for where to get the latest information. The correct VOC

 content limit for anti-fouling coatings is 450 grams per liter and 3.8 pounds per gallon, rather than 3.3 pounds per gallon.

English units are provided for information

only. Regulation enforcement will be based

on the metric levels. **
2.4 Demonstrating compliance

*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(a)], see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that the EPA will

determine compliance with the VOC content limits in metric units, expressed in grams

of VOC per liter of coating, rather than English units.

19

2.4 How do I demonstrate compliance?

The regulation does not require an initial compliance test. If your coatings

already meet the VOC content limits or if you reformulate your coatings to meet the

limits, then you must only submit the initial report and comply with the labeling

requirements. Even though the regulation does not require you to keep records or

submit periodic reports if your coatings meet the VOC content limits, you are

responsible for ensuring that your coatings continue to meet the VOC content limits and

you may choose any means to do so. You should consider keeping voluntary records

that show compliance with the regulation. Such records would be helpful to you should

an EPA inspector select one or more of your coatings for a compliance determination. 

Your records could document the actions you have taken to comply with the regulation

and could clarify any uncertainties that might otherwise occur.

The EPA will determine compliance with the VOC content limits in metric units*

using EPA Method 24 as the reference method (or an alternative method that would be

approved on a case-by-case basis). The EPA may request at any time that you

conduct a Method 24 test to demonstrate compliance. See Appendix E of this guide for

a copy of Method 24, "Determination of volatile matter content, water content, density,

volume solids, and weight solids of surface coatings."

For coatings that do not meet the VOC content limits in Figure 1, your steps for

demonstrating compliance depend on how you choose to comply. You may

reformulate your coatings or use one of the compliance options of the regulation,

specifically the tonnage exemption or exceedance fee. If you choose to use one of the

compliance options or if you choose to use the adjusted VOC content for recycled

coatings, you must maintain records and submit an annual report in addition to

submitting the initial notification report and meeting labeling requirements.
2.5 Compliance timetable

*Regulation correction [§ 59.408(b)]; see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that the deadline for

submitting the initial notification report for coatings registered under FIFRA is March 13,

2000, rather than September 13, 1999.

20

2.5 Compliance timetable

Each manufacturer and importer must submit the initial notification report and

comply with the labeling requirements. Additional records and reports vary depending

on whether the manufacturer or importer reformulates its coatings, uses the adjusted

VOC content for recycled coatings, pays the fee, or uses the tonnage exemption. Refer

to section 3 of this guide for how to use each compliance option and the compliance

times. FIFRA coatings are coatings that must be registered under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Date Requirement

September 13, 1999 Initial notification report [§ 59.408(b)],

VOC content limits and labeling requirements

for non-FIFRA coatings [§ 59.408(b)] 

March 1, 2000 First annual reports for manufacturers and

importers using the adjusted VOC content of

recycled coatings [§ 59.408(c)] or paying the

exceedance fee [§ 59.408(d)]

March 13, 2000 Initial notification report for FIFRA coatings

[§ 59.408(b)],* VOC content limits and

labeling requirements for FIFRA coatings

[§ 59.400(b)]

March 1, 2001 First annual report for manufacturers and

importers using the tonnage exemption

[§ 59.408(e)]

March 1, 2001 and all subsequent years Annual report for manufacturers and

importers using adjusted VOC content of

recycled coatings [§ 59.408(c)], paying the

exceedance fee [§ 59.408(d)], or using the

tonnage exemption [§ 59.408(e)]

No later than 30 days after first use Report to explain any new date codes

[§ 59.408(b)(4)]
2.6 State and local requirements

21

2.6 How does the national architectural coatings regulation relate to

State and local requirements? [§ 59.410]

This compliance guide explains your compliance obligations with respect to

EPA’s national architectural coatings regulation as published on September 11, 1998. 

You should check State or local requirements that apply to you that are different from,

or more stringent than, the national requirements. Architectural coating regulations are

already in place in some States and other States may develop regulations in the future. 

Figure 2 lists States that have architectural coatings regulations in place.

Compliance with the national regulation does not necessarily constitute

compliance with State regulations, nor does the national regulation supersede State

regulations. For more information on the regulations that apply in your State, check

with your State or local small business assistance program. The EPA’s Small Business

Assistance Program web site provides information on State and local small business

programs: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/sbap.

The national architectural coatings regulation does not

supersede any applicable State or local regulations. You

should contact your State or local agency regarding any

conflicts between the national regulation and your State or

local architectural coatings regulations.
2.6 State and local requirements

22

FIGURE 2. STATE AND LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS REGULATIONS

State Affected Area/Counties Rule Rule

Effective Date of

Arizona Maricopa County Rule 335 July 13, 1998

California 18 out of the 35 air districts in CA have Rule 1113 September 2, 1977

architectural coatings regulations (most stringent)

Antelope Valley 1113

Bay Area 8-3 March 1978

Butte County 240 July 1979 

Colusa County 2.26 1979

El Dorado County 215 September 1994

Feather River 3.15 June 1991

Imperial County 424 November 1982

Kern County 410.1 April 1972

Mojave Desert 1113 February 1979

Monterey Bay 426 May 1979

Placer County 218 June 1979

Sacramento Metropolitan 442 December 1978

San Diego County 67.0 November 1997

San Joaquin County 4601 April 1991

Santa Barbara County 323 October 1971

South Coast 1113 September 2, 1977

Ventura County 74.2 June 1979

Yolo-Solano County 2.14 - "Rule 66"

Kentucky Jefferson County Reg. 1.16 January 17, 1996

Massachusetts Statewide 310 CMR 7:25 October 1, 1995

Missouri St. Louis Metropolitan area 10CSR 10-5.450 May 28, 1995

New Jersey Statewide NJAC 7:27-23 February 21, 1989

New York Metropolitan area only 6NYCCR Part 205 September 15, 1988

Texas Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, 115.421(11) December 31, 1989

El Paso, and Houston/Galveston

Washington Vancouver SWAPCA 493-200 May 25, 1996

Wisconsin Non-attainment areas only (seasonal) NR 422.17 April 30, 1996
3.0 Step-By-Step Procedures for Compliance With The Regulation

23

3.0 STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURES FOR 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATION

 After reading section 3, you should know if you are subject to the regulation

and what steps you must take to comply. 

This section of the guide will help you determine if you are subject to the

architectural coatings regulation and what you must do to comply. This section also

tells you how you will be affected if you apply traffic marking coatings. Use this section

of the guide to answer the following questions. 

3.1 How do I tell if I am subject to the regulation?

3.2 What requirements am I subject to?

3.3 When do I need to comply?

3.4 What do I need to do to comply?

(Sections 3.5 through 3.12 explain the step-by-step procedures for

complying.)

3.13 How will the regulation affect me if I apply traffic markings?
3.1 Am I subject?

24

3.1 How do I determine if I am subject to the regulation?

To determine whether you are subject to the regulation, answer these questions

by following the guidance in each section. Consider your answer for each coating that

you manufacture or import. 

3.1.1 Am I a manufacturer?



3.1.2 Am I an importer?



3.1.3 Is the coating that I manufacture

or import an architectural 

coating?



3.1.4 Is the architectural coating 

that I manufacture or 

import exempt from the 

regulation?



3.1.5 How does the regulation apply to 

me if I am a toll manufacturer or 

private-label manufacturer? 
3.1 Am I subject?

25

3.1.1 Am I a manufacturer? [§ 59.401]

If you... Then...

Produce, package, or repackage an architectural coating you are a manufacturer

for sale or distribution in the United States

Repackage an architectural coating by transferring it you are NOT a

from one container to another and you do not alter the manufacturer

coating VOC content and you do not sell or distribute the

coating to another party

Repackage an architectural coating as part of a paint you are NOT a

exchange, and do not produce, package, or repackage manufacturer

any other architectural coatings for sale or distribution in

the United States

Thin and apply architectural coatings you are NOT a

manufacturer

Paint exchange means a program in which consumers,

excluding architectural coating manufacturers and

importers, may drop off and pick up usable post-consumer

architectural coatings to reduce hazardous waste.

Repackage means to transfer an architectural coating

from one package to another.

The architectural coatings regulation does not regulate the

application of coatings by consumers, painting

contractors, or original equipment manufacturers. 
3.1 Am I subject?

26

3.1.2 Am I an importer? [§ 59.401]

If you... Then...

Bring an architectural coating into the you are an importer

United States for sale or distribution

within the United States
3.1 Am I subject?

27

3.1.3 Is the coating that I manufacture or import an architectural

coating? [§ 59.401]

If the coating that you manufacture or Then...

import is...

Recommended for field application to the coating is an architectural coating

stationary structures and their

appurtenances, to portable buildings, to

pavements, or to curbs

An adhesive the coating is NOT an architectural 

coating

A coating recommended by the the coating is NOT an architectural

manufacturer or importer solely for shop coating

applications or solely for application to

non-stationary structures, such as

airplanes, ships, boats, and railcars

The architectural coatings regulation does

not apply to any coating that is intended

solely for shop application. 

Appurtenance means any accessory to a stationary

structure, whether installed or detached at the proximate

site of installation. Appurtenances include bathroom and

kitchen fixtures; cabinets; concrete forms; doors;

elevators; fences; hand railings; heating equipment, air

conditioning equipment, and other fixed mechanical

equipment or stationary tools; lamp posts; partitions; pipes

and piping systems; rain gutters and downspouts;

stairways, fixed ladders, catwalks, and fire escapes; and

window screens.
3.1 Am I subject?

28

Adhesive means any chemical substance that is applied

for the purpose of bonding two surfaces together other

than by mechanical means. Adhesives are not considered

to be architectural coatings under the architectural

coatings regulation.

Shop application means that a coating is applied to a

product or a component of a product in a factory, shop, or

other structure as part of a manufacturing, production, or

repairing process (e.g., original equipment manufacturing

coatings).

Coating means a material applied onto or impregnated

into a substrate for protective, decorative, or functional

purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to,

paints, varnishes, sealants, inks, maskants, and

temporary coatings. Protective, decorative, or functional

materials that consist only of solvents, acids, bases, or

any combination of these substances are not considered

coatings under the architectural coatings regulation.
3.1 Am I subject?

29

3.1.4 Is the architectural coating that I manufacture or import exempt

from the regulation? [§ 59.400(c)]

If the architectural coating that you manufacture or import meets any of the

following criteria, it is exempt from the regulation.

& Manufactured before September 13, 1999. Coatings manufactured prior to

September 13, 1999 can continue to be sold until the stocks are depleted. 

& Export. If a coating is manufactured for sale or distribution outside of the United

States, it is exempt from the regulation. Coatings for export cannot be sold or

distributed in the United States as architectural coatings.

& Aerosol container. If a coating is sold in a nonrefillable aerosol container, then

it is exempt from the regulation.

& Small volume. If a coating is sold in a container that has a capacity of 1 liter or

less, then it is exempt from the regulation.

& Paint exchange. If a coating is collected and redistributed in a paint exchange,

then it is exempt from the regulation. A paint exchange is where architectural

coating consumers drop off and pick up useable post-consumer architectural

coatings to reduce hazardous waste. (A "post-consumer" coating is one that has

been purchased or distributed to a consumer but not applied, and reenters the

marketplace.)

Manufactured means that coating

ingredients have been combined and put into

containers that have been labeled and made

available for sale or distribution.

If all of the architectural coatings that you

manufacture and import meet any of the

criteria for exemption, you are not subject to

any of the regulation’s requirements. 
3.1 Am I subject?

30

3.1.5 How does the regulation apply to me if I am a toll manufacturer

or a private-label manufacturer?

If you are a toll manufacturer or private-label manufacturer of architectural

coatings, then the regulation applies to you. You are responsible for submitting an

initial report, meeting the VOC content, and meeting labeling requirements. Depending

on the circumstances, more than one manufacturer can be subject to the regulation for

a single product.

What is a toll manufacturer?

Typically, a toll manufacturer produces a coating in bulk for another

manufacturer using a specified formula. For example, a coating manufacturer may hire

a toll manufacturer to make a coating in order to meet a short-term increase in demand.

The hiring manufacturer receives the coating in bulk “totes” and then packages and

labels the coating for sale. Two examples of tolling relationships are illustrated as

cases 1 and 2 in Figure 3. 

What is a private-label manufacturer? 

Typically, a private-label manufacturer produces a coating for a retailer. For

example, the retailer may provide such specifications as the price, quality, and

performance requirements of the coating. The manufacturer delivers a coating already

packaged, ready to be put on the shelf, and labeled to meet both the retailer’s

specifications and all necessary legal requirements. A private-label relationship is

illustrated as case 3 in Figure 3.
Produces and

Packages Coating

Who is responsible for the

following:

 - submit initial report

 - meet VOC content

 - label product

Figure 3. Who is responsible when more than 

one company is involved in manufacturing a coating?

Case 1 - Typical “Toll Manufacturing”

A B Sales

Case 3 - Typical “Private-Label Manufacturing”

Sales

Specifies the Product 

and Label

A and B

A only

A and B

Case 2 - “Toll Manufacturing” with Product Modification

Sales

Produces Coating 

In Bulk

Alters VOC Content and 

Packages Coating

Produces Coating

in Bulk

Packages Coating

A

A

B

B

3.1 Am I subject?

31
3.1 Am I subject?

32

Who is subject to the regulation? 

The regulation defines the regulated entity as the “manufacturer or importer of an

architectural coating.” A manufacturer is any person who “produces, packages, or

repackages architectural coatings for sale or distribution in the United States.”

Therefore, in the case of toll manufacturing, the toll manufacturer and the manufacturer

that packages the coating are both subject to the regulation. A private-label

manufacturer is subject to the regulation, but not the person who hires the

manufacturer. 

The three cases summarized in Figure 3 illustrate who is responsible when more

than one company is involved in manufacturing a coating. While within these three

cases there may be different business relationships with regard to who owns the

formula, whose name is on the label, or who is responsible for compliance with other

government regulations, these are not factors in determining applicability for the

architectural coatings regulation. 
3.1 Am I subject?

33

Implication: A manufacturer

that produces a coating under

contract must know what

coating it is producing and

ensure that the coating

complies.

Implication: A manufacturer

that produces a coating under

contract will not be held

responsible if its client mislabels

or alters the VOC content of the

coating.

Implication: A packager or

repackager can rely on the

certification of a toll

manufacturer that the coating

meets the VOC content

indicated on the label or is in

compliance through the

tonnage exemption or

exceedance fee.

What happens when two companies are subject to the regulation for a

single product?

Each manufacturer must comply with all requirements of the regulation, including

labeling and all reporting requirements. Compliance responsibility will be based on the

three principles listed below. 

1. Each coating must be in compliance when it

leaves the custody of a manufacturer, either by

meeting the VOC limit, paying fee in the future, or

using the tonnage exemption. If the manufacturer

uses the tonnage exemption or exceedance fee

option, it is responsible for the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements associated with these

options.

2. Each manufacturer is accountable for its own

actions, but no manufacturer is accountable for

the actions of another manufacturer.

3. Once a coating is in compliance, it remains in

compliance as it passes to the custody of another

manufacturer. The coating stays in compliance

unless a second party (i.e., manufacturer or

retailer) does anything to make it non-compliant,

in which case the second party is responsible.
3.1 Am I subject?

34

What are the compliance responsibilities of the toll manufacturer and

the hiring manufacturer?

Both manufacturers must comply with all aspects of the regulation, (VOC content

limits, labeling, and reporting). Each manufacturer is accountable only for its own

actions.

Example 1: The toll manufacturer that produces a coating in bulk is responsible

for meeting the VOC content limit or complying with the regulation

through use of the tonnage exemption or payment of the

exceedance fee. The toll manufacturer must label the product (i.e.,

the bulk totes) according to the regulation and submit to EPA an

initial report and any other reports that are required. When the

coating passes to another manufacturer (who packages the

coating), it would be wise for this second manufacturer to obtain a

certification of compliance from the toll manufacturer that states the

method by which the coating complies with the regulation. The

second manufacturer can rely on the certification of the toll

manufacturer that the coating as received is in compliance and that

the VOC content is in accordance with the label on the tote. The

second manufacturer would be held accountable only for a

subsequent action that would change the compliance status (e.g.,

addition of solvent, improper labeling, or representations of

intended coating use that would change the coating category and

the applicable VOC limit).
3.1 Am I subject?

35

Can a toll manufacturer claim more than one tonnage exemption?

No. Each manufacturer may claim only one tonnage exemption. A

manufacturer cannot pass its exemption to another manufacturer. When a

manufacturer conveys a product covered by the tonnage exemption to another

manufacturer, the product itself remains in exempt status.

Example 2: A toll manufacturer can exempt coatings up to the VOC tonnage

limit in the regulation and no more. For example, the regulation

provides for a VOC tonnage exemption of 23 megagrams for the

period from September 13, 1999 through December 31, 2000. The

toll manufacturer can exempt coatings containing up to

23 megagrams of VOC that it sells under its name or that it

produces for another manufacturer to sell. Once it reaches the

23 megagram limit, the toll manufacturer cannot claim additional

tonnage exemptions, even for coatings produced for another

manufacturer who has not claimed any exemption.

Example 3: A toll manufacturer exempts up to the 23 megagram limit for

coatings produced under contract to Manufacturer B. 

Manufacturer B can package and sell these toll-manufactured

coatings and rely on the certification of the toll manufacturer that

the coatings are in compliance by way of tonnage exemption. In

addition, Manufacturer B can take an exemption up to the

23 megagram limit on other coatings that it produces.
3.1 Am I subject?

36

Who pays an exceedance fee in a tolling relationship?

The manufacturer who produces the coating must pay the exceedance fee. 

Example 4: A toll manufacturer is under contract to Manufacturer B to produce

10,000 liters of a coating that exceeds the VOC content limit. The

toll manufacturer would pay the fee and submit the annual fee

report to EPA for the 10,000 liters it produces. Upon passing the

coating to Manufacturer B, the toll manufacturer would certify the

VOC content of the coating along with a statement that the fee will

be paid to EPA on the excess VOC. Manufacturer B can rely on

this certification that the coating is in compliance. Manufacturer B

does not have to pay a fee to EPA for this product.

Example 5: In the previous example, Manufacturer B also produces

40,000 liters of the same coating in excess of the VOC content

limits of the regulation. Manufacturer B pays the exceedance fee

only on the 40,000 liters that it produces. Manufacturer B would

submit an annual report to EPA for the 40,000 liters. To protect its

interests, Manufacturer B should (although not required by the

regulation) maintain purchase records from the toll manufacturer

along with the toll manufacturer’s fee certifications as proof that the

other 10,000 liters (from the toll manufacturer) it sells is in

compliance.

Example 6: A toll manufacturer is under contract with Manufacturer B to

produce a coating that is 50 grams VOC per liter in excess of the

VOC content limit. The toll manufacturer would pay the fee based

on the volume produced and the excess 50 grams VOC per liter,

and would submit an annual fee report to EPA. Manufacturer B

then blends the coating with other compounds to modify the

product and in doing so, adds 10 grams VOC per liter to the

coating. Manufacturer B would pay a fee and report only on the

additional 10 grams VOC per liter that it added (and the total

volume produced).
3.2 Requirements

37

3.2 What requirements must I meet?

You are required to submit an initial report identifying yourself as someone

subject to the regulation and you must meet certain container labeling requirements

that vary for different types of coatings. Each architectural coating that you

manufacture or import must comply by one of the three options below (unless a coating

is exempt as discussed in section 3.1.4). Additional requirements vary depending on

which compliance option you choose. 

If you choose this and these are additional

compliance requirements associated

option... your primary requirements are to... with the compliance option

VOC content limits Submit the initial notification report. None 

Meet the labeling requirements.

Meet the VOC content limits in the

regulation by reformulating if your

coatings do not already meet the limits.

Tonnage exemption Submit the initial notification report. Submit an annual report. 

Meet the labeling requirements. Retain records of exemption

Designate a limited volume of coatings calculations for 3 years.

as exempt. See Section 3.8 for a

discussion on how to comply with the

tonnage exemption option.

Exceedance fee Submit the initial notification report. Submit an annual report. 

Meet the labeling requirements. Retain records of fee

Pay an annual exceedance fee on the calculations for 3 years.

excess VOC content. See Section 3.9

for a discussion on how to comply with

the exceedance fee option.

If you reformulate your coatings to meet the VOC content

limits or your coatings already meet the limits, then you

must submit the initial report and meet the container

labeling requirements. You are not required to keep further

records or submit reports unless you change your date

code. However, you should consider keeping voluntary

records that show compliance with the regulation.
3.2 Requirements

38

You may use more than one compliance option. For example, if you manufacture five

coatings that do not currently meet the VOC content limits, you could comply as follows:

& reformulate three coatings to comply with the VOC content limits,

& use the tonnage exemption for one coating, and

& pay an exceedance fee for one coating.

Or if you manufacture only one coating and it does not meet the VOC content limit you

could comply by using two of the three compliance options, as follows:

& use the tonnage exemption (up to the maximum volume of coating that

the regulation allows), and 

& pay an exceedance fee for the remaining production volume

Section 3.10 illustrates an example of how to use multiple compliance options.
3.3 When to comply

*Regulation correction [§ 59.408(b)]; see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that the deadline for

submitting the initial notification report for coatings registered under FIFRA is March 13,

2000, rather than September 13, 1999.

39

3.3 When do I need to comply?

You must comply with this requirement... On or before this date...

Initial report [§ 59.408(b)], VOC content, and September 13, 1999

labeling requirements for non-FIFRA coatings

[§ 59.400(b)]

Initial report [§ 59.408(b)] and VOC content and March 13, 2000*

labeling requirements for coatings registered

under FIFRA [§ 59.400(b)]

Initial report if you first manufacture or import Within 180 days after the date that the first

architectural coatings after September 13, 1999 architectural coating is manufactured or

(March 13, 2000 for FIFRA coatings) imported 

[§ 59.408(b)] 

Recycled coatings (if option is used)

- first annual report March 1, 2000 (for September 13, 1999

 [§ 59.408(c)] through December 31, 1999)

- subsequent annual report March 1 of each year following the calendar

 [§ 59.408(c)] year you choose the compliance option

Exceedance fee (if option is used)

- first annual report March 1, 2000 (for September 13, 1999

 [§ 59.408(d)] through December 31, 1999)

- subsequent annual report March 1 of each year following the calendar

 [§ 59.408(d)] year you choose the compliance option

Tonnage exemption (if option is used)

- first annual report March 1, 2001 (for September 13, 1999

 [§ 59.408(e)] through December 31, 2000)

- subsequent annual report March 1 of each year following the calendar

 [§ 59.408(e)] year you choose the compliance option

Report to explain new date code No later than 30 days after first use

[§ 59.408(b)(4)]
3.4 Steps to comply

40

3.4 What do I need to do to comply?

As the manufacturer or importer of an architectural coating, you must follow the

appropriate steps listed below for each architectural coating that you manufacture or

import. Sections 3.5 through 3.12 explain the step-by-step procedures for complying. 

3.5 Determine the

category for each

architectural coating



3.11 Submit the initial

report for all coatings



3.6 Determine the VOC

content of each

architectural coating or,

optionally, determine

the adjusted VOC

content for each

recycled coating



Choose how you will comply

 or  or  or  

3.7 Meet VOC content 3.8 Take tonnage 3.9 Pay 3.10 Use

limit exemption exceedance combination of

fee options

 

 3.11 Keep records and submit reports



3.12 Meet the labeling requirement
3.5 Coating category

41

3.5 How do I determine the category for my coating?

[§§ 59.401, 59.402]

You determine the applicable category and the corresponding VOC content limit

based on both the technical criteria in the regulation’s definitions and any

representations that you make about the uses of a coating. Appendix B of this guide

contains fact sheets that will help you determine which category definition and VOC

content limit applies. 

1. Compare your coating to the definitions of all categories in the regulation. 

2. Determine all of the coating definitions that apply. There are two ways

that a coating is considered to be part of a category in Figure 1 (page 17).

& the coating meets the technical criteria of the definition

& you make any representation that indicates that your coating meets the

definition of a coating category in Figure 1. "Any representation" means a

representation made anywhere on the container; on any label or sticker

affixed to the container; or in any sales, advertising, or technical literature

supplied by you or anyone acting on your behalf.

3. If your coating meets the definition of more than one category, then you

must comply with the most restrictive VOC content limit, with some

exceptions as illustrated in Appendix C. 

4. The flat and nonflat coating categories serve as default categories for

coatings that do not meet any other definitions (see Appendix B). For

such a coating, you must determine the gloss level of the coating to find

out whether it is a flat or nonflat coating and comply with the requirements

for that category. 

Appendix C summarizes the exceptions to

meeting the most restrictive VOC content

limit. These exceptions are also summarized

in Appendix B with each category definition

for which one of the specified exceptions

apply.
3.6 VOC content

42

3.6 How do I determine the VOC content of my coating?

[§ 59.406]

To determine the VOC content of a coating, you must first determine the

composition of the coating, then use the appropriate equation in the regulation. Follow

these two steps.

Step 1 - Choose a means of determining the coating composition. You may

use any reasonable means to determine the composition of a coating. The composition

includes the weight of volatiles, water, and "exempt" compounds; and the volume of

coating, water, and exempt compounds [§ 59.406(b)]. Exempt compounds are listed in

the definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100. The list of exempt compounds, as of

July 1998, is contained in Appendix D of this guide. This list is periodically updated. 

You should check the list of CFR sections affected to see if 40 CFR part 51 has been

amended: http://www.access.gpo/nara/lsa/browslsa.html.

You may use any of the following means to determine the coating composition: 

& use batch processing and quality assurance records,

& use EPA Method 24 to test the coating, or an alternative test method that is

approved by EPA on a case-by-case basis, according to § 59.406(c) of the

regulation,

& use formulation data, or

& use any other reasonable means to ensure that the coating complies with the

VOC content limits.

The EPA will use EPA Method 24 to determine

compliance with the VOC content limits,

expressed in grams of VOC per liter of

coating. 
3.6 VOC content

43

Although you may use any means to determine the VOC content of a coating,

EPA Method 24, "Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density,

Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings" is the reference method EPA

will use for determining compliance. Therefore, if you use something other than

Method 24, be sure that its results are consistent with Method 24 results. If there is an

inconsistency between the results of your approach and a Method 24 test (or an

alternative test method approved by EPA for you), the Method 24 or approved

alternative test governs for compliance determinations. See Appendix E for a copy

of Method 24. 

In the case of methacrylate multicomponent coatings used as traffic marking

coatings, the reference method is the modification of Method 24 that is published as

Appendix A to the regulation (see Appendix A of this guide for the complete text).

Determine the composition of the coating as

mixed according to the maximum thinning

recommendation. 

Step 2 - Use the appropriate equation. Select the appropriate equation based

on the type of coating and then calculate the VOC content of your coating using the

information from Step 1. There are three different equations from which to choose and

an example of each type follows.

Example 1: Any architectural coating, except low solids stains and low solids

wood preservatives

Example 2: Low solids stains and low solids wood preservatives

Example 3: Recycled coatings.

Before beginning to calculate the VOC content of your coating, you should follow the

guidance in Appendix F to determine whether to include water, exempt compounds,

and colorant added to tint bases (this occurs at the retail store or site of coating

application).
3.6 VOC content

44

When determining the VOC content of coatings

(except low solids stains and wood

preservatives), exclude the weight and volume

of water and exempt compounds and the weight

and volume of colorants added to tint bases.

However, when determining the VOC content of low solids

stains and wood preservatives, exclude the weight but

include the volume of water and exempt compounds. 

See Appendix F to determine whether to include or exclude

water and exempt compounds when calculating VOC

content, VOC amount, and volume manufactured or

imported.
VOC Content 
 Ws 	 Ww 	 Wec

Vm 	 Vw 	 Vec

0.4510 g 	 0.4145 g 	 0 g

0.0005 5 	 0.0004 5 	 0 5 
 0.0365 g0.0001 5 
 365 grams VOC per liter

3.6 Example 1: Determine VOC content

45

Determine VOC Content

Example 1 — Any architectural coating

except low solids stains and low solids wood preservatives [§ 59.406(a)(1)]

For these coatings, you determine the VOC content in grams of VOC per liter of coating

thinned to the manufacturer’s maximum recommendation and excluding the weight and volume

of any water and exempt compounds. Use the following equation:

This term... means... expressed in...

VOC content grams of VOC per liter of coating thinned to the grams/liter (g/5)

manufacturer’s maximum recommendation and excluding

the weight and volume of any water and exempt

compounds

W weight of volatiles grams (g) s

W wei w ght of water grams

W weight of exempt compounds (exempt compounds are grams ec

specified in Appendix D of this guide) 

V volume of coatin m g liters (5)

V volume of water liters w

V volume of exempt compounds liters ec

Example: A Method 24 analysis of a sample of an exterior flat coating shows that the coating

has the following composition:

W = 0.4510 grams V = 0.0005 liters s m

W = 0.4145 w w grams V = 0.0004 liters

W = 0 ec grams V = 0 liters ec
VOC Contentls 
 Ws 	 Ww 	 Wec

Vm

0.4400 g 	 0.2300 g 	 0.1555 g

0.0005 5 
 0.0545 g0.0005 5 
 109 grams VOC per liter

3.6 Example 2: Determine VOC content

46

Determine VOC Content

Example 2 — Low Solids Stains and Wood Preservatives

[§ 59.406(a)(2)]

For low solids coatings, you determine the VOC content in grams of VOC per liter of

coating thinned to the manufacturer’s maximum recommendation and excluding the weight but

including the volume of any water and exempt compounds. Use the following equation:

This term... means... expressed in...

VOC content grams of VOC per liter of coating thinned grams/liter (g/5) ls

to the manufacturer’s maximum

recommendation and including the

volume of any water and exempt

compounds

W weight of volatiles grams(g) s

W wei w ght of water grams

W wei ec ght of exempt compounds grams

V volume of coatin m g liters (5)

Example: A method 24 analysis of a sample of a low solids wood preservative shows the

following composition:

W = 0.4400 g V = 0.0005 5 s m

W = 0.2300 w g

W = 0.1555 ec g
Percent

Post	consumer

Coating


 Volume of Post	consumer Coating

Volume of

Post	consumer

Coating

 Volume of

Virgin Materials

× 100 Percent

Adjusted

VOC Content 
 ActualVOC Content 	 Actual

VOC Content x

Percent

Post	consumer Coating

100

3.6 Example 3: Determine VOC content

47

Determine VOC Content

Example 3 — Recycled Coatings

[§ 59.406(a)(3)]

 (1)

(2)

For recycled coatings, you have the option of calculating an adjusted VOC content. The

adjusted VOC content provides some credit for the amount of post-consumer materials

contained in the coating.

This term... means... expressed in...

Adjusted VOC The VOC content assigned to the grams/liter (g/5)

content recycled coating for purposes of

complying with the VOC content limits

(calculated using equation 2)

Actual VOC The VOC content of the coating as grams/liter

content determined using the equations in

examples 1 and 2 

Percent post- The volume percent of a recycled coating percent (%)

consumer coating that is post-consumer coating materials

(calculated using equation 1)

Volume of post- The volume of post-consumer coating liters (5)

consumer coating materials used in the production of a

recycled coating

Volume of virgin The volume of virgin coating materials liters

materials used in the production of a recycled

coating
Percent Post	Consumer Material 
 40 liters

(40 liters  60 liters)

x 100 
 40 percent

Adjusted VOC Content 
 425 g/5 	 425 g/5 x

40

100 
 255 grams VOC per liter

3.6 Example 3: Determine VOC content

48

Determine VOC Content

Example 3 — Recycled Coatings (Continued)

Example: A manufacturer produces 100 liters of an interior nonflat coating and

40 liters of the coating material is made up of post-consumer coatings. The VOC

content determined using the equation in Example 1 is 425 g/l. Determine the adjusted

VOC content as follows.

Returned goods, i.e., unsold coatings returned to a

manufacturer from a retail store, are not considered to be

post-consumer coating and cannot be used to compute an

adjusted VOC content. 

If you use post-consumer coatings in addition to virgin

materials, you have the option of using the recycled coating

equation, which gives you credit for the amount of postconsumer material in the coating. Using the equation is not

required, however, if you do use it, then special labeling,

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements apply. 
3.7 If my coatings meet the limits

49

3.7 What must I do if all of my coatings meet the VOC content limits?

If your coatings already meet the VOC content limits or if you reformulate your

coatings to meet the limits before September 13, 1999 (March 13, 2000 for FIFRAregistered coatings), then you must submit the initial report and comply with the labeling

requirements. A compliance test is not required. However, you are responsible for

ensuring that each of your coatings does in fact meet the VOC content limits on a

continuous basis.

You have the flexibility to use any means that you choose to ensure compliance

with the VOC content limits. For example, you could use batch production records or

quality assurance tests of product formulations. However, EPA will enforce the

regulation using EPA Method 24 as the reference method (or an alternative method that

would be approved on a case-by-case basis). If there is any discrepancy between the

results of a Method 24 test or alternative method test and any other means of

determining VOC content, the Method 24 (or approved alternative) test results will

govern. In addition, EPA may request at any time that you conduct a Method 24 test to

demonstrate compliance.

Figure 4 explains the steps you must follow if your coatings meet the VOC

content limits before the compliance deadline. 
3.7 If my coatings meet the limits

50

Submit the initial

report

[§ 59.408(b)]

/

The initial report must list the coating

categories for your coatings, and your

manufacturing locations, and an explanation

of any date code you use on your coating

containers. 

(See Section 3.11.) 



Comply with the The label must show the VOC content in

labeling grams per liter, the date or date code, and

requirements other specific information for certain coatings. 

[§ 59.405] (See section 3.12). /



Confirm that each The EPA may test your product at any time,

coating meets the inspect your production records, or may

applicable VOC require at any time that you demonstrate that

content limits of your coatings meet the VOC content limits

Figure 1 using Method 24 (Appendix E of this guide) or

[§ 59.402] other EPA approved method.

/

Figure 4. What Must I Do If All Of My Coatings Meet the VOC Content Limits?
3.8 Tonnage exemption

*Regulation correction; see page 7 for where to get the latest information. The

technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that "VOC content" is used for

calculating the grams VOC per liter of each coating to determine compliance with the

VOC content limits. "VOC amount" is used for calculating the grams VOC per liter of

each coating claimed under the tonnage exemption. 

51

3.8 How can I use the tonnage exemption?

[§59.404]

The tonnage exemption option allows you to exceed the applicable VOC content

limits of the regulation for a limited quantity of coatings. You can use the tonnage

exemption for multiple coatings, but the total megagrams of VOC (VOC amount)

contained in all the coatings you claim under the exemption combined may not exceed

the amounts listed below. You do not have to pay the exceedance fee on the volume of

coatings that use this exemption.

You may exempt a total volume of

coatings that contain this amount of

VOC... During this time period...

23 megagrams (25.3 tons) VOC September 13, 1999 through December 31, 2000 

18 megagrams (19.8 tons) VOC January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 

9 megagrams (9.9 tons) VOC Each subsequent calendar year 

A megagram is a metric ton (also referred to

as a tonne), which is equal to the following:

& 1000 kilograms

& 2204 pounds

& 1.102 English tons

To convert English tons to megagrams, multiply by 1.102. 

The VOC amount* that is counted toward the tonnage exemption is based on the

total amount of VOC contained in each of the coatings for which you claim an

exemption. This is in contrast to the exceedance fee, which is based on the difference

between the VOC content of each coating and the applicable VOC content limit in the
3.8 Tonnage exemption

52

regulation. You must include the manufacturer’s maximum thinning recommendation

for both VOC content and VOC amount determinations. 

The "VOC content" is used to determine compliance with

the VOC content limits and to determine the "excess VOC"

for the exceedance fee. The "VOC amount" is only used

for calculating the "megagrams of VOC" for the tonnage

exemption.

Figure 5 explains the steps that you must follow to use the tonnage exemption. 

You are not required to declare to EPA in advance that you are choosing this option,

nor is any advance approval required. You simply submit a report by March 1 of the

year after you claim the tonnage exemption. For example, if you use the tonnage

exemption option for the year 2001, then you submit a report on March 1, 2002.

Section 3.1.5 of this guide describes how to use the tonnage exemption in toll

and private-label manufacturing.

When determining the VOC amount for the tonnage exemption (regardless of

the type of coating), include the volume of water and exempt compounds and exclude

the volume of colorants added to tint bases. When determining the volume

manufactured or imported for the tonnage exemption, include the volume of water and

exempt compounds (see Appendix F). 

A company made up of divisions and subsidiaries is

considered to be a single manufacturer and is allowed only

one tonnage exemption per year. 

The tonnage exemption will be enforced in the metric units

of megagrams, which is equal to 2,204 pounds. 

Volumes include water and exempt

compounds.
3.8 Tonnage exemption

53

Determine which

coatings will use the

tonnage exemption

/

This is your choice. You should plan ahead to ensure

that the VOC tonnage you anticipate exempting will not

exceed the limit allowed in the regulation. Any coating

that exceeds the VOC content limits and exceeds the

tonnage exemption allowance must be covered by an

exceedance fee.



Compute the total

mass of VOC in all the

coatings you choose to

exempt 

/

See the example below for how to compute total mass. 

A worksheet for computing total mass of VOC is provided

in Appendix H.



Confirm that the total

mass of VOC for all The exemption allowance in the regulation applies to the

coatings you choose to total mass of VOC claimed by a single manufacturer for

exempt does not the coatings chosen for exemption. Divisions of a

exceed the exemption company, subsidiaries, and parent companies are

allowance in the considered to be a single manufacturer.

regulation 

/



Submit an annual

report to EPA listing

the coatings you

choose to exempt and

relevant information on

their VOC content

/

Submit the report on or before March 1 following the

calendar year in which the exemption is used. Submit the

report to the EPA Regional Office (Appendix G) for the

region in which your corporate headquarters is located. 

See Section 3.11 for the reporting requirements. 



Retain records to

support the mass VOC Retain records for VOC content, volume manufactured or

calculations for imported and total mass VOC calculations for 3 years. 

coatings you choose to See Section 3.11 for the recordkeeping requirements. 

exempt

/



Comply with labeling Label must show the VOC content. See Section 3.12 for

requirements the labelin / g requirements.

Figure 5. How Can I Use the Tonnage Exemption?
3.8 Example: Tonnage Exemption

*Regulation correction [§ 59.404, Equation 4]; see page 7 for where to get the

latest information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that the

volume manufactured or imported includes the volume of any water and exempt

compounds and excludes the volume of any colorant added to tint bases.

54

Tonnage Exemption — Example Calculation 

[§ 59.404]

This example uses coatings manufactured by a fictitious company - Company A. 

Company A is claiming the exemption for the period of September 13, 1999 to

December 31, 2000. Therefore, it may exempt coatings that, in total, contain no more

than 23 megagrams (25.3 tons) of VOC. Company A identified three products that

exceed the VOC content limits in the regulation and for which they will comply using the

tonnage exemption. 

Tonnage Exemption — Step 1 - Identify the coatings for which you want to

use the tonnage exemption. For each coating, determine the volume that was

manufactured or imported including the volume of any water and exempt compounds

and excluding the volume of any colorant added to tint bases for the time period for

which you are claiming the exemption.* (See Appendix F to determine whether to

include or exclude water and exempt compounds when calculating VOC content, VOC

amount, and volume manufactured or imported.) For example, between September 13,

1999 and December 31, 2000, Company A manufactured 40,000 liters of Coating 1;

10,000 liters of Coating 2; and 5,000 liters of Coating 3. 

Coating

A

Volume Manufactured or Imported (liters)

Coating 1 40,000

Coating 2 10,000

Coating 3 5,000
3.8 Example: Tonnage Exemption

*Regulation correction [§ 59.404, Equation 4]; see page 7 for where to get the

latest information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) replaces "VOC

content" with "VOC amount" to distinguish this term from the term "VOC content" used

elsewhere in the regulation [§ 59.404(b)].

55

Tonnage Exemption — Example Calculation [§ 59.404]

 (Continued)

Tonnage Exemption — Step 2 - Determine the amount of VOC contained in

1 liter of each coating. Determine the VOC amount, which is the mass (grams) of

VOC in each liter of coating.* For this calculation, it is not necessary to exclude the

volume of water and exempt compounds. For example, the VOC contained in

Coating 1 is 350 grams per liter thinned to the manufacturer’s maximum

recommendation, including the volume of water and any exempt compounds*.

Coating

A B

Volume [Grams VOC per

Manufactured or liter of coating

Imported (liters) (grams per liter)]

VOC Amount

Coating 1 40,000 350

Coating 2 10,000 600

Coating 3 5,000 400
3.8 Example: Tonnage Exemption

56

Tonnage Exemption — Example Calculation [§ 59.404]

 (Continued)

Tonnage Exemption — Step 3 - Calculate the total VOC. Now that you have

collected all the necessary information, you are ready to calculate the grams VOC for

the coatings that you have chosen. Calculate the total VOC in grams by multiplying the

volume of coating manufactured or imported (liters) by the amount of VOC in 1 liter of

coating (grams per liter). For example, for Coating 1, the grams of VOC is:

(40,000 liters) (350 grams/liter) = 14,000,000 grams

Next, convert the result from above to megagrams by dividing by 1,000,000. For

example, for Coating 1 the resulting megagrams of VOC is:

(14,000,000 grams) ÷ (1,000,000 grams per megagram) = 14 megagrams of VOC

Coating

A B (C = A X B) (D = C ÷ 1 x 10 )

C D

6

Volume (Grams VOC per

Manufactured or liter of coating Grams of Megagrams of

Imported (liters) [grams per liter]) VOC VOC

VOC Amount 

Coating 1 40,000 350 14,000,000 14

Coating 2 10,000 600 6,000,000 6

Coating 3 5,000 400 2,000,000 2

TOTAL 22

From the table above, the three products that Company A has chosen to exempt

contain a total of 22 megagrams of VOC. Therefore, Company A is within the allowed

23 megagram exemption for these three coatings for the period of September 13, 1999

through December 31, 2000.

Appendix H contains a worksheet for computing the annual tonnage exemption. 

Appendix H also contains a table for quickly estimating the megagrams of VOC for a

coating.

End of Annual Tonnage Exemption Example
3.9 Exceedance fee

57

3.9 How can I use the exceedance fee?

[§ 59.403]

The exceedance fee compliance option allows you to exceed the applicable VOC

content limits of the regulation by paying a fee on the amount of VOC in excess of the

VOC content limits. The fee is calculated and paid annually and you can pay the fee on

an unlimited number of coatings. The fee is $0.0028 per gram (or about $1.27 per

pound) of excess VOC. The fee for a coating is computed as follows:

Fee = or imported that does x of the applicable limit x

Annual volume of

coating manufactured VOC content in excess

not meet the VOC (grams/liter)

content limit (liters)

0.0028

(dollars/gram)

When determining the volume manufactured or imported for the exceedance fee,

include the volume of water and exempt compounds and exclude the volume of

colorants added to tint bases. (See Appendix F to determine whether to include or

exclude water and exempt compounds when calculating VOC content, VOC amount,

and volume manufactured or imported.)

Figure 6 explains the steps that you must follow to use the exceedance fee

option. You are not required to declare to EPA in advance that you are choosing this

option, nor is any advance approval required. You simply pay the fee and submit the

required report by March 1 of the year after you claim the fee. For example, if you use

the exceedance fee option for the year 2001, then you submit payment and a report on

March 1, 2002. The EPA expects the address for submitting the exceedance fee to

change. A notice will be published in the Federal Register. See the architectural

coatings web site for the latest information

(http://www.epa/gov/ttn/uatw/183e/aim/aimpg.html).

If you represent a coating as both a shop coating and as an

architectural coating, you must pay the exceedance fee on the

entire volume that does not meet the limit. However, if you

label and represent the coating as two separate coatings, you

must pay the exceedance fee only on the volume that is labeled

and represented as an architectural coating.
3.9 Exceedance fee

58

Determine which time to pay the fee or to reformulate your

coatings will use product to comply with the limits. You do not

the fee option pay a fee for any volume of coatings for which

/

This is your choice. You may decide at any

the tonnage exemption is claimed.



Compute the fee /

The fee must be computed at the end of 

each calendar year. See example below for

 how to compute fee. A worksheet for 

computing the fee is provided in Appendix H.



Submit an annual you use the fee option. Submit the report to the

report to EPA and EPA Regional Office (Appendix G) for the

pay the fee region in which your corporate headquarters is

/

Submit the report and pay the fee on or before

March 1 following the calendar year in which

located. See section 3.11 for the reporting

requirements.



Retain records and

data to support the

fee calculations

/

Retain records for VOC content, volume

manufactured or imported, and fee calculations

for 3 years. See Section 3.11 for the

recordkeeping requirements. 



Comply with Label must show the VOC 

labeling content in grams per liter. See Section 3.12 for

requirements the labeling requirements. 

/

Figure 6. How Can I Use the Exceedance Fee?
3.9 Example: Exceedance fee

*Regulation correction [§ 59.403, Equation 2]; the technical correction notice

(Appendix A) clarifies that the volume manufactured or imported includes the volume of

any water and exempt compounds and excludes the volume of any colorant added to

tint bases.

59

Annual Exceedance Fee — Example Calculation 

[§ 59.403]

This example uses coatings manufactured in one year by a fictitious company -

Company B. For simplicity, it is assumed that Company B has already identified three

coatings for which the exceedance fee option will be used. 

Exceedance Fee — Step 1 - Determine the annual volume of the coatings

for which you have chosen the exceedance fee option. For each coating,

determine the volume that was manufactured or imported for the calendar year

(January 1 through December 31) for which you are calculating the fee. For example,

Company B manufactured 5,000 liters of coating 1. They manufactured 75,000 liters of

Coating 2, but reformulated during the year, such that 25,000 liters complied with the

regulation. Therefore, the fee will be paid on only 50,000 liters of Coating 2. They

manufactured 30,000 liters of Coating 3. The volume manufactured or imported per

year, in liters, includes the volume of any water and exempt compounds and excludes

the volume of any colorant added to tint bases.* See Appendix F to determine whether

to include or exclude water and exempt compounds when calculating VOC content,

VOC amount, and volume manufactured or imported.

Coating

A

Annual Volume Manufactured or

Imported (liters)

Coating 1 5,000

Coating 2 50,000

Coating 3 30,000

If you choose to use the exceedance fee option beginning on

September 11, 1999 (when the regulation takes effect), you must

calculate the fee for the period September 11, 1999 through

December 31, 1999 and submit the report and pay the fee by

March 1, 2000. For subsequent years, you must pay the fee for

the entire calendar year for coatings that you choose this option.
3.9 Example: Exceedance fee

60

Annual Exceedance Fee — Example Calculation [§ 59.403] 

(Continued)

Exceedance Fee — Step 2 - Determine the VOC content of each coating. 

Determine the VOC content of each of your coatings using the procedure described in

Section 3.6 of this guide. For example, the VOC content of Coating 1 is 400 grams per

liter. 

Coating

A B

Annual Volume VOC Content

Manufactured or (grams per

Imported (liters) liter)

Coating 1 5,000 400

Coating 2 50,000 550

Coating 3 30,000 350
3.9 Example: Exceedance fee

61

Annual Exceedance Fee — Example Calculation [§ 59.403] 

(Continued)

Exceedance Fee — Step 3 - Identify the VOC content limit in the regulation

that applies to each coating. The amount of the fee is based on the difference

between the VOC content of each coating and the applicable VOC content limit in the

regulation. Therefore, you need to identify the coating category and the applicable limit. 

For additional guidance on determining the applicable coating category for your

coatings, see Section 3.5 of this guide. For example, Company B has determined that

Coating 1 meets the definition of the concrete curing compounds category and is,

therefore, subject to a VOC content limit of 350 grams per liter.

Coating

AB C

Annual

Volume Category and Applicable

Manufactured VOC Content Limit in

or Imported VOC Content Regulation 

(liters) (grams per liter) (grams per liter)

Coating 1 5,000 400 concrete curing compound

350

Coating 2 50,000 550 anti-fouling coating

450

Coating 3 30,000 350 flat - exterior coating

250
3.9 Example: Exceedance fee

62

Annual Exceedance Fee — Example Calculation [§ 59.403]

(Continued)

Exceedance Fee — Step 4 - Calculate the VOC content that is above the

limit (i.e., excess VOC). Subtract the applicable VOC content limit from the VOC

content of the coating. For example, for Coating 1, the VOC content above the limit is:

400 grams per liter - 350 grams per liter = 50 grams per liter

Coating

A B C (D = B - C)

D

Annual Volume Category and Applicable VOC Content

Manufactured or VOC Content VOC Limit in Regulation Above the Limit 

Imported (liters) (grams per liter) (grams per liter) (grams per liter)

Coating 1 5,000 400 concrete curing compound 50

350

Coating 2 50,000 550 anti-fouling coating 100

450

Coating 3 30,000 350 flat - exterior coating 100

250
3.9 Example: Exceedance fee

63

Annual Exceedance Fee — Example Calculation [§ 59.403]

(Concluded)

Exceedance Fee — Step 5 - Calculate the exceedance fee for each coating

and the total exceedance fee for all coatings. To calculate the exceedance fee, first

multiply the volume manufactured or imported by the VOC content that is above the

limit (i.e., "excess VOC"). This represents the total grams of VOC exceeding the limit

for the volume of the coating that was manufactured. For example, for Coating 1 this

would be:

5,000 liters x 50 grams per liter = 250,000 grams

Next, multiply the number of grams of VOC exceeding the limit by the fee rate to

determine the fee for that product for that year. For example, for Coating 1 this would

be:

250,000 grams x $0.0028 per gram = $700

Finally, determine the total exceedance fee by adding up the fee for all of the

products for which you have chosen the fee compliance option. For Company B, the

total exceedance fee is:

$700 + $14,000 + $8,400 = $23,100

Coating

A B (C = A X B) D (E = C x D)

C E

Annual Volume VOC Content Grams of Fee Rate Amount of

Manufactured Exceeding the VOC (dollars per Fee Owed for

or Imported Limit (grams per Exceeding gram of Each Coating

(liters) liter) the Limit excess VOC) (dollars)

Coating 1 5,000 50 250,000 0.0028 $700

Coating 2 50,000 100 5,000,000 0.0028 $14,000

Coating 3 30,000 100 3,000,000 0.0028 $8,400

TOTAL $23,100

End of Annual Exceedance Fee Example
3.10 Combination of options

64

3.10 How can I use more than one compliance option?

[§§ 59.402, 59.403, and 59.404]

The regulation allows you to use more than one compliance option for your

coatings. For example, you can meet the VOC content limits for some coatings, use

the tonnage exemption for some coatings, and pay the exceedance fee for some

coatings. In fact, you can even claim the tonnage exemption for a part of a coating’s

volume and pay the exceedance fee for the rest of its volume. 

The following example shows how a fictitious company, Company C, has

determined how it will comply with the regulation for the September 13, 1999 through

December 31, 2000 time frame. 
3.10 Example: Combination

65

Combination of Compliance Options — Example Calculation

Combination of Options — Step 1 - Assemble information on your coatings. 

Assemble the following information for each of your coatings: the volume manufactured

or imported, the VOC content, the category, and the applicable VOC content limit in the

regulation. The table below shows this information for all 10 coatings that are

manufactured by Company C between September 13, 1999 and December 31, 2000.

Coating Imported (liters) (grams per liter) liter)

Volume Category and Applicable VOC

Manufactured or VOC Content Limit in Regulation (grams per

Coating A 5,000 325 Opaque Stain - 350

Coating B 40,000 550 Nuclear Coating - 450

Coating C 25,000 500 Bond Breaker - 600

Coating D 100,000 700 Metallic Pigmented - 500

Coating E 150,000 275 Exterior Flat - 250

Coating F 35,000 400 Roof Coatings - 250

Coating G 60,000 500 Varnish - 450

Coating H 300,000 400 Varnish - 450

Coating I 75,000 700 Concrete Surface Retarder - 780

Coating J 15,000 600 Industrial Maintenance - 450
3.10 Example: Combination

66

Combination of Compliance Options — Example Calculation 

(Continued)

Combination of Options — Step 2 - Identify coatings that meet the VOC

content limits in the regulation. Identify those coatings that are already in

compliance with the VOC content limits in the regulation. Also, identify those coatings

that you plan to reformulate to meet the limits. As shown below, Company C has four

coatings that already meet the VOC content limits (Coatings A, C, H and I) and two

coatings that they will reformulate to meet the limits (Coatings E and G). The

remaining coatings (Coatings B, D, F and J) exceed the VOC content limits and will not

be reformulated (at least not in time to comply with the limits). 

Coating (liters) liter) per liter) Option

Volume VOC Category and

Manufactured Content Applicable VOC Limit Chosen

or Imported (grams per in Regulation (grams Compliance

Coating A 5,000 325 Opaque Stain - 350 Already

meets limit

Coating B 40,000 550 Nuclear Coating - 450 --

Coating C 25,000 500 Bond Breaker - 600 Already

meets limit

Coating D 100,000 700 Metallic Pigmented - 500 --

Coating E 150,000 275 Exterior Flat - 250 Reformulate

to meet limit

Coating F 35,000 400 Roof Coatings - 250 --

Coating G 60,000 500 Varnish - 450 Reformulate

to meet limit

Coating H 300,000 400 Varnish - 450 Already

meets limit

Coating I 75,000 700 Concrete Surface Already

Retarder - 780 meets limit

Coating J 15,000 600 Industrial Maintenance - --

450
3.10 Example: Combination

67

Combination of Compliance Options — Example Calculation 

(Continued)

Combination of Options — Step 3 - Determine the coatings that will comply

using the tonnage exemption . Now that you have identified the coatings that exceed

the VOC content limits and cannot be reformulated during this time period, you must

decide whether you will choose the annual tonnage exemption or exceedance fee

compliance option for these coatings. 

Since the tonnage exemption is free, it makes sense to first identify the coatings

for which you can use the tonnage exemption. Since the tonnage exemption is based

on the VOC amount (grams of VOC per liter of coating excluding the weight, but

including the volume of water and exempt compounds), determine the VOC amount for

each coating. Then, for each coating, determine the total megagrams of VOC using the

procedure in Section 3.8 of this guide. The total megagrams of VOC for Company C’s

coatings that exceed the VOC content limits are shown in the table below. 

Coating (liters) [grams per liter]) of VOC

Volume VOC Amount

Manufactured (grams of VOC per Total

or Imported liter of coating Megagrams

Coating B 40,000 550 22

Coating D 100,000 700 70

Coating F 35,000 400 14

Coating J 15,000 600 9

TOTAL 115
3.10 Example: Combination

68

Combination of Compliance Options — Example Calculation 

(Continued)

Since Company C is complying in the September 13, 1999 through

December 31, 2000 time frame, they are limited to a tonnage exemption of

23 megagrams. Since the total megagrams for coatings B, D, F, and J is

115 megagrams, Company C must choose which ones to exempt. They can choose

any combination of the coatings as long as the total megagrams do not exceed the

23 megagram level. For example, three examples of valid options for Company C are:

Option 1: Claim an exemption for Coating B (22 megagrams)

Option 2: Claim an exemption for Coating F and Coating J 

(14 megagrams + 9 megagrams = 23 megagrams)

Option 3: Claim the tonnage exemption for a part of Coating D’s volume and

then pay the exceedance fee on the remaining part of the volume. 

For example, Company C could claim the tonnage exemption for the

fraction of Coating D’s volume that equals 23 megagrams. The

volume that equates to 23 megagrams is determined by:

Step 1 - Convert the annual tonnage exemption level from

megagrams to grams.

(23 megagrams) (1,000,000) = 23,000,000 grams

Step 2 - Divide the annual tonnage exemption level in grams by the

VOC content of the coating

(23,000,000 grams) / 700 grams per liter = 32,857 liters

Therefore, Company C can exempt 32,857 liters of Coating D and

pay the fee on the remaining 67,143 liters of Coating D and all of

Coatings B, F, and J. 

For the purposes of this example, we assume that Company C chooses option 2 and

claims all of Coating F and all of Coating J under the tonnage exemption. Therefore,

the fee must be paid on Coatings B and D.
3.10 Example: Combination

69

Combination of Compliance Options — Example Calculation 

(Continued)

Combination of Options — Step 4 - Calculate the exceedance fees due. 

You must now calculate the amount of fee that is due for all the coatings that do not

meet the VOC content limits, that will not be reformulated, and that will not be claimed

under the tonnage exemption. For Company C, these are Coatings B and D. The fee

should be determined using the procedure in Section 3.9 of this guide. 

Coating (liters) liter) (grams per liter) (dollars)

Volume VOC Applicable VOC

Manufactured Content Limit in Exceedance

or Imported (grams per Regulation Fee Due

Category and

Coating B 8,000 (9/13/99 550 Nuclear Coating $2,240

thru 12/31/99) 450

Coating B 32,000 (1/1/00 550 Nuclear Coating $8,960

thru 12/31/00) 450

Coating D 20,000 (9/13/99 700 Metallic Pigmented $11,200

thru 12/31/99) 500

Coating D 80,000 (1/1/00 700 Metallic Pigmented $44,800

thru 12/31/00) 500

TOTAL $67,200

If you choose to use the exceedance fee option beginning

on September 13, 1999 (when the regulation takes effect),

you must calculate the fee for the period September 13,

1999 through December 31, 1999 and submit the report and

pay the fee by March 1, 2000. For subsequent years, you

must pay the fee for the entire calendar year for coatings

using this option.
3.10 Example: Combination

70

Combination of Compliance Options — Example Calculation 

(Concluded)

Combination of Options — Step 5 - Summary. The following table summarizes

the compliance options that Company C has chosen in this example. These options

are not the only ones that could have been chosen for this array of products. This

example, however, demonstrates the flexibility that the regulation offers to

manufacturers and importers for determining the most cost-effective compliance

strategy.

Coating (liters) (grams per liter) (grams per liter) Selected

Volume

Manufactured Category and Applicable Compliance 

or Imported VOC Content VOC Limit in Regulation Options

Coating A 5,000 325 Opaque Stain - 350 Already meets

limit

Coating B 40,000 550 Nuclear Coating - 450 Pay total

exceedance

fee of $11,200

Coating C 25,000 500 Bond Breaker - 600 Already meets

limit

Coating D 100,000 700 Metallic Pigmented - 500 Pay total

exceedance

fee of $56,000

Coating E 150,000 275 Exterior Flat - 250 Reformulate

to meet limit

Coating F 35,000 400 Roof Coatings - 250 Claim tonnage

exemption

Coating G 60,000 500 Varnish - 450 Reformulate

to meet limit

Coating H 300,000 400 Varnish - 450 Already meets

limit

Coating I 75,000 700 Concrete Surface Retarder - Already meets

780 limit

Coating J 15,000 600 Industrial Maintenance - 450 Claim tonnage

exemption

End of Combination of Compliance Options Example
3.11 Reports and records

*Regulation correction [§ 59.408(b)]; see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that the deadline for

submitting the initial notification report for coatings registered under FIFRA is March 13,

2000, rather than September 13, 1999.

71

3.11 What reports and records are required?

[§§ 59.407, 59.408]

 You must submit an initial notification report to EPA if you manufacture or import

coatings in any of the categories of architectural coatings in Figure 1. This initial report

must include the following information:

& your name and address,

& the street address of each one of your facilities in the United States that is

producing, packaging, or repackaging any architectural coating subject to the

regulation,

& a list of categories from Figure 1 for which your coatings meet the definitions in

the regulation, and

& an explanation of any date code used on a container to represent the date of

manufacture of the coating.

The initial report must be submitted by the later of the following two deadlines: 

& September 13, 1999 (for coatings registered under FIFRA, the initial report must

be submitted by March 13, 2000*), or

& 180 days after the date you manufacture or import an architectural coating for

the first time.

If you submit an initial notification report, then you are not required to submit

subsequent notification reports for coatings that you manufacture for the first time after

your initial notification. However, if you introduce a new date code for your coating

containers that was not explained in the initial notification report, then you must submit

an explanation of the new date code no later than 30 days after you first use it. 
3.11 Reports and records

72

You must submit your reports and other correspondence to the Regional Office

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that serves the State or Territory where

your corporate headquarters is located. Appendix G lists each Regional Office and the

States and Territories it serves. Appendix I contains an example template you may

use, if desired, for the initial notification report.

The EPA expects the address for submitting the exceedance fee to change. A

notice will be published in the Federal Register. See the architectural coatings web site

for the latest information (http://www.epa/gov/ttn/uatw/183e/aim/aimpg.html).

If your manufactured, repackaged, or imported coatings meet the VOC content

limits in Figure 1, then you submit the initial report, but you do not have to prepare

periodic reports or records. If you choose to comply using one or more of the other

options provided in the regulation, then you must prepare certain periodic reports and

records as shown in the following table. 

A parent company must ensure that an initial

report and any required periodic reports and

exceedance fee payments are submitted by the

deadlines for all its divisions and subsidiaries.

The date code is the only information in the

initial report you must report again if a change

occurs. If you change the date code, then you

must submit an explanation of the new date

code no later than 30 days after first use. 
73

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements [§§ 59.407, 59.408]

If you choose this option... then you must report... by this date... and for 3 years keePay an annual exceedance & the coatings and associated categories March 1 after each & the coatings 

fee in Figure 1 for which fee is used calendar year you categories f

& VOC content of each coating that & VOC conten

exceeds the limits in Figure 1 grams of VO

& excess VOC content of each coating in & excess VOC 

grams of VOC per liter of coating coating in gr

& total volume of each coating

manufactured or imported per calendaryear, in liters, including the volume of

any water and exempt compounds andexcluding the volume of any colorant

added to tint bases*

& annual fee for each coating

& total annual fee for all coatings

use exceedance fee

coating

& total volume 

manufacturecalendar yeathe volume oexempt comthe volume oto tint bases 

& annual fee f

& total annual 

& calculations 

each coating 

the total annusing the pr

regulation

*Regulation correction [§§ 59.407, 59.408]; see page 7 for where to get the latest information. The technical correction noti

clarifies that the VOC amount includes the volume of any water and exempt compounds and excludes the volume of any cobases. 
74

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements [§§ 59.407, 59.408]

(Continued)

If you choose this option... then you must report... by this date... and for 3 years keeClaim a tonnage exemption & all coatings in Figure 1 for which March 1 after each & all coatings 

exemption is claimed year you use exemption is 

& the VOC amount in grams of VOC per & the VOC am

liter of coating thinned to the liter of coatin

manufacturer’s maximum manufacturerecommendation including the volume recommend

of any water and exempt compounds volume of aand excluding the volume of any compounds 

colorant added to tint bases * volume of a

& volume manufactured or imported**, in

liters, for each coating for which & volume man

exemption is claimed for the time imported**, period the exemption is claimed coating for w

& total megagrams of VOC contained in exemption is 

all coatings for which the exemption is

claimed for the time period the & total megag

exemption is claimed in each coat

tonnage exemption

bases *claimed for exemption is coatings com

exemption is period the e

*Regulation correction [§§ 59.407, 59.408]; see page 7 for where to get the latest information. The technical correction noti

clarifies that the VOC amount includes the volume of any water and exempt compounds and excludes the volume of any cobases. **Regulation correction [§§ 59.407, 59.408]; see page 7 for where to get the latest information. The technical correction not

requires you to keep a record and report the volume manufactured or imported, rather than actual sales. 
75

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements [§§ 59.407, 59.408]

(Continued)

If you choose this option... then you must report... by this date... and for 3 years keeUse the adjusted VOC & minimum volume % of post-consumer March 1 after each & minimum volume 

content for recycled coating coating content for each recycled coating calendar year you coating content fo

& volume of post-consumer coating received VOC content & volume of post-co

for recycling received for recyc

& volume of unusable post-consumer coating & volume of unusab

received coating received

& volume of virgin materials & volume of virgin m

& volume of the final recycled coating & volume of the fina

manufactured or imported manufactured or i

use the adjusted

& calculations of the 

as determined us

regulation
3.12 Labeling

*Regulation correction [§ 59.405(a)(3)(i)]; see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) allows you to label the VOC

content in either metric or English units, rather than just metric units.

76

3.12 How do I comply with the container labeling requirements?

[§ 59.405]

The label or lid of each container in which a coating is sold or distributed must

contain the applicable information from the following table.

If the coating is... Then the container must indicate...

Any architectural coating

subject to the regulation

Date

Date that the coating was manufactured (may also be provided on the bottom

of the container). Alternatively, a date code may be used instead of the date if

you provide EPA with an explanation of the date code in the initial notification

report and no later than 30 days after a new or revised date code system is

used. The explanation will allow EPA to read the date code and determine the

date the coating was manufactured.

VOC content of the coating 

You have two options:

1. The VOC content of the coating in grams of VOC per liter or pounds of

VOC per gallon*, or

2. The applicable VOC content limit in Table 1 with which the coating

complies.

NOTE: You must use the first option for each coating that does not meet the

VOC content limit (i.e., those for which you are using the tonnage exemption

or exceedance fee provisions).

Thinning Recommendation

A quantitative thinning recommendation is required only if you recommend

thinning with an organic solvent, not water. If solvent thinning is not

necessary, specify that the coating is to be applied without thinning.

Industrial maintenance The information above and one or more of the following statements: 

coating 1. “For industrial use only”

2. “For professional use only”

3. “Not for residential use,” or “Not intended for residential use”

4. “This coating is intended for use under the following condition(s):” and list

any of these conditions that apply:

- Immersion in water, wastewater, or chemical solutions (aqueous and

nonaqueous solutions), or chronic exposure of interior surfaces to

moisture condensation;

- Acute or chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic, or acidic agents, or

to chemicals, chemical fumes, or chemical mixtures or solutions;

- Repeated exposure to temperatures above 120 C (250 F); o o

- Repeated (frequent) heavy abrasion, including mechanical wear and

repeated (frequent) scrubbing with industrial solvents, cleansers, or

scouring agents; or

- Exterior exposure of metal structures and structural components
3.12 Labeling

If the coating is... Then the container must indicate...

*Regulation correction [§ 59.405(a)(3)(i)]; see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) allows you to label the VOC

content in either metric or English units, rather than just metric units.

77

Recycled coating The VOC content and thinning information above and “Contains not less than

(if you use the adjusted X percent by volume post-consumer coating” 

VOC content) 

You may label the VOC content in either metric or

English units, however, the regulation will be enforced

in metric units.* 
3.13 Traffic markings

78

3.13 How does the regulation affect me if I apply traffic markings?

[§ 59.406(d)]

If you apply traffic markings you are not subject to the regulation unless you also

manufacture or import coatings. However, you may be indirectly affected by the

regulation due to changes in the availability of the traffic markings you apply. 

The regulation contains a 150 gram per liter VOC content limit for traffic

markings. Traditional solventborne traffic markings contain VOC in excess of the

150 gram per liter limit. In some cases, manufacturers may continue to produce traffic

markings that exceed this limit by using the tonnage exemption or the exceedance fee

provisions. However, traffic markings that exceed the 150 gram per liter limit are likely

to be in short supply after September 13, 1999, when the regulation takes effect. 

Therefore, if you apply one of these coatings and it is no longer available, you

will need to switch to a traffic marking that complies with the VOC content limit. 

Low-VOC traffic markings that typically meet the

150 gram per liter limit include, but are not limited to:

& waterborne paints & thermoplastics

& acetone-based & permanent markers

 solventborne paints & polyesters, and

& epoxies & preformed tapes

If you apply solventborne traffic markings now, you may need to modify your

application equipment or purchase new application equipment in order to apply traffic

markings that comply with the limit. For example, many older solventborne traffic

striping trucks cannot apply waterborne traffic markings without modifications. The

table below outlines the changes that are required for switching from solventborne

traffic marking paint to another technology.
3.13 Traffic markings

79

Check with your supplier of traffic markings concerning any possible changes in

the availability of the markings that you apply. If you need to switch to a different traffic

marking, contact the manufacturer of your application equipment regarding any

equipment modifications or purchases that may be necessary.

If you switch from 

solventborne traffic 

paint to... then the following equipment changes are needed...

Waterborne traffic paint If your striper is capable of applying waterborne paint:

No changes are necessary. 

If your striper is not capable of applying waterborne paint: 

Retrofit your existing striper by increasing pump size and

motor power, adding temperature controls, replacing metal

parts and tanks with stainless steel, nickel-coated or

Teflon®-coated parts and tanks.

OR

Purchase a new striper that can apply waterborne traffic

paint.

Acetone-based traffic paint No changes are required.

Epoxies Purchase a new striper that is designed to apply this type

Thermoplastics of traffic marking. 

Permanent Markers

Polyesters

Preformed Tapes
3.13 Traffic markings

80

Traffic marking coating means a coating formulated

and recommended for marking and striping streets,

highways, or other traffic surfaces including, but not

limited to, curbs, berms, driveways, parking lots,

sidewalks, and airport runways.

Most traffic striping machines manufactured after

1994 can apply today’s waterborne traffic markings.
4.0 Other Questions and Answers

81

4.0 OTHER QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

 After reading section 4, you should know how to determine self-compliance,

how the regulation affects your existing air permits, and how you can benefit

the environment.

4.1 How might I conduct a self-audit to help me evaluate whether I

am in compliance with this regulation? 

You may want to conduct a self-audit to determine your compliance status for

this regulation. You will want to ensure that you have met all the reporting,

recordkeeping, and labeling requirements, and that your coatings meet the VOC

content limits. For any coatings that do not meet the limits, you will want to ensure that

you are complying with either the tonnage exemption or exceedance fee option. To

help you with this self-audit, Figure 7 provides a checklist you may find helpful. You are

not required to use this checklist, however, and may find another tool for conducting a

self-audit to be more useful.
4.0 Other Questions and Answers

82

Figure 7. SELF-AUDIT CHECKLIST

Requirement Yes No NA

Applicability:

Am I subject to this regulation? Did I manufacture, or import, any of the coating

categories listed in Table 1 to subpart D in the U.S.? (If “yes” to any of the

following, then you are subject to this regulation)

 1. After September 13, 1999?

 2. In containers larger than 1 liter? 

 3. In other than non-refillable aerosol containers?

Labeling:

Does my product contain the following on the product container label or lid?

 1. The date of manufacture or a code indicating manufacturing date

 2. Recommended thinning requirements (does not apply to water thinned 

paints)

 3. VOC content

 4. Special information if it’s an industrial maintenance or recycled coating.

VOC content of coatings:

Is the VOC content I determined for my coating compliant with the content limit in

the regulation?

Did I use EPA Method 24 or another means to determine VOC content? 

 Method 24 (or alternative EPA-approved method)

 Formulation

 Batch QA records (viscosity, weight, etc.)

 Batch measurements & records of coating contents

 Other _____________________________________

If I did not use EPA Method 24, am I confident that the coating would be in

compliance if tested with Method 24?

Reporting:

Did I submit the required reports to EPA?

 1. Initial notification report of manufacturing facility locations, coating

categories being manufactured or imported, and date code explanation.

 2. Periodic reports with the required information:

- March 1, 2000 - exceedance fee and recycled coating reports

- March 1, 2001 and every March 1 thereafter. Exceedance fee,

recycled coating, and tonnage exemption reports.
4.0 Other Questions and Answers

Requirement Yes No NA

83

Recordkeeping: 

Did I keep the following records for 3 years?

Recycling:

Did I keep the following records?

 1. Volume of coatings received for recycling

 2. Volume received that is unusable 

 3. Volume of virgin stock use in recycling

 4. Calculations of the adjusted VOC content for each coating

 5. The minimum volume percent of post-consumer coatings in each coating

 6. Volume of final product manufactured or imported

Exceedance fees: 

Did I keep the following records on the coatings for which I am paying a fee? 

 1. The coatings category and VOC content of each coating

 2. VOC content of each coating

 3. VOC content in excess of the limit

 4. The volume manufactured or imported

 5. Calculations of the annual fee for each coating and the total annual fee

 6. The annual fee for each coating and total annual fee

Tonnage exemptions: 

Did I keep the following records for the coatings exempted?

 1. The VOC amount of each coating exempted

 2. Volume manufactured or imported for each exempted coating

 3. Total VOC exempted for all coatings claimed and for each coating

claimed

 4. Calculations of total megagrams of VOC for each coating exempted
4.2 Air permits

84

4.2 If I am subject to this regulation, do I have to obtain a Federal

operating permit?

Title V of the Clean Air Act requires that certain sources obtain operating

permits. However, being subject to the architectural coatings regulation does not by

itself create the obligation to apply for a title V operating permit. Nor is a title V permit

requirement triggered by the two other regulations that have been issued to date under

section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act: the consumer products regulation and the

automobile refinish coating regulation.

4.3 What are the implications for my existing operating permits?

The architectural coatings regulation will not affect your existing title V operating

permit. If you already have an operating permit issued under 40 CFR part 70 (i.e., a

title V permit issued by a State, local government, or Indian Tribe) or an operating

permit issued under 40 CFR part 71 (issued by EPA), you do not have to revise your

permit to incorporate the requirements of this regulation. Nor will you have to include

the requirements of this regulation whenever you renew your permit.

In addition to issuing title V permits, some States, local agencies, and Tribes

issue other types of operating permits to sources based on the requirements of State or

Tribal law. If such a permit applies to you, you should contact the permitting agency to

determine if the requirements of the architectural coatings regulation must be

incorporated. 
4.3 Pollution prevention

85

4.4 What is pollution prevention and how can it affect my

operations? 

Pollution prevention eliminates or minimizes pollution where it originates, so

pollution is not created in the first place. The architectural coatings regulation

encourages pollution prevention by setting limits on the amount of VOC allowed in

coatings. Manufacturers that reformulate their coatings to reduce the VOC content and

meet the limits are practicing pollution prevention. Although the regulation includes

other compliance options (tonnage exemption and exceedance fee), reformulation is

the option that is most beneficial to the environment since it is the only option that

results in a reduction of VOC that are actually emitted. Reformulating reduces the

amount of VOC in the coatings and, therefore, fewer VOC are emitted during

application. 

Manufacturers and importers who reformulate their coatings to meet the VOC

content limits (or whose coatings already meet the VOC content limits) will save time

and money because they are exempt from further recordkeeping and reporting

requirements and will not be paying a fee for VOC content in excess of the limit. These

manufacturers and importers must only submit an initial report and meet the labeling

requirements. However, manufacturers and importers who choose the tonnage

exemption will spend time to keep records and submit annual reports. Those who

choose the exceedance fee option will spend time to keep records and submit annual

reports, as well as pay the fee.
4.4 Flexibility 

86

4.5 Are there opportunities for flexibility or waivers?

The regulation encourages manufacturers and importers to reformulate their

coatings to reduce the amount of VOC in their coatings. However, the regulation is

flexible in offering compliance options for both large and small businesses for which

reformulation is not an immediate option. The exceedance fee and the tonnage

exemption provisions are included in the final regulation to avoid unnecessary impacts

upon manufacturers and to minimize impacts on the supply of coating products. The

exceedance fee is intended to allow manufacturers and importers additional time to

develop low-VOC formulations while providing an appropriate economic incentive to

encourage reformulation. The tonnage exemption is intended to allow manufacturers

and importers the flexibility to continue to market certain low-volume product lines

where reformulation of a specialty product used for unique applications may not be

cost-effective.

Manufacturers and importers whose coatings contain a portion of post-consumer

coating have the option to calculate an adjusted VOC content, giving them credit for

using recycled coatings. Use of recycled coatings is environmentally beneficial

because it reduces the amount of waste from architectural coatings that would

otherwise result from evaporation of VOC from unused coatings or of coatings sent to

landfills or elsewhere. The EPA is providing this credit to encourage recycling of

unused coatings.

4.6 Where do I go for further assistance?

To obtain more information or additional copies of this guide, call your State

small business assistance program or your State or local air pollution control agency. 

Also, visit the EPA’s Technology Transfer Network - Small Business Assistance

Program web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/sbap to get information on your State

small business assistance program or to find this document and additional materials

concerning this subject. Also, Appendix J of this guide lists various resources of

information that may help you understand and comply with the architectural coatings

regulation.
5.0 The Compliance Assurance Process

87

5.0 THE COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE PROCESS

 After reading section 5, you should know how EPA will determine

compliance, what happens if you or the EPA discovers noncompliance, and the

legal status of this guide.

5.1 How will EPA determine compliance?

The EPA employs several approaches to monitor compliance with its

environmental regulations, including both EPA-initiated and facility-initiated methods.

1. Inspections—The EPA may conduct periodic inspections at facilities

subject to this regulation. Inspections may be initiated by disclosures to

EPA, randomly selecting facilities or by a variety of targeting methods. 

Inspections may be used to monitor recordkeeping requirements and

secure product samples. Inspections may also be conducted at brokers

who import paints subject to this regulation. 

2. Reporting—The EPA will monitor reports submitted by the facility including

initial notification reports, tonnage exemption reports, recycled coating

reports, and exceedance fees and reports. The facility may also be asked

to demonstrate compliance with the VOC content requirements of the

regulation by providing test results, calculations, and other related

information.

3. Labeling—The EPA can review the coating container labels for labeling

requirements such as the date of manufacture, thinning instructions, and

VOC content.

4. Product Sampling—Samples may be obtained to determine whether

products meet the VOC content limits. Samples of the products and

labels may be reviewed at the manufacturer's site or from products in the

marketplace.

5. Self Disclosure—Facilities have the primary responsibility for ensuring that

they are in continuous compliance. The EPA encourages the facility to

take advantage of EPA’s self-disclosure policies or small business policy. 

To aid the facility in determining whether it is in compliance, Section 4.1 of

this guide includes a self-audit checklist.
5.0 The Compliance Assurance Process

88

5.2 If I discover a violation, how can I work with the EPA to correct

it?

The EPA encourages self-disclosure of violations and has implemented two

policies to meet this goal. These policies meet the objectives of Section 223 of the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) which

provides for the reduction, and under some appropriate circumstances, the complete

waiver of civil penalties for certain environmental violations.

The “Policy on Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses” (the Small Business

Policy) applies to companies with 100 or fewer employees and provides penalty waivers

or penalty reductions as incentives to participate in an on-site compliance assistance

program and to conduct environmental self-audits to discover and correct violations. For

more information on our Small Business Policy, you may visit our Internet site at:

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/smbusi.html.

The “Incentives for Self-Policing: Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of

Violations” policy (the Audit Policy) applies to businesses of all sizes that meet the

applicability criteria and promptly disclose and correct violations. For more information

on our Audit Policy, you may visit our Internet site at

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/auditpol.html, or http://es.epa.gov/oeca/apolguid.html,

which provides the audit policy interpretive guidance. 
5.3 If the Agency discovers a violation

89

5.3 If EPA discovers a violation, what might be its response?

To maximize compliance, EPA implements a balanced program of compliance

assistance, compliance incentives, and traditional law enforcement. The EPA knows

that small businesses that must comply with complicated new statutes or regulations

often want to do the right thing, but may lack the requisite knowledge, resources, or

skills. Compliance assistance information and technical advice helps small businesses

to understand and meet their environmental obligations. Compliance incentives, such

as our Small Business Policy, encourage persons to voluntarily discover, disclose, and

correct violations before they are identified by the government. The EPA’s strong law

enforcement program protects all of us by targeting persons who neither comply nor

cooperate to address their problems. 

The EPA uses a variety of methods to determine whether businesses are

complying, including inspecting facilities, reviewing records and reports, and responding

to citizen complaints. If EPA learns a person is violating the law, EPA may file an

enforcement action seeking penalties of up to $27,500 per violation, per day. The

proposed penalty in a given case will depend on many factors, including the number,

length, and severity of the violations, the economic benefit obtained by the violator, and

its ability to pay. The EPA has policies in place to ensure penalties are calculated fairly. 

These policies are available to the public. In addition, any company charged with a

violation has the right to contest EPA’s allegations and proposed penalty before an

impartial judge or jury.

In summary, EPA recognizes that it can achieve the greatest possible

environmental protection by encouraging small businesses to work with us to discover,

disclose, and correct violations. That is why EPA has issued self-disclosure, small

business, and small community policies to eliminate or reduce penalties for small and

large entities which cooperate with EPA to address compliance problems. In addition,

we’ve established compliance assistance centers to serve over a million small

businesses. For more information on these and other EPA programs for small

businesses, please contact EPA’s Small Business Ombudsman, Karen Brown, at

(202) 260-1390.
5.4 Legal status of guide

90

5.4 What is the legal status of this guide?

A judge can look at a compliance guide in determining what penalty is

appropriate and reasonable, although the content of the guide cannot otherwise be

reviewed by the court.

In this compliance guide, we have tried to make clear what you must do to

comply with the applicable law and regulation, as required by SBREFA. We hope you

find this presentation of regulatory requirements useful and the additional information

helpful in reaching and maintaining compliance.

Following the steps set forth in this guidance generally should result in

compliance with those aspects of the regulation that it covers. The EPA does not make

any guarantee or assume any liability with respect to the use of any information or

recommendations contained in this document. Regulated entities requiring additional

information or advice should consult a qualified professional.

This guidance does not constitute rulemaking by the EPA, and may not be relied

on to create a substantive or procedural right or benefit enforceable, at law or in equity,

by any person. The EPA may take action at variance with this guidance and its internal

procedures.
Appendix A

APPENDIX A

Final rule: National Volatile Organic Compound 

Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings

(40 CFR part 59, subpart D, 63 FR 48848, September 11, 1998)

Final rule, corrections and amendments. National Volatile Organic Compound

Emissions Standards for Architectural Coatings; Correction

(40 CFR part 59, subpart D, 64 FR 34997, June 30, 1999)

To determine whether EPA has published further changes to this regulation, 

browse the list of CFR sections affected at:

http://www.access.gpo/nara/lsa/browslsa.html
48848 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 59

[AD–FRL–6149–7]

RIN 2060–AE55

National Volatile Organic Compound

Emission Standards for Architectural

Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action promulgates

national volatile organic compound

(VOC) emission standards for

architectural coatings pursuant to

section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act).

This final rule is based on the

Administrator’s determination that VOC

emissions from the use of architectural

coatings have the potential to cause or

contribute to ozone levels that violate

the national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) for ozone. Ozone is

a major component of smog which

causes negative health and

environmental impacts when present in

high concentrations at ground level. The

final rule is estimated to reduce VOC

emissions by 103,000 megagrams per

year (Mg/yr) (113,500 tons per year

[tpy]) by requiring manufacturers and

importers to limit the VOC content of

architectural coatings.

DATES: The effective date is September

11, 1998. The incorporation by reference

of certain publications listed in the

regulation is approved by the Director of

the Federal Register as of September 11,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Technical Support

Documents. The regulation promulgated

today is supported by two background

information documents (BID); one

specific to the architectural coatings

rule, and one that addresses comments

on the study and Report to Congress

under section 183(e). These documents

are: the BID for the promulgated

architectural coating standards, National

Volatile Organic Compound Emission

Standards for Architectural Coatings—

Background for Promulgated Standards

(Architectural Coatings BID); and the

BID containing the Administrator’s

response to comments on the section

183(e) study and Report to Congress,

Response to Comments on Section

183(e) Study and Report to Congress

(183–BID). The Architectural Coatings

BID contains a summary of the changes

made to the standards since proposal, a

summary of all the public comments on

the standards, and the Administrator’s

response to the comments and the 183–

BID contains a summary of all the

public comments made on the section

183(e) study and Report to Congress and

the list and schedule for regulation as

well as the Administrator’s response to

the comments. Both documents may be

obtained from the docket for this

rulemaking and are also accessible

through the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ramain.html; or

from the United States Environmental

Protection Agency Library (MD–35),

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone (919) 541–2777. Please

refer to ‘‘National Volatile Organic

Compound Emission Standards for

Architectural Coatings—Background for

Promulgated Standards,’’ EPA–453/R–

98–006b, or ‘‘Response to Comments on

Section 183(e) Study and Report to

Congress’’ EPA–453/R–98–007.

Docket. Docket No. A–92–18, contains

supporting information used in

developing the promulgated standards.

Docket No. A–94–65 contains

information considered by the EPA in

development of the consumer and

commercial products study and the

subsequent list and schedule for

regulation. The dockets are available for

public inspection and copying from 8:00

a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48849

dockets are located at the EPA’s Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center, Waterside Mall, Room M1500,

1st Floor, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202)

260–7548 or fax (202) 260–4400. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Ellen Ducey at (919) 541–5408, Coatings

and Consumer Products Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711 (ducey.ellen@epa.gov).

Any correspondence related to

compliance with this rule must be

submitted to the appropriate EPA

Regional Office listed in § 59.409 of the

rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities. Entities potentially

regulated by this action are

manufacturers and importers of

architectural coatings. Architectural

coatings are coatings that are

recommended for field application to

stationary structures and their

appurtenances, to portable buildings, to

pavements, or to curbs. Regulated

categories and entities include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ......... Manufacturers (which includes packagers and repackagers) and importers

of architectural coatings

that are manufactured for

sale or distribution in the

United States, including all

United States territories.

State/local/

tribal governments.

State Departments of Transportation that manufacture

their own coatings.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that the EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in this table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

product is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 59.400 of the

final rule. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this

preamble.

Judicial review. This section 183(e)

rule for architectural coatings was

proposed on June 25, 1996 (61 FR

32729). This notice promulgating a rule

for architectural coatings constitutes

final administrative action concerning

that proposal. Under section 307(b)(1) of

the Act, judicial review of this final rule

is available only by filing a petition for

review in the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit by November 10, 1998. Under

section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, only an

objection to this rule which was raised

with reasonable specificity during the

period for public comment can be raised

during judicial review. Moreover, under

section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the

requirements established by today’s

final action may not be challenged

separately in any civil or criminal

proceeding brought by the EPA to

enforce these requirements.

Outline. The information presented in

this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background

A. Purpose of Regulation

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

II. Summary of Standards

A. Applicability

B. Volatile Organic Compound Content

Limits

C. Exceedance Fee

D. Tonnage Exemption

E. Labeling

F. Recordkeeping

G. Reporting
48850 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

H. Compliance Provisions

III. Summary of Considerations in

Developing Standards

A. Basis of the Regulation

B. Stakeholder and Public Participation

IV. Summary of Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

B. Energy Impacts

C. Cost and Economic Impacts

V. Significant Comments and Changes to

Proposed Standards

A. National Rule versus Control

Techniques Guidelines

B. Applicability and Regulated Entities

C. General Comments on Determination of

Best Available Controls

D. Changes in Proposed Coating Categories

E. Addition of New Coating Categories

F. Category Overlap

G. Low Volume/Tonnage Exemption

H. Compliance Variance Provisions

I. Exceedance Fee Option

J. Labeling, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

K. Determination of Volatile Organic

Compound Content

L. Compliance Date

M. Cost/Economic Impacts

N. Small Business Issues

O. Cost-Effectiveness

P. Future Study and Future Limits

Q. Administrative Provisions

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Executive Order 12875

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

G. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Executive Order 13045

I. Background

A. Purpose of Regulation

Ground-level ozone, which is a major

component of ‘‘smog,’’ is formed in the

atmosphere by reactions of VOC and

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence

of sunlight. The formation of groundlevel 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, agricultural crop loss, and

damage to forests and ecosystems. Acute

health effects are induced by short-term

exposures to ozone (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

exposures to ozone (observed at

concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm),

typically while individuals are engaged

in moderate exertion. Moderate exertion

levels are more frequently experienced

by individuals than heavy exertion

levels. The acute health effects include

respiratory symptoms, effects on

exercise performance, increased airway

responsiveness, increased susceptibility

to respiratory infection, increased

hospital admissions and emergency

room visits, and pulmonary

inflammation. Groups at increased risk

of experiencing such effects include

active children, outdoor workers, and

others who regularly engage in outdoor

activities and individuals with

preexisting respiratory disease.

Available information also suggests 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).

In accordance with section 183(e) of

the Act, the Administrator has

determined that VOC emissions from

the use of architectural coatings have

the potential to contribute to ozone

levels that violate the NAAQS for ozone.

Under authority of section 183(e), the

EPA conducted a study of the VOC

emissions from consumer and

commercial products to determine their

potential to contribute to ozone levels

which violate the NAAQS for ozone.

Based on the results of the study, the

EPA determined that the architectural

coatings category accounts for about 9

percent of the emissions from all

consumer and commercial products. It

is one of the largest emission sources

among the consumer and commercial

products categories and in many States

represents one of the largest identifiable

sources of unregulated VOC emissions.

Consequently, the EPA and many States

consider the regulation of architectural

coatings to be an important component

of the overall approach to reducing

those emissions that contribute to ozone

nonattainment. The EPA’s

determination that VOC emissions from

the use of architectural coatings have

the potential to contribute to

nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS and

the decision to regulate architectural

coatings are discussed in the preamble

to the proposed rule (61 FR 32729), in

the ‘‘Consumer and Commercial

Products Report to Congress’’ (EPA–

453/R–94–066–A), in the Federal

Register notice announcing the

schedule for regulation (60 FR 15264),

and in a separate Federal Register

document published today that

constitutes final action on the EPA’s

listing of architectural coatings for

regulation.

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

1. Section 183(e)

In 1990, Congress enacted section

183(e) of the Act, establishing a new

regulatory program for controlling VOC

emissions from consumer and

commercial products. Section 183(e)

directs the Administrator to list, and

schedule for regulation, categories of

consumer and commercial products

after completion of a study and report

to Congress concerning the products

and their potential to contribute to

levels of ozone which violate the ozone

NAAQS. A separate document in

today’s Federal Register contains a

description of section 183(e) of the Act

and contains a summary of significant

public comments and the EPA

responses regarding the section 183(e)

study, the Report to Congress, and the

list and schedule for regulation.

2. Regulatory Negotiation

In 1992, the EPA initiated a regulatory

negotiation to address architectural

coatings. The regulatory negotiation

process is an alternative to the

traditional approach to rulemaking. The

members of the architectural coatings

regulatory negotiation committee

represented the affected industries,

consumers, Federal agencies, State and

local air pollution control agencies,

environmental groups, and labor

organizations. Regulatory negotiation

meetings were held from October 1992

to February 1994. Despite negotiation

efforts, the committee could not reach

consensus on some key regulatory

issues for developing the rule, and on

September 23, 1994, the regulatory

negotiation concluded without

consensus. Therefore, the EPA initiated

development of the architectural

coatings rule through conventional rule

development procedures. The EPA

utilized data and information obtained

from the regulatory negotiation to

complement additional information

gathered during the rule development.

Specifically, the EPA took into

consideration information on the

volume, VOC content, and hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) content of coatings

produced in 1990 in the VOC Emissions

Inventory Survey conducted by

industry.

3. Relationship to State and Local

Regulation of Architectural Coatings

Emissions from the use of

architectural coatings are not currently

regulated at the Federal level. Although

a few States have had architectural

coatings regulations in place for a

number of years, many State and local

areas are still seeking to obtain VOC

reductions from this source category

either from a national rule or from

additional regulation at the State or

local level.

Differing requirements of State and

local architectural coating regulations

have created administrative, technical,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48851

and marketing problems for both large

and small companies that market and

distribute products in multiple States.

Both large and small manufacturers

have noted the additional burden

associated with differences in State and

local requirements. These industry

representatives have noted that a

Federal rule would provide some degree

of consistency, predictability, and

administrative ease for the industry.

States with ozone pollution problems

are supportive of the EPA rulemakings

that will assist them in their efforts

toward achievement of the ozone

standard. The National Governors’

Association and Environmental Council

of States (a group composed of

environmental commissioners from

each State), the State and Territorial Air

Pollution Program Administrators and

the Association of Local Air Pollution

Control program Administrators, and

the 37-State Ozone Transport

Assessment Group (OTAG) all have

urged the EPA to finalize national rules

for architectural coatings. State

representatives have long recommended

that the EPA develop a national rule for

this product category. In part, this is

because a national rule will help reduce

compliance problems associated with

transportation of noncompliant coatings

into nonattainment areas from

neighboring areas and neighboring

States.

Given the EPA’s commitment to

develop a national VOC rule for

architectural coatings, 14 States

currently are depending on anticipated

reductions from the rule to meet a Clean

Air Act requirement for State

Implementation Plans (SIP) to achieve a

15-percent reduction in overall VOC

emissions, which is required for areas

with ozone pollution classed as

moderate nonattainment or worse. Other

States can use these emission reductions

to meet Clean Air Act requirements for

additional rate-of-progress plans

required for 1999 and beyond. If the

EPA failed to promulgate a Federal rule

for architectural coatings, these States

would need to make up the shortfall in

emission reductions needed to achieve

attainment through other regulations,

which would likely target substantially

more expensive reductions from local

industries and businesses.

II. Summary of Standards

A. Applicability

The architectural coatings rule applies

to manufacturers and importers of

architectural coatings that are

manufactured after September 13, 1999

for sale or distribution in the United

States, including the District of

Columbia and all United States

territories. For architectural coatings

registered under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7

U.S.C. Section 136, et seq.,) (FIFRA), the

applicable date is March 10, 2000.

The regulated entity under this rule is

the manufacturer or importer of a

regulated architectural coating. The

regulated entities include any

manufacturers or importers that

produce, package, or repackage

architectural coatings for sale or

distribution in the United States,

including the District of Columbia and

all United States territories. A person

that repackages architectural coatings as

part of a paint exchange and does not

produce, package, or repackage any

other architectural coatings for sale or

distribution in the United States, is not

included in the definition of

manufacturer. Similarly, a person that

repackages an architectural coating by

transferring it from one container to

another is not included in the

definitions of importer and

manufacturer, provided the VOC

content of the coating is not altered and

the coating is not sold or distributed to

another party.

An architectural coating is defined in

the rule as: ‘‘a coating recommended for

field application to stationary structures

and their appurtenances, to portable

buildings, to pavements, or to curbs.’’

The definition of architectural coating

excludes: ‘‘adhesives and coatings

recommended by the manufacturer or

importer solely for shop applications or

solely for application to non-stationary

structures, such as airplanes, ships,

boats, and railcars.’’

Architectural coatings that are subject

to the rule are divided into a number of

coating categories, such as ‘‘exterior

flats’’ or ‘‘industrial maintenance

coatings.’’ These coating categories are

defined in the rule for purposes of

specifying the applicable emission

limits. In determining if a coating is

subject to this rule, a coating must first

meet the general definition of an

architectural coating.

The standards do not apply to the

following:

(1) Coatings manufactured exclusively

for sale or distribution outside the

United States;

(2) Coatings manufactured prior to

September 13, 1999;

(3) Coatings sold in nonrefillable

aerosol containers;

(4) Coatings that are collected and

redistributed at paint exchanges in

accordance with this rule; and

(5) coatings sold in containers with a

volume of 1 liter or less.

B. Volatile Organic Compound Content

Limits

Manufacturers and importers must

limit the VOC content of subject

coatings to the VOC content levels

presented in table 1 of this subpart,

unless they utilize the exceedance fee or

tonnage exemption provisions described

below. These limits apply to the VOC

content that would result after thinning

a coating according to the

manufacturer’s maximum thinning

recommendations. Each subject coating

must be classified by the manufacturer

or importer as belonging to at least one

of the categories listed in table 1. Each

category is defined in the rule’s

definitions section. If none of the

specific category definitions applies to a

coating, then the coating is included in

either the flat or nonflat category,

depending on its gloss level.

TABLE 1 OF SUBPART D.—VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTENT LIMITS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS

[Unless otherwise specified, limits are expressed in grams of VOC per liter of coating thinned to the manufacturer’s maximum recommendation

excluding the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or colorant added to tint bases.]

Coating category Grams per

liter

Pounds per

gallona

Antenna coatings ..................................................................................................................................................... 530 4.4

Anti-fouling coatings ................................................................................................................................................. 450 3.8

Anti-graffiti coatings .................................................................................................................................................. 600 5.0

Bituminous coatings and mastics ............................................................................................................................ 500 4.2

Bond breakers .......................................................................................................................................................... 600 5.0

Calcimine recoater ................................................................................................................................................... 475 4.0

Chalkboard resurfacers ............................................................................................................................................ 450 3.8

Concrete curing compounds .................................................................................................................................... 350 2.9

Concrete curing and sealing compounds ................................................................................................................ 700 5.8
48852 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1 OF SUBPART D.—VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTENT LIMITS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS—

Continued

[Unless otherwise specified, limits are expressed in grams of VOC per liter of coating thinned to the manufacturer’s maximum recommendation

excluding the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or colorant added to tint bases.]

Coating category Grams per

liter

Pounds per

gallona

Concrete protective coatings ................................................................................................................................... 400 3.3

Concrete surface retarders ...................................................................................................................................... 780 6.5

Conversion varnish .................................................................................................................................................. 725 6.0

Dry fog coatings ....................................................................................................................................................... 400 3.3

Extreme high durability coatings .............................................................................................................................. 800 6.7

Faux finishing/glazing ............................................................................................................................................... 700 5.8

Fire-retardant/resistive coatings:

Clear .................................................................................................................................................................. 850 7.1

Opaque ............................................................................................................................................................. 450 3.8

Flat coatings:

Exterior .............................................................................................................................................................. 250 2.1

Interior ............................................................................................................................................................... 250 2.1

Floor coatings ........................................................................................................................................................... 400 3.3

Flow coatings ........................................................................................................................................................... 650 5.4

Form release compounds ........................................................................................................................................ 450 3.8

Graphic arts coatings (sign paints) .......................................................................................................................... 500 4.2

Heat reactive coatings ............................................................................................................................................. 420 3.5

High temperature coatings ....................................................................................................................................... 650 5.4

Impacted immersion coatings .................................................................................................................................. 780 6.5

Industrial maintenance coatings .............................................................................................................................. 450 3.8

Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers) ......................................................................................................... 680 5.7

Magnesite cement coatings ..................................................................................................................................... 600 5.0

Mastic texture coatings ............................................................................................................................................ 300 2.5

Metallic pigmented coatings ..................................................................................................................................... 500 4.2

Multi-colored coatings .............................................................................................................................................. 580 4.8

Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and surface protectants ............................................................................ 870 7.3

Nonflat coatings:

Exterior .............................................................................................................................................................. 380 3.2

Interior ............................................................................................................................................................... 380 3.2

Nuclear coatings ...................................................................................................................................................... 450 3.8

Pretreatment wash primers ...................................................................................................................................... 780 6.5

Primers and undercoaters ........................................................................................................................................ 350 2.9

Quick-dry coatings:

Enamels ............................................................................................................................................................ 450 3.8

Primers, sealers, and undercoaters .................................................................................................................. 450 3.8

Repair and maintenance thermoplastic coatings ..................................................................................................... 650 5.4

Roof coatings ........................................................................................................................................................... 250 2.1

Rust preventative coatings ....................................................................................................................................... 400 3.3

Sanding sealers (other than lacquer sanding sealers) ............................................................................................ 550 4.6

Sealers (including interior clear wood sealers) ........................................................................................................ 400 3.3

Shellacs:

Clear .................................................................................................................................................................. 730 6.1

Opaque ............................................................................................................................................................. 550 4.6

Stains:

Clear and semitransparent ............................................................................................................................... 550 4.6

Opaque ............................................................................................................................................................. 350 2.9

Low solids ......................................................................................................................................................... b120 b1.0

Stain controllers ....................................................................................................................................................... 720 6.0

Swimming pool coatings .......................................................................................................................................... 600 5.0

Thermoplastic rubber coatings and mastics ............................................................................................................ 550 4.6

Traffic marking coatings ........................................................................................................................................... 150 1.3

Varnishes ................................................................................................................................................................. 450 3.8

Waterproofing sealers and treatments ..................................................................................................................... 600 5.0

Wood preservatives:

Below ground wood preservatives .................................................................................................................... 550 4.6

Clear and semitransparent ............................................................................................................................... 550 4.6

Opaque ............................................................................................................................................................. 350 2.9

Low solids ......................................................................................................................................................... b120 b1.0

Zone marking coatings ............................................................................................................................................. 450 3.8

aEnglish units are provided for information only. Enforcement of the rule will be based on the metric units.

b Units are grams of VOC per liter (pounds of VOC per gallon) of coating, including water and exempt compounds, thinned to the maximum

thinning recommended by the manufacturer.

If a coating is marketed in more than

one of the coating categories listed in

table 1 of this subpart, the manufacturer

or importer must comply with the

lowest applicable VOC content limit,

unless an exception is specified in
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48853

§ 59.402(c) of the rule. These exceptions

were developed to clarify which VOC

content limit applies in situations where

inherent overlap exists between

category definitions. For example,

varnishes used on wood floors were not

intended to be subject to the more

stringent emission limit for floor

coatings. Therefore, an exception

paragraph is included in the rule stating

that varnishes recommended for use on

floors are subject to the VOC content

limit for varnishes, and not the limit for

floor coatings.

Manufacturers and importers of

recycled coatings are given the

compliance option of calculating an

adjusted-VOC content. Manufacturers

and importers of recycled architectural

coatings are defined as those that

collect, reprocess, and market coatings

that contain a percentage of postconsumer coating. Such use is

environmentally beneficial because it

reduces the amount of waste from

architectural coatings that would

otherwise result from evaporation of

VOC from unused coatings or of

coatings sent to landfills or elsewhere.

The adjusted-VOC content provides

regulated entities some credit for the

amount of post-consumer material

contained in the coating. The EPA is

providing this credit to encourage

recycling of unused coatings. The

adjusted-VOC content is determined by

multiplying the percentage of postconsumer content of the coating by the

VOC content of the recycled coating,

which is then subtracted from the VOC

content of the end product. An explicit

equation for the calculation is given in

the rule.

C. Exceedance Fee

The rule includes an exceedance fee

compliance option. This is an economic

incentive approach whereby

manufacturers and importers may

choose to comply with the rule by

paying a fee in lieu of meeting the VOC

content limits for their coating products.

The fee is $0.0028 per gram ($2,500 per

ton) of excess VOC. The fee is calculated

using the amount of VOC in excess of

the applicable VOC content limit. The

exceedance fee is paid annually to the

appropriate EPA Regional Office and is

due no later than March 1 in the year

following the calendar year in which the

coating is manufactured or imported.

D. Tonnage Exemption

The final rule also includes a tonnage

exemption that allows each

manufacturer and importer to sell or

distribute limited quantities of

architectural coatings that do not

comply with the VOC content limits and

for which no exceedance fee is paid.

The tonnage exemption can be used for

multiple products, but the total mass of

VOC contained in a single

manufacturer’s or importer’s exempt

coatings may not exceed the amounts in

table 2. The total mass of VOC is

calculated based on the volume of

coatings manufactured or imported and

the total VOC content of each of the

coatings for which an exemption is

claimed. To reiterate, the calculation is

based on the total mass of VOC

contained in all exempt coatings, not

the difference between the VOC content

of each coating and the applicable VOC

content limit in the rule.

TABLE 2.—TONNAGE EXEMPTION

The total mass of

VOC contained in all

exempt coatings combined may not exceed

During the time period of

23 megagrams (25

tons) VOC.

September 13, 1999

through December

31, 2000.

18 megagrams (20

tons) VOC.

Calendar year 2001

9 megagrams (10

tons) VOC.

Calendar year 2002

and each year

thereafter.

E. Labeling

For coatings complying with the VOC

content limits in table 1 of this subpart,

manufacturers and importers must

provide the following information on

the label or lid of each coating: (1) the

date the coating was manufactured, or a

code indicating this date (this

information may alternatively be

provided on the bottom of the can); (2)

a statement of the manufacturer’s

recommendation regarding thinning of

the coating (does not apply to thinning

with water); and (3) either the VOC

content of the coating in the container,

or the VOC content limit from table 1 of

the rule with which the coating must

comply and with which it does comply.

(Any coating for which the exceedance

fee or tonnage exemption provision is

being used must be labeled with its VOC

content because it would not be in

compliance with the VOC content limits

in table 1 of this subpart.)

Industrial maintenance coatings must

be labeled with one of several

prescribed phrases indicating that the

coating is not intended for general

consumer use. For recycled coatings,

manufacturers and importers must

indicate the post-consumer coating

content on the container label or lid.

F. Recordkeeping

There are no recordkeeping

requirements for coatings complying

with the VOC content limits in table 1

of this subpart. However, the rule does

include recordkeeping requirements for

compliance with the recycled coating,

exceedance fee, and tonnage exemption

provisions.

For recycled coatings, the

manufacturer or importer must keep

records of the volume of coatings

received for recycling, the volume of

coatings received that is unusable, the

volume of virgin coatings used with

recycled coatings, and the volume of

final recycled coatings manufactured or

imported. In addition, manufacturers

and importers of recycled coatings must

keep records of the calculation of

adjusted-VOC contents.

For compliance with the exceedance

fee provisions, manufacturers and

importers must keep records on an

annual basis for each coating of the VOC

content, the VOC content in excess of

the applicable limit, and the volume

manufactured or imported.

Manufacturers and importers must also

keep records of the calculation of fees,

the annual fee for each coating, and the

total annual fee.

For the tonnage exemption,

manufacturers and importers must keep

records of the products claimed under

the exemption, the VOC content and

actual sales or distribution for each

exempt product, and the total mass of

VOC contained in all products claimed

under the exemption.

All required records must be retained

for a period of 3 years in a form suitable

for inspection.

Although the retention of test data is

not required by this rule, the EPA

encourages facilities to keep any

information resulting from either

Method 24 or any other acceptable

method to determine compliance. This

information will help the EPA make a

preliminary assessment of compliance

for the coatings subject to this rule. In

the absence of demonstrable indications

of compliance, the EPA may require

Method 24 testing by the facility in

accordance with § 59.406(b).

G. Reporting

All manufacturers and importers of

subject coatings must file an initial

notification report listing the coating

categories from table 1 of this subpart

that they manufacture or import and the

locations of facilities that manufacture

architectural coatings in the United

States. The initial notification report

must be submitted no later than

September 13, 1999 or 180 days after the

date that the manufacturer or importer

first manufactures or imports a subject

coating, whichever is later.
48854 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

In addition, if a manufacturer or

importer uses a date coding system, an

explanation of the coding system must

be submitted with the initial report.

Explanations of new codes must be filed

within 30 days after their first use.

There are no reporting requirements

beyond the initial notification and date

code explanation for manufacturers and

importers who meet the VOC content

limits in table 1. There are additional

reporting requirements for

manufacturers and importers who

choose to take advantage of optional

provisions, including: (1) the

calculation of an adjusted-VOC content

for recycled coatings (based on postconsumer coating content); (2) the

payment of the exceedance fee; and (3)

the tonnage exemption. An annual

report is required for each of these

provisions.

H. Compliance Provisions

The rule specifies the procedure to

determine the VOC content of coatings

subject to the rule. Although the EPA

has chosen Method 24 as the reference

method for determining compliance

with the VOC content requirements of

this rule, it is not the exclusive method

for determining compliance. The

manufacturer or importer may also use

a different analytical method than

Method 24 (if it is approved by the

Administrator on a case-by-case basis),

formulation data, or any other

reasonable means to determine the VOC

content of coatings. However, the EPA

may require a Method 24 analysis to be

conducted, and if there are any

inconsistencies between the results of a

Method 24 test and any other means for

determining VOC content, the Method

24 test results will govern. The EPA can

use other evidence as well to establish

whether or not a manufacturer or

importer is in compliance with the

provisions of this rule.

III. Summary of Considerations in

Developing Standards

A. Basis of the Regulation

Section 183(e) of the Act directs the

EPA to regulate products using best

available controls (BAC), and defines

BAC as:

the degree of emissions reduction the

Administrator determines, on the basis of

technological and economic feasibility,

health, environmental, and energy impacts, is

achievable through the application of the

most effective equipment, measures,

processes, methods, systems or techniques,

including chemical reformulation, product or

feedstock substitution, repackaging, and

directions for use, consumption, storage, or

disposal.

The statute thus empowers the EPA to

examine a variety of considerations to

use in determining the best means of

obtaining VOC emission reductions

from a given consumer or commercial

product category. As discussed in the

preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR

32737, June 25, 1996), the primary

factors the EPA considered in

determining BAC for architectural

coatings were technological and

economic feasibility, and environmental

impacts.

Non-air environmental impacts (solid

waste and water) and energy impacts are

expected to be minimal and, therefore,

do not vary significantly among various

VOC control levels. With regard to

health impacts, the EPA has concluded

that reductions in VOC emissions and

concomitant reductions in ozone will

reduce health impacts of exposure to

ozone.

For architectural coatings, the EPA

determined that BAC is the degree of

emission reduction achievable through a

system of regulation that encourages

product reformulation to meet the VOC

content limits in table 1 of this subpart,

provides an economic incentive (the

exceedance fee option) to lower VOC

content of coatings, and allows for

limited exemption of coatings (the VOC

tonnage exemption). The EPA

concluded that for this product

category, pollution prevention is the

most effective means of achieving VOC

emission reductions. In working to

comply with State VOC rules over the

past several years, the architectural

coatings industry has established

product reformulation as the most

technologically and economically

feasible strategy for reducing VOC

emissions. Reformulation can consist of

minor adjustments in coating VOC

contents or larger adjustments involving

a change in resin technology. The EPA

considered many factors in evaluating

the economic and technological

feasibility of different VOC content

levels and different degrees of

reformulation. These factors included

existing State and local VOC emission

standards, coating VOC content and

sales information, analysis of coating

technologies, performance

considerations, cost considerations,

market impacts, and stakeholder input.

In addition, the EPA considered the

relative contribution of different coating

types to overall VOC emissions from

architectural coatings.

At proposal, the EPA requested

comment on alternatives to the

proposed VOC content limits that would

provide flexibility, if additional time

were needed or it was not cost-effective

to develop a low-VOC formulation.

Based on comments received, the EPA

included in the final rule an exceedance

fee (discussed in sections II.C and V.I)

and an exemption for a certain tonnage

of VOC content (discussed in sections

II.D and V.G).

The final VOC content limits in

conjunction with the exceedance fee

and tonnage exemption reflect the EPA’s

determination of BAC and are based

primarily on the 1990 VOC Emissions

Inventory Survey, analysis of existing

State rules for architectural coatings,

data obtained from participants in the

regulatory negotiation, and information

submitted by coating manufacturers and

other interested parties during the

course of the rule development and

public comment period.

B. Stakeholder and Public Participation

The EPA proposed the architectural

coatings rule and published the

preamble in the Federal Register on

June 25, 1996 (61 FR 32729). The EPA

placed the proposed regulatory text,

BID, and Economic Impact Analysis

(EIA) in a docket open to the public at

that time and made them available to

interested parties. The EPA solicited

comments at the time of the proposal.

To provide easier access by the public,

the EPA subsequently published the

proposed regulatory text in the Federal

Register on September 3, 1996 (61 FR

46410) and extended the comment

period from August 30 to September 30,

1996. The EPA again extended the

comment period to November 4, 1996

(notice published at 61 FR 52735,

October 8, 1996).

To provide interested persons the

opportunity for oral presentation of

data, views, or arguments concerning

the proposed architectural coating rule,

the EPA held a public hearing in

Durham, North Carolina on July 30,

1996. Nineteen speakers presented oral

testimony at this hearing. The EPA held

another public meeting to discuss issues

related to the impact of the proposed

rule on small manufacturers in

Rosemont, Illinois, on August 13, 1996.

There were 77 persons who participated

in the meeting, and 18 speakers

presented oral testimony.

The EPA received over 200 comment

letters on the proposed rule.

Commenters included coating

manufacturers and importers, State

regulatory agencies, trade associations,

environmental groups, the United States

military, and others. The EPA has

carefully considered the comments and

has made changes to the proposed rule

where determined by the Administrator

to be appropriate. The most significant

comments and responses are discussed

in section V of this preamble. A detailed
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48855

discussion of all significant comments

and responses on the rule itself can be

found in the architectural coatings BID,

which is referenced in the ADDRESSES

section of this preamble.

A separate document in today’s

Federal Register contains a summary of

public comments and the EPA’s

responses regarding the section 183(e)

study, the Report to Congress, the list of

consumer and commercial product

categories selected for regulation, and

the schedule for regulation.

IV. Summary of Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

1. VOC Reductions

The standards will reduce nationwide

emissions of VOC from architectural

coating products by an estimated

103,000 Mg/yr (113,500 tpy). These

reductions are compared to the 1990

baseline emissions estimate of 510,000

Mg/yr (561,000 tpy). This reduction

equates to a 20-percent reduction,

compared to the emissions that would

have resulted in the absence of these

standards.

2. Health Effects

Because VOC are precursors to ozone

formation, the VOC reductions from

architectural coatings will contribute to

a decrease in adverse health effects that

result from exposure to ground-level

ozone. These health effects result from

short-term or prolonged exposure to

ground-level ozone and include

respiratory symptoms, effects on

exercise performance, increased airway

responsiveness, increased susceptibility

to respiratory infection, increased

hospital admissions and emergency

room visits, and pulmonary

inflammation. Available information

also suggests 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).

3. Secondary Air, Water, and Solid

Waste Impacts

No significant adverse secondary air,

water, or solid waste impacts are

anticipated from compliance with these

standards. Generally, coating

reformulation, a pollution prevention

technique, will be used to comply with

these standards. In cases where

conversion from solventborne to

waterborne coatings is the method used

to achieve compliance, an increase in

wastewater discharge may occur if

waste from the manufacture of

waterborne coatings is discharged by

manufacturers to publicly owned

treatment works. The provisions for

recycling of coatings in the rule may

potentially reduce the amount of coating

discarded as solid waste.

The regulations do not impact

existing product inventories. Products

manufactured before the compliance

deadline are not affected. Excluding

existing product inventories from the

regulations will eliminate any

incremental solid waste increase due to

discarded, unsold products. The new

products are not expected to require any

more packaging than existing products,

and thus the volume of discarded

packaging should not increase.

B. Energy Impacts

The EPA anticipates that there will be

no increase in national annual energy

usage as a result of this rule. The

standards do not require the use of air

pollution control devices, which can

affect energy use.

C. Cost and Economic Impacts

Sixty-four percent of the products

included in the 1990 industry survey

meet the VOC content limits in this rule

and, therefore, there will be no costs to

reformulate these products. The

manufacturer of an architectural coating

that does not meet the VOC content

limits in table 1 of this subpart, will be

required to reformulate the product if it

will continue to be marketed, unless the

manufacturer chooses to use an

alternative compliance mechanism such

as the exceedance fee or tonnage

exemption provisions. The EPA

presumes that manufacturers will

choose the option that is most

advantageous to them, but each option

imposes costs, some of which will be

passed on to consumers in the form of

moderately higher prices and some of

which will be borne directly by the

manufacturers.

The cost for reformulating

noncompliant products depends on the

level of effort required to develop a new

product (e.g., research and development

and market testing expenditures) and

how these expenditures are incurred

over time. Based on comments received

at proposal and the original data

presented at proposal, the EPA revised

its estimate of the cost to reformulate a

product from a lump-sum initial

investment of $250,000 to $87,000 (in

1991 dollars), which is annualized to an

upper bound value of $14,570 per

reformulation (see Section V. M of this

preamble for further discussion).

Although variations are likely to exist,

for purposes of this analysis, this

reformulation cost estimate is assumed

to be the same for all product types and

variations, so the value is independent

of VOC content and the annual sales

volume of the product. Other costs and

cost savings associated with

reformulation are likely, but could not

be quantified. These costs are discussed

qualitatively in the EIA. Reformulation

costs are direct costs imposed on

manufacturers of noncompliant

products. Based on public comments,

the EPA found that in the traffic

markings category, the user of the

coating may have to modify technology

or purchase new equipment to apply the

coating. This additional cost is not

considered a direct impact because it

occurs as a result of restrictions on

coating manufacturers, but the cost is

borne by the user of the coating rather

than the manufacturer. Nevertheless, the

EPA examined the indirect impacts of

this category because the changed

equipment costs are so directly related

to the change of formulation. The EPA

estimates that changes in traffic marking

equipment may cost up to $3 million

annually (in 1991 dollars). For other

regulated categories, it is not anticipated

that new equipment or other indirect

costs will be incurred to apply

compliant coatings.

Based on the information above,

implementation of this regulation is

estimated to result in national

annualized costs of approximately $25.6

million (in 1991 dollars). (For the

benefit of readers, this value is

equivalent to approximately $29 million

in 1996 dollars.) This estimate includes

$0.6 million in costs for manufacturers

and importers that the EPA anticipates

will take advantage of the alternative

exceedance fee compliance provision.

The rule does not impose monitoring

requirements (and associated costs), but

ensures compliance through

recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling

requirements. The annual cost for these

requirements is expected to be

approximately $2.5 million. Therefore,

the EPA estimates the total cost

associated with the rule to be $28

million per year (1991 dollars) (or $32

million in 1996 dollars). In comparison,

the 1991 value of shipments for this

industry was $6.3 billion. Thus, the

estimated costs amount to roughly 0.4

percent of the baseline revenues for this

industry.

The estimated cost-effectiveness of

the rule is $270 per megagram ($250 per

ton) of VOC emission reduction. This

cost per megagram of VOC emission

reduction makes the architectural

coatings rule an economically efficient

means of obtaining VOC emission

reductions, when compared to the cost

per megagram of reduction potentially

available through other control

measures. As a result of the costs

discussed above, the EPA anticipates
48856 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

that the average change in market prices

and output across all market segments

are minimal, with an average estimated

impact of less than one-tenth of 1

percent of baseline values.

The EPA believes the estimates of

total cost and associated economic

impacts are conservatively high. Since

the best available data on VOC content

of architectural coatings is from 1990,

and the final rule has VOC content

requirements similar to State rules

which have been enforced since 1990,

the EPA believes the estimated number

of reformulations and/or their

reformulation cost that result from this

action may be overstated in that the

compliant products developed by

manufacturers to comply with various

State rules can be used to meet the

requirements of the Federal rule. The

EIA also takes a conservative approach

to several assumptions to produce an

upper bound estimate of social cost.

V. Significant Comments and Changes

to Proposed Standards

A complete summary of public

comments on the architectural coatings

rule and the EPA’s responses are

presented in the Architectural Coatings

BID, as referenced in the ‘‘ADDRESSES’’

section of this preamble. The EPA

received many comments addressing a

wide variety of issues in the proposed

rule for architectural coatings. After

careful consideration of these

comments, the EPA has made a number

of changes to the proposed rule. The

major changes made to the rule since

proposal include: (1) clarification of the

definitions of ‘‘architectural coating,’’

‘‘coating,’’ ‘‘importer,’’ ‘‘manufacturer,’’

and ‘‘paint exchange,’; (2) addition of

definitions for ‘‘imported’’ and

‘‘manufactured,’; (3) clarification of

which standards apply to overlapping

coating categories; (4) changes to the

definitions and VOC content limits for

certain categories; (5) addition of certain

new coating categories; (6) addition of

the exceedance fee provision; (7)

deletion of the variance provisions; (8)

addition of an exemption for prescribed

quantities of coatings (tonnage

exemption); (9) addition of

administrative provisions; and (10)

reorganization and reformatting of the

rule for clarity.

The following sections of the

preamble discuss the most significant

issues raised by commenters and the

EPA’s responses to them.

A. National Rule Versus Control

Techniques Guidelines

The EPA requested comment on

whether and how a CTG approach

would be as effective as a national rule

in reducing VOC emissions from

architectural coatings in ozone

nonattainment areas. Section 183(e) of

the Act authorizes the Administrator to

issue a CTG in lieu of a national rule if

the CTG will be substantially as

effective in reducing VOC emissions in

ozone nonattainment areas.

Over 20 commenters stated that they

support a national architectural coatings

rule. Commenters who supported a

national rule with VOC content limits

stated that complying with a single

uniform regulation would be less

burdensome, and more cost-effective

than complying with many different

standards in different States.

Commenters also stated that small

manufacturers and importers are less

likely to have the resources necessary to

produce different lines of products to

meet varying standards for different

areas of the country. Furthermore, many

commenters pointed out that coatings

are widely distributed and easily

transported from attainment areas to

nonattainment areas. Therefore,

regulating products only in

nonattainment areas would be a less

effective strategy, and a more difficult

one to enforce.

Seven commenters stated that they

support a CTG in lieu of a national rule.

Commenters favoring a CTG generally

contended that section 183(e) targets

VOC emissions in nonattainment areas,

and that a national rule is not

warranted. The commenters stated that

a CTG would be more appropriate since

issuance of a CTG requires States to

implement standards only in

nonattainment areas. According to these

commenters, allowing coatings

manufactured or imported in attainment

areas to remain unregulated would

provide market niches for small

manufacturers and importers. Some

commenters also argued that consumers

in attainment areas should not have to

forego the alleged benefits of higher

VOC content coatings.

Several commenters noted that, even

with implementation of a national rule,

States can promulgate more stringent

standards. Therefore, even a national

rule does not ensure uniform

nationwide VOC standards. Some

commenters urged cooperation and

discussion between the EPA and States

that consider implementing standards

more stringent than the national rule.

The EPA has concluded that a

national rule is the more effective

approach for reducing emissions from

architectural coatings for the following

reasons. First, the EPA believes that a

national rule is an appropriate means to

reduce emissions from products that

are, by their nature, easily transported

across area boundaries, and many are

widely distributed and are used by

widely varied types of end-users. For

many such products, the end-user may

use them in different locations from

day-to-day. Because the products

themselves are easily transportable, a

national rule would preempt

opportunities for end-users to purchase

such consumer and commercial

products in attainment areas and then

use them in nonattainment areas,

thereby circumventing the regulations

and undermining the decrease in VOC

emissions in nonattainment areas. The

EPA, therefore, believes that a national

rule with applicability to products,

regardless of where they are marketed,

is a reasonable means to ensure that the

regulations result in the requisite degree

of VOC emission reduction.

Second, the EPA believes that

national rules with nationwide

applicability may help to mitigate the

impact of ozone and ozone precursor

transport across some area boundaries.

Recent modeling performed by the

OTAG and others suggests that in some

circumstances VOC emitted outside

nonattainment area boundaries can

contribute to ozone pollution in

nonattainment areas, for example, by

traveling into neighboring

nonattainment areas. The EPA has

recognized the potential for VOC

transport in the December 29, 1997,

‘‘Guidance for Implementing the 1-hour

Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS’’

concerning credit for VOC emission

reductions towards rate-of-progress

requirements. The guidance indicates

that the EPA may give credit for VOC

reductions within 100 kilometers of

nonattainment areas. In addition, the

June 1997 recommendations made by

OTAG supported the EPA’s use of VOC

regulations that apply to both

nonattainment and attainment areas to

implement section 183(e) of the Act for

certain products. The particular product

categories OTAG cited for national VOC

regulations are automobile refinish

coatings, consumer products, and

architectural coatings. The EPA believes

that regulation of products in at least

some attainment areas is necessary to

mitigate VOC emissions that have the

potential to contribute to ozone

nonattainment in accordance with

section 183(e) of the Act.

Based on these considerations, and

considerations of the effectiveness and

enforceability of emission controls, the

EPA has determined that a CTG for

architectural coatings would not be

substantially as effective as a national

rule in reducing VOC emissions in

ozone nonattainment areas.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48857

A major trade association representing

many architectural coating

manufacturers provided comments

supporting a national rule that applies

to all areas as the most efficient

regulatory mechanism from the

perspective of marketing and

distribution of products. In addition,

comments from a number of small and

large manufacturers favored a national

rule to encourage uniformity in

regulation from State to State, and

thereby minimize significant costs and

burdens associated with understanding

and meeting differing State and local

requirements.

The EPA also received some

comments suggesting that a national

rule apply only in nonattainment areas.

The EPA believes that rules applicable

only in nonattainment areas would be

unnecessarily complex and burdensome

for many regulated entities to comply

with and for the EPA to administer. The

potentially regulated entities under

section 183(e) are the manufacturers,

processors, wholesale distributors, or

importers of consumer and commercial

products. For these three product

categories, EPA believes that regulations

that would differentiate between

products destined for attainment and

nonattainment areas should adequately

insure that only compliant products go

to nonattainment areas. For such a rule

to be effective, EPA believes that this

would necessitate requiring regulated

entities to track their products and

control their distribution, sale, and

ultimate destination for use to insure

that only compliant products go to

nonattainment areas. The EPA notes

that for architectural coatings, regulated

entities do not currently track or control

distribution of their products once they

sell them to retail distributors. Although

the EPA recognizes that some product

lines in some product categories may

only be distributed regionally in areas

that are already in attainment, the large

majority of the product lines will be

distributed nationally. Regulations

targeted only at nonattainment areas

could, thus, impose significant

additional burdens upon regulated

entities to achieve the goals of section

183(e).

By comparison, existing State

regulations in some instances apply to

a broader range of entities, including

retail distributors and end-users. Given

the limitations of section 183(e) as to

regulated entities, the EPA believes that

regulations applicable to both

attainment areas and nonattainment

areas is a reasonable means to ensure

use of complying products where

necessary, while avoiding potentially

burdensome impacts and less reliable

mechanisms to achieve the goals of

section 183(e).

The EPA expects a national VOC rule

for architectural coatings to encourage

uniformity in requirements across the

country. Many States may choose to rely

on the EPA rule rather than adopt their

own requirements. The EPA’s

consideration of this factor, however, is

not meant to imply that it would be

inappropriate for States to develop more

stringent levels of controls where

necessary to attain the ozone standard.

Some States, particularly those with

long-standing and significant

nonattainment problems, may need

additional emission reductions to

achieve attainment of the NAAQS and

may need to adopt or maintain more

stringent requirements for consumer

products like architectural coatings in

order to help reach attainment of the

ozone NAAQS. The final rule has been

amended to include provisions in

§ 59.410, State authority, to clarify that

States are not restricted by this rule in

establishing and enforcing their own

additional standards and limits.

The consultation provisions of section

183(e)(9) of the Act are designed to

promote uniformity in such cases where

States or local areas need to adopt

requirements other than those

promulgated by the EPA. Section

183(e)(9) requires the EPA to provide

relevant information and studies

requested by any State. The EPA expects

such consultation and cooperation to

result in States developing options for

regulation that will be compatible with

other States and with the national

standards. The EPA considers a national

VOC rule an important element in

promoting consistency among

architectural coating standards.

B. Applicability and Regulated Entities

1. Subject Coatings

The EPA received several comments

requesting clarification regarding the

definition of ‘‘coating’’ and what

particular coatings are subject to the

architectural coatings rule. The EPA has

modified the definition of ‘‘coating’’ so

that it no longer defines a coating as an

application that creates a film when

applied. The revised definition states

that a coating is a ‘‘material applied

onto or impregnated into’’ a substrate.

The EPA did not intend to limit rule

applicability to film-building products.

Commenters questioned whether

coatings recommended for both

architectural uses and non-architectural

uses would be subject to the rule. The

commenters also questioned whether

shop-applied and factory-applied

coatings would be subject. Additional

commenters requested clarification as to

whether adhesives are subject to the

rule.

The architectural coatings rule applies

to coatings ‘‘recommended for field

application to stationary structures and

their appurtenances, to portable

buildings, to pavements, or to curbs.’’

Therefore, the rule does not apply to

coatings that are marketed solely for

shop application, such as in a

manufacturing setting, or coatings

marketed solely for application to nonstationary structures, such as aircraft

and ships. However, a coating that is

recommended by the manufacturer or

importer for use as an architectural

coating is subject to the architectural

coatings rule even if the coating is also

recommended for non-architectural

uses. The fact that a coating regulated by

the architectural coatings rule may also

be subject to other rules with different

requirements does not alter the

manufacturer’s or importer’s obligation

to meet the requirements of the

architectural coatings rule.

The EPA did not intend to regulate

adhesives of any kind in the

architectural coatings rule. The EPA

intends to regulate industrial adhesives

as a separate product category under

section 183(e) authority.

To clarify the EPA’s intent regarding

what products are covered by this final

rule, the definition of architectural

coating has been revised to exclude

adhesives and coatings recommended

solely for shop application or for

application to non-stationary structures.

For additional clarity, definitions of

‘‘adhesive’’ and ‘‘shop application’’

have also been added to the final rule.

The EPA has added definitions of

‘‘imported’’ and ‘‘manufactured’’ to the

final rule to clarify the point at which

an architectural coating becomes subject

to the requirements in the rule. The

final rule also includes additional

language in the definitions of

‘‘importer’’ and ‘‘manufacturer’’ to

clarify that all divisions of a company,

subsidiaries, and parent companies are

considered to be a single importer or

manufacturer for the purpose of this

rule.

2. Regulation of Processors

Section 183(e)(1)(C) of the Act allows

the regulation of processors of consumer

and commercial products. For the

proposed architectural coatings rule, the

EPA considered regulating processors as

well as manufacturers and importers.

‘‘Processors’’ would be defined as

individuals who add organic thinner to

coatings in a commercial or industrial

setting at the point of application. The

EPA’s concern was to provide a means
48858 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

to enforce against thinning of coatings

beyond manufacturers’

recommendations. Thus, the EPA

considered a provision to prohibit an

applicator from using organic solvents

to thin a coating beyond the

manufacturer’s recommendation.

In the proposal preamble (61 FR

32737), the EPA requested comment on

the possible regulation of processors

under the architectural coatings rule.

Commenters generally opposed the

regulation of applicators, arguing that:

(1) over-thinning is not likely to occur

since the proposed VOC content limits

are reasonable; (2) rules promulgated

under section 183(e) of the Act are not

intended to apply to end-users or

applicators; and (3) restrictions on

thinning at the point of application

would be difficult to enforce. The

commenters stated that the term

‘‘processors’’ was intended to mean

entities that repackage coating materials

or further enhance finished products

before they are offered for sale to endusers.

The final rule does not include

processors as a regulated entity. The

EPA believes that end-users’ compliance

with thinning restrictions for

architectural coatings would be difficult

to enforce in practice. Instead, the EPA

has determined that it will be more

effective to guard against excessive VOC

emissions from thinning by taking into

account the amount of thinning in

advance. Thus, the final limits are

expressed as VOC content of coating

‘‘thinned to the manufacturer’s

maximum recommendation.’’ The EPA

believes that these limits provide

adequate assurance that compliant

coatings will be manufactured to

perform optimally with recommended

thinning. Regulation of processors

would not add significantly to the

effectiveness of the rule.

C. General Comments on Determination

of Best Available Controls

Many commenters provided general

comments on the overall stringency of

the VOC content limits in the proposed

rule. One group of commenters,

composed mainly of manufacturers and

trade organizations representing coating

users and manufacturers, stated that the

VOC content limits in the proposed rule

represent BAC and are technologically

and economically achievable. One of

these commenters, representing a

national association of coating

manufacturers, stated that the proposal

recognized the need for solventborne

coatings in certain specialty areas, as

well as in some more general usage

categories, and adequately addressed

the fact that the same coating must be

able to perform in all regions and

climates of the United States. Another

commenter, representing a national

association of coating users, stated that

the proposed limits fit squarely within

current technologies and are consistent

with various existing State regulations.

And finally, a commenter representing

another national trade association of

coating users, stated that the proposed

table of VOC content limits will not

significantly increase construction costs

and will not appreciably reduce coating

performance.

A second group of commenters,

mainly composed of individual State

regulatory agencies, organizations of

State and regional regulatory agencies,

and environmental groups, stated that

they did not support the VOC content

limits in the rule because they believe

they are too lenient. Two of the

commenters, representing

environmental groups, contended that

the EPA’s BAC determination did not

include consideration of lower VOC

coatings that have been developed since

1990. Several of the commenters cited

the existence of more stringent State and

local architectural coating regulations

that have been in place for many years

as evidence that the proposed limits do

not represent BAC. Several of the

commenters added that the proposed

rule falls short of State VOC reduction

goals and may result in the States

adopting more stringent control

measures for this source category and

for other source categories. The majority

of the commenters in this group

supported an alternative, more

stringent, table of VOC content limits

submitted by one of the commenters.

(The commenter also suggested a second

phase of limits that would take effect in

the future. For comments and responses

regarding the suggested second phase of

limits, see section V.P of this preamble).

The alternative table contains more

stringent limits for several categories

and would achieve a 30-percent

emission reduction (calculated on a

solids basis). The more stringent VOC

content limits in the table are based on

the 1989 California Air Resources Board

Suggested Control Measure.

Finally, a third group of commenters,

composed mainly of coating

manufacturers, did not support the

limits in the rule because they believe

they are too stringent. These

commenters stated that low-VOC

products (i.e., products meeting the

proposed standards) do not perform as

well as higher-VOC (non-compliant)

products. These commenters claimed

that low-VOC coatings are too thick and

require considerable thinning to apply,

are less durable and require more

frequent repainting, and exhibit poor

gloss properties. Two of the commenters

explained that these performance

problems could result in more

emissions, rather than less. Two of the

commenters stated that available paint

raw materials are not adequate to

reformulate every non-compliant

coating the paint industry offers and

still meet customer performance

requirements. One commenter stated

that the proposed rule will require a

massive reformulation of products in

the paint and coating industry. The

commenter claimed that some

organizations were supporting lower

limits based on improper data or based

on environmental conditions that do not

represent circumstances in other areas.

The EPA believes that the final rule

represents BAC. Best available control is

‘‘the degree of emissions reduction that

the Administrator determines on the

basis of technological and economic

feasibility, health, and energy impacts,

is achievable.’’ In developing the rule,

the EPA considered many factors in

evaluating the economic and

technological feasibility of different

VOC content levels and different

degrees of product reformulation. These

factors included: (1) limits in State/local

regulations; (2) coating VOC content and

sales information; (3) performance

considerations; (4) cost considerations;

and (5) market impacts.

The sources of information for these

factors included: (1) pre-proposal

letters; (2) the 1992 industry survey

(collected 1990 data); (3) public

comments on the proposed rule; (4)

follow-up discussions with commenters

to gather additional technical

information; (5) State/local regulations

and pre-proposal discussions with

State/local regulators; (6) input from

coating manufacturers and other

stakeholders; and (7) EPA expertise.

Considering all these factors, the EPA

concluded that the VOC content limits

in table 1 of the rule, along with the

exceedance fee provisions and the

tonnage exemption, represent BAC for

architectural coatings. The EPA’s

process for developing BAC was

described in the proposal preamble (61

FR 32737) and is further discussed in

the following paragraphs.

Technical Feasibility and Coating

Performance Issues

Throughout development of this rule,

there has been debate among

stakeholders over the degree to which

the VOC content in architectural

coatings can be reduced and on the

performance characteristics of low-VOC

coatings. The term ‘‘performance’’ refers

to the coating qualities that are
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48859

acceptable to consumers and that

maximize the interval required between

repainting. Performance is particularly

difficult to assess. As discussed in the

preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR

32738), these acceptable qualities can

vary significantly depending on the

consumer and the coating category.

There is no consensus within the

architectural coatings industry on

standards by which to evaluate

acceptable coating performance.

Therefore, the EPA requested comment

on the technological feasibility of the

limits in the proposed table of standards

and on performance issues. The

proposal requested documentation,

tests, and factual evidence to support or

refute claims about performance and the

technological feasibility of low-VOC

systems.

The EPA evaluated all data that were

submitted by commenters pertaining to

the feasibility of the rule and sought

additional information that was

reasonably available. In evaluating the

degree of emission reduction that

represents BAC, the EPA took into

consideration that these requirements

would apply to all areas of the country

and to all manufacturers and importers

of architectural coatings within a

specific time frame (i.e., approximately

1 year from promulgation). Based on the

public comments received, a number of

changes were made to the proposed

rule. These changes are discussed in

section 2.2.4 of the BID (Coating

Categories and VOC Content Limits). In

some cases, commenters claimed that

the rule is not feasible or does not

represent BAC, but provided no data to

support the general claim. In such cases,

the EPA sought additional information

that was reasonably available and

considered the comments in the context

of the overall BAC decision, but often

found no basis for making substantive

changes to the proposed rule.

Relationship of BAC to State and Local

Regulations

State and local regulations were one

of the primary factors used by the EPA

to develop BAC. As stated in the

proposal preamble (61 FR 32737), State

and local architectural coating

requirements were used prior to

proposal as a starting point in

determining ‘‘what categories and

associated VOC limits might constitute

the degree of emissions reduction that

represents BAC.’’ After proposal, the

EPA used State and local architectural

coating requirements as a primary factor

in the evaluation of public comments on

the proposed VOC content limits.

However, the EPA does not agree with

commenters who believe that, at a

minimum, BAC for the national rule

should be equivalent to or more

stringent than the lowest emission

limits that exist in any State regulation

(as presented in a table of standards by

one commenter). In the development of

a national rule under section 183(e), the

EPA has the obligation to determine that

the emission limits are technologically

and economically feasible on a national

scale. State and local VOC limits are

based on coating performance under the

local meteorological conditions and

patterns of coating demand, some of

which may be very different than in

other locations. Moreover, based on

local air quality and existing regulatory

programs, a State or local agency may

set rules based on a balancing of

technological, economic, and

environmental factors that might differ

from the balance appropriate for a

national rule.

Therefore, the EPA departed from the

State and local requirements where

other factors, such as information on

VOC content and sales, performance,

costs, and market effects indicated that

the limits were not technologically or

economically feasible on a national

scale.

The Role of the Exceedance Fee and

Tonnage Exemption in BAC

While the EPA believes that the

technology exists to meet the limits in

table 1 of this subpart, some

manufacturers may need more time

beyond the compliance deadline to

obtain the necessary technology. Still

other manufacturers may find that

reformulation of some of their specialty

products that are produced in low

volume is not cost-effective. The

exceedance fee and tonnage exemption

provisions were included in the final

rule to minimize impacts on the supply

of coating products and to avoid

unnecessary impacts upon small

manufacturers. The exceedance fee

(discussed in section 2.4 of the BID) is

intended to allow manufacturers and

importers additional time to develop

low-VOC formulations while providing

an appropriate economic incentive to

encourage reformulation. The tonnage

exemption (see section 2.2.1.2 of the

BID) is intended to allow manufacturers

and importers the flexibility to continue

to market certain low-volume product

lines where reformulation of a specialty

product used for unique applications

may not be cost-effective. The EPA

anticipates that use of the tonnage

exemption and exceedance fee will

reduce the potential VOC emission

reductions of the rule by only a small

percentage and that foregoing this

portion of the reductions to achieve

other objectives of the BAC analysis is

an appropriate balancing of the relevant

factors to achieve BAC reductions. The

EPA believes that all available data

indicate that the system of regulation

adopted in the final rule, consisting of

VOC content limits, an exceedance fee

provision, and a tonnage exemption,

reflects BAC for the architectural

coatings category.

Consideration of New Low-VOC

Coatings

The EPA recognizes that the 1992

industry survey that the EPA used as

one of the factors for developing BAC

collected 1990 data. Although the data

in this survey are now 7 years old, they

still represent the most complete set of

data for the architectural coatings

industry (the survey captured

approximately 75 percent of the coating

volume). In addition, the industry

survey was only one of the many factors

used in determining BAC. Information

on advances since 1990 were obtained

from over 300 pre-proposal letters, over

200 public comment letters, over 40

follow-up telephone calls, and

information obtained from State

regulatory agencies. The EPA believes

that the final rule represents BAC based

on the survey database and other data

available to the EPA.

The EPA acknowledges that there are

coating technologies in existence with

VOC contents lower than those listed in

table 1. However, section 183(e) of the

Act does not require the EPA to set BAC

at the level of the lowest-VOC product.

It requires that the EPA determine BAC

based on ‘‘the degree of emissions

reduction that the Administrator

determines on the basis of technological

and economic feasibility, health, and

energy impacts, is achievable.’’ To

determine whether a more stringent rule

would meet the criteria for BAC, the

EPA would need to undertake

additional study of the recent

technological developments for the

architectural coatings category. As

discussed in section 2.6 of the

Architectural Coatings BID (see

ADDRESSES section of this preamble),

such an additional study is under

consideration. However, the EPA does

not believe it would be appropriate to

delay issuing this rule to await the

results of that additional study.

D. Changes in Proposed Coating

Categories

Several commenters addressed the

selection of the coating categories to

which the rule applies and the VOC

content limits for specific categories. In

response to these comments, the EPA

has modified the definitions of several
48860 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

of the proposed categories and has

added seven new coating categories. In

addition, the EPA has modified the

proposed VOC content limits for several

categories based on information

provided by commenters. This section

of the preamble discusses the changes

made to the requirements for the

proposed coating categories. (The new

categories are described in section V.E

below.) A detailed discussion of all of

the comments and responses pertaining

to the proposed coating categories and

their VOC content limits is contained in

section 2.2.4.3 of the Architectural

Coatings BID (see ADDRESSES section of

this preamble).

Some commenters suggested changes

and clarifications to the proposed

category definitions. In response to

these comments, the EPA has changed

the definitions of a number of the

coating categories. The purpose of these

changes is to clarify which particular

coatings are included in these

categories.

There were also many requests to

revise the VOC content limits in the

proposed rule. The EPA contacted many

of the commenters, most of whom were

coating manufacturers, to obtain

additional information in order to

evaluate these requests more fully.

Based upon consideration of the public

comments and additional information

obtained since proposal, the EPA has

changed the VOC content limits where

deemed appropriate. In addition, the

final rule provides a tonnage exemption

and an exceedance fee option. These

provisions provide flexible compliance

options that accommodate the need for

higher VOC contents in unique or niche

products, and in limited-use products.

The significant comments and changes

made with regard to the VOC content

limits are discussed in the following

paragraphs. The EPA’s rationale for each

of these issues is explained more fully

in the Architectural Coatings BID (see

ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

Roof Coatings and Bituminous Coatings

and Mastics

One commenter, a national trade

association of roof coating

manufacturers, supported the proposed

VOC content limits for roof coatings

(250 grams per liter (g/l)) and for

bituminous coatings and mastics (500 g/

l), and the inclusion of all bituminous

coatings in the bituminous coatings and

mastics category. Another commenter

suggested reducing the VOC content

limit for bituminous coatings and

mastics from 500 g/l to 350 g/l. A third

commenter suggested adopting one roof

coating category that includes

bituminous materials at a VOC content

limit of 300 g/l, consistent with State

architectural coating rules. This

commenter argued that the proposed

rule permitted bituminous roofing

materials to comply with a less stringent

limit (500 g/l) than other roofing

materials (250 g/l) and that this

discrepancy afforded an unfair

competitive advantage to the

bituminous roofing products.

The EPA reviewed its basis for

establishing the proposed category for

bituminous coatings and mastics and

VOC content limit of 500 g/l and has

decided to retain this category and limit

in the final rule. The EPA reviewed

information submitted by a national

trade association comprised of 60

bituminous and nonbituminous coatings

manufacturers and suppliers, before

proposal (Docket Item No. II–D–56),

regarding the composition, specialized

manufacture, performance, and use

limitations of these coatings. According

to this information, a significant portion

of these coatings are needed for repair

and maintenance of existing roofs as

well as for installing new roofing

systems. The trade association pointed

out that waterborne bituminous coatings

and mastics are not practical in almost

all of the applications where

solventborne bituminous coatings and

mastics are used and that coating

performance comparisons between

waterborne and solventborne

bituminous coatings and mastics range

from good to very poor, depending on

conditions. Another national trade

association for roofing contractors,

which has over 3,000 members

represented in all 50 States, argued that

there is no viable alternative to

solventborne bituminous coatings in

many circumstances and pointed to

bituminous primers as an example of

this. According to this trade association,

if the VOC content limit were reduced

by any significant amount in these

primers, the adhesion properties, the

application process, and the life of the

roof would suffer dramatically.

Therefore, in order to satisfy

performance requirements of

bituminous coatings and mastics

nationwide, the EPA has retained this

category with a VOC content limit of

500 g/l in the final rule.

With respect to the comments on the

separate category for roof coatings, the

EPA has decided to retain the category

as proposed. Although there are several

State architectural coating rules that

have a VOC content limit of 300 g/l for

roof coatings, the EPA believes that the

national Roof Coatings Manufacturers

Association’s support (Docket Item No.

IV–D–181) of the proposed VOC content

limit for roof coatings at 250 g/l

provides persuasive evidence that this

limit is achievable nationwide.

Therefore, the EPA has retained the

VOC content limit of 250 g/l for roof

coatings in the final rule.

Concrete Curing Compounds

Several commenters commented on

the proposed VOC content limit of 350

g/l for concrete curing compounds,

which are used predominantly in

highway construction. Seven

commenters stated that the proposed

limit for concrete curing compounds is

achievable based on existing

technology, and one of these

commenters maintained that the limit

could be lowered to 300 g/l. On the

other hand, one commenter took issue

with the achievability and performance

at the proposed limit of 350 g/l. The

latter commenter suggested a VOC

content limit of 625 g/l for this category,

arguing that the proposed limit would

eliminate most concrete curing

membranes from the market, and that

many companies do not sell curing

compounds in States that have the 350

g/l limit.

In addition to consideration of these

comments, the EPA reviewed the VOC

content limits for this category in State

rules. Several States, including Arizona,

California, Massachusetts, New Jersey,

and New York have had a VOC content

limit of 350 g/l for concrete curing

compounds for several years. The

availability of compliant products in

these States suggests that the limits are

achievable, notwithstanding that not all

manufacturers have chosen to market in

those States. Based on the information

provided by the commenters in favor of

the proposed limits and upon the

existing State rules, the EPA has

concluded that the proposed VOC

content limit of 350 g/l for concrete

curing compounds is technologically

achievable and has retained this limit in

the final rule.

Graphic Arts Coatings

Two commenters indicated concern

about the performance of shop-applied

graphic arts coatings at the proposed

VOC content limit of 500 g/l. One

commenter’s specific concerns with

coatings at this level included difficulty

in achieving variation in gloss levels,

variation in the required drying times in

the drying room (implying shop-applied

coatings), need for greater application

amounts, and higher costs. Graphic arts

coatings recommended by the

manufacturer solely for shop

applications are not required to meet the

500 g/l VOC content limit. As discussed

earlier, the EPA has revised the

definition of architectural coating to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48861

clarify that coatings recommended by

the manufacturer solely for shop

application are not subject to the rule.

In addition, the definition of graphic

arts coatings has been modified by

removing the reference to in-shop

coatings, and a definition of ‘‘shop

application’’ has been added to the rule.

Based on a review of the 1990 VOC

emission inventory survey and State

architectural coating rules, the EPA

determined that the 500 g/l VOC content

limit for field-applied graphic arts

coatings should not be changed.

Shellac—Clear

Two commenters requested that the

EPA raise the VOC content limit for

clear shellac from the proposed level of

650 g/l to 730 g/l. The commenters

requested the higher level to

accommodate the degree of thinning

required for certain uses of shellac to

meet performance specifications.

According to information provided by

one commenter, the elevated cost and

limited availability of shellac (referring

to secretions of the lac beetle) minimize

the potential use of this product.

Based on a review of State

architectural coating rules, which limit

clear shellac VOC content to 730 g/l,

and the information provided by the

commenters, the EPA has raised the

VOC content limit for clear shellac from

650 g/l to 730 g/l.

Nuclear Coatings

Four commenters objected to the

proposed 420 g/l VOC content limit for

nuclear coatings, in light of the 450 g/

l limit for industrial maintenance

coatings. The commenters pointed out

that nuclear coatings must meet more

exacting performance specifications (set

by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission)

than industrial maintenance coatings

and, therefore, should not be subject to

a more stringent VOC content limit. One

commenter was also concerned that the

proposed limit offered no flexibility for

cold weather thinning as provided in

the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair

(Surface Coating) National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) for this category.

The EPA agrees that the nuclear

coatings category VOC content limit

should not be more stringent than the

VOC content limit for industrial

maintenance coatings since nuclear

coatings are subject to some of the same

extreme environmental conditions as

industrial maintenance coatings, and

must also meet further specifications

and rigorous requirements of the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The

nuclear coatings category is intended to

include coatings manufactured for use

at nuclear facilities to ensure

operational safety, and the definition

requires that these coatings meet various

testing requirements. The EPA expects

that a limited amount of coatings will be

affected by this change due to the

various testing requirements to qualify

for classification in this category and the

limited number of nuclear facilities

where such coatings are used. Also, as

pointed out in the proposal preamble

(61 FR 32739), this is one of 17 specialty

coating categories that did not appear in

existing State architectural coating

rules, and no data were collected in the

1990 VOC emissions inventory survey.

In consideration of performance

specifications for this category and the

need to allow for thinning, the EPA has

raised the VOC content limit for the

nuclear coatings category to 450 g/l.

This limit is the same as the limit for

industrial maintenance coatings.

Antifouling Coatings

Two commenters requested a higher

VOC content limit for the antifouling

coating category (400 g/l proposed), and

one of these commenters specifically

requested that the EPA increase the

level to 450 g/l. One of the commenters

indicated that antifouling architectural

coatings are generally not applied at

fixed installations where painting

conditions are more easily controlled,

and that a thinning allowance should be

included to accommodate application of

the coating in cold weather.

The EPA agrees with the commenters

that the limit for antifouling coatings

should be raised to allow for cold

weather thinning. Also, similar to

nuclear coatings, these coatings are

subject to some of the same extreme

environmental conditions as industrial

maintenance coatings and must meet

other rigorous requirements, such as

those under the FIFRA. Moreover, this

is one of 17 specialty coating categories

that did not appear in existing State

architectural coating rules, and no data

were collected in the 1990 VOC

emissions inventory survey. Therefore,

the EPA believes a low volume of

coatings will be affected by a change to

the proposed limit. The final rule

specifies a VOC content limit of 450

g/l for this category.

Floor Coatings

One commenter suggested that the

EPA either add an exemption paragraph

to clarify that floor coatings that meet

the definition for industrial

maintenance coatings are subject to the

industrial maintenance coating VOC

content limit of 450 g/l or specify that

the floor coating category applies to

floor coatings intended for residential

use. The commenter believed that high

performance floor coatings cannot

achieve the 400 g/l VOC level proposed

for floor coatings. Although the

commenter reportedly has developed

lower-performing systems that meet the

400 g/l level, the commenter stated that

they are not acceptable for all

applications.

Two commenters recommended that

opaque floor paint be regulated at a 400

g/l VOC level. However, one of these

commenters requested clarification of

whether the floor coating category

included clear floor finishes, such as

varnishes.

The EPA has retained the floor

coatings category, with a modified

definition, and VOC content limit of 400

g/l as proposed. The floor coatings

category includes opaque coatings that

have a high degree of abrasion

resistance that are formulated for

application to flooring, including but

not limited to decks, porches, and steps

in a residential setting. The EPA did not

intend to include floor coatings that

meet the definition of industrial

maintenance coatings under the floor

coating category. The definition of floor

coating has been changed to specify that

it applies to floor coatings intended for

use in a residential setting. Thus, floor

coatings that meet the definition of

industrial maintenance coatings are

subject to only the industrial

maintenance coating category limit of

450 g/l.

Based on information from

commenters, the EPA agrees that opaque

floor coatings should be subject to the

400 g/l limit as proposed. However,

clear varnishes that may be

recommended for use as floor coatings

are subject to the VOC content limit of

450 g/l for clear varnishes. An exception

paragraph has been included in § 59.402

of the rule to clarify this category

overlap.

Waterproofing Sealers and Treatments

Eight commenters provided

assessments of the achievability of the

proposed VOC content limit for

waterproofing sealers and treatments.

Five commenters suggested that the EPA

raise the VOC content limit, and two

commenters suggested that the EPA

lower it. One commenter maintained

that there is no need to distinguish

between clear and opaque waterproofing

sealers and treatments (600 g/l and 400

g/l, respectively) in the rule since many

opaque sealers penetrate the substrate

and perform the same function as clear

sealers. This manufacturer requested a

VOC content limit of 700 g/l for all

waterproofing sealers and treatments

and explained that this level would still
48862 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

require reformulation of existing

technologies. Another manufacturer has

reported that it has not been successful

in reformulating to meet the 600 g/l

level for clear waterproofing sealers and

treatments. On the other hand, one

manufacturer strongly encouraged the

EPA to adopt a lower VOC content limit

of 350 g/l applicable to both clear and

opaque waterproofing sealers and

treatments based on the VOC content of

its products, which are available now in

the marketplace. Another commenter

agreed that the proposed levels for

waterproofing sealers are

technologically and economically

feasible.

Based on evaluation of the comments

and a review of survey data and State

architectural coating regulations, the

EPA has combined the clear and opaque

waterproofing treatment sealer

categories into one category with a VOC

content limit of 600 g/l. The EPA agrees

that there is no need to distinguish

between clear and opaque waterproofing

sealers and treatments since many

opaque sealers penetrate the substrate

and perform the same function as clear

sealers. The EPA believes that, based on

information provided by these

commenters/manufacturers, the

appropriate limit for this combined

category is 600 g/l. Before proposal,

industry representatives (Docket Item

No. III–B–1) argued that multipurpose

waterproofing sealers at 400 g/l do not

meet minimum performance criteria for

clear waterproofing sealers (that is, 60-

percent water repellency for wood and

1 percent or less water absorption for

brick). The representatives stated that

400 g/l products are high-solids

products that may leave an oily residue

or cause darkening of the surfaces to

which they are applied and, thus,

product performance may not meet

industry standards. Combining clear

and opaque waterproofing treatment

sealers into one category is consistent

with all existing State rules, which do

not divide the category into clear and

opaque waterproofing sealers and

treatments. The State architectural

coating VOC content limits for

waterproofing sealers and treatments are

either 400 g/l (for example, Arizona and

California) or 600 g/l (Massachusetts,

New Jersey, and New York).

E. Addition of New Coating Categories

The EPA received requests to

establish 20 new coating categories in

the final rule. In response to these

comments, the EPA has established

seven new categories: (1) calcimine

recoaters; (2) concrete surface retarders;

(3) concrete curing and sealing

compounds; (4) conversion varnishes;

(5) zone markings; (6) faux finishing/

glazing; and (7) stain controllers. The

EPA also evaluated requests, but did not

establish new categories, for the

following coatings: (1) adhesion

promoters; (2) asbestos and lead-based

paint encapsulation; (3) concrete/

masonry conditioners; (4) porcelain

repair coatings; (5) marine/architectural

coatings; (6) alkali-resistant primers; (7)

tung oil finishes; (8) lacquer stains; (9)

elastomeric high performance industrial

finishes; (10) low solids coatings; (11)

oil-modified urethanes; (12)

thermoplastic (treatment) sealers; and

(13) zinc-rich coatings. In general, new

categories were not established for these

coatings because the EPA determined

that it is technologically and

economically feasible for coating

manufacturers and importers to achieve

compliance with the rule. Further

discussion of the rationale for the EPA’s

decisions on the new categories is

contained in section 2.2.4.2 of the

Architectural Coatings BID referenced

under the ADDRESSES section of this

preamble.

In general, the EPA considered

creation of new categories if

commenters submitted information

supporting higher VOC content limits

for such products than the otherwise

applicable limits. The EPA considered

the data submitted by commenters and

obtained all reasonably available

additional data to evaluate these

requests. In cases where the EPA

concluded that the proposed emission

limits were not achievable, the EPA

established a separate category with an

appropriate emission limit. The

following is a discussion of the rationale

for each of the new coating categories

and its VOC content limit.

Calcimine Recoaters

Under the proposed standards,

calcimine recoaters would have been

subject to the VOC content limit for

interior flat coatings (250 g/l). However,

several commenters stated that

calcimine recoaters have a higher VOC

content of 475 g/l, cannot be

reformulated, are low-volume coatings,

and serve a unique function of recoating

water soluble calcimine paints. These

paints are used in Victorian and Early

American homes, especially on ceilings.

Due to their low density, calcimine

recoaters do not disbond the existing

calcimine ceiling coatings, as

conventional (250 g/l VOC) high-solids

flat alkyd paints would tend to do. If a

calcimine recoater is not used, the only

alternative is to remove the existing

coating, which is labor-intensive and

expensive. Because these low-volume

coatings reportedly cannot be

reformulated, their composition is

unique, and there is no substitute for

these products, the EPA has added a

separate category for calcimine recoater

products to the rule with a VOC content

limit of 475 g/l.

Concrete Curing and Sealing

Compounds

Under the proposed rule, these

coatings would be subject to the 350 g/

l VOC content limit for concrete curing

compounds. However, commenters

presented information not previously

considered by the EPA demonstrating

that compounds designed for curing and

sealing, as opposed to those designed

for curing only, have different technical

specifications that make it difficult to

achieve the 350 g/l level. Concrete

curing and sealing compounds function

as longer term sealers that provide

protection, aesthetic benefits, and

durability in addition to curing.

Commenters pointed out that there are

separate American Society for Testing

and Materials (ASTM) methods

available for each of these categories

and that ASTM Committee experts and

at least two government agencies

consider them distinct categories with

different performance requirements.

Through follow-up phone calls with

several concrete curing and sealing

coating manufacturers, the EPA

confirmed that concrete curing and

sealing products are typically sold at

levels much higher than 350 g/l. While

waterborne products below 350 g/l are

available, some industry representatives

cited drawbacks such as poor lowtemperature performance and stability.

Since these products must often be used

in low-temperature environments, the

EPA agrees that the VOC content limit

should reflect this usage. Therefore, the

final rule includes a new category for

concrete curing and sealing compounds.

Based on an analysis of VOC content

and sales data for these products, the

EPA has established the VOC content

limit at 700 g/l.

Concrete Surface Retarders

Concrete surface retarders do not fall

within any of the proposed categories

except the general category for interior

flat coatings with a VOC content limit

of 250 g/l. These products are generally

used in a manufacturing setting at a

precast facility, but a small volume of

products are field-applied. Commenters

argued that these products cannot meet

the 250 g/l level and, furthermore, that

they are not coatings and should not be

subject to the rule. However, they

requested a VOC content limit of 780

g/l if the EPA regulated these products.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48863

The EPA has concluded that concrete

surface retarders meet the rule’s

definition of a ‘‘coating.’’ Concrete

surface retarders that are recommended

by the manufacturer for use in the field

at job sites are, therefore, subject to the

rule. When retarders are recommended

by the manufacturer solely for use in a

manufacturing setting, such as at a

precast facility, which is the typical

situation, they are not subject to the

rule. The EPA determined that concrete

surface retarders that are used in the

field at the actual job location are

specialized, low-volume coatings used

in limited circumstances, and there is

no lower VOC content substitute for the

function of these products. Therefore,

the EPA has included a separate

category for these products in the final

rule, with a VOC content limit of 780

g/l as requested by the commenters.

Zone Marking Coatings

Under the proposed rule, zone

marking coatings were subject to the 150

g/l VOC content limit for traffic marking

coatings. Zone marking coatings are

those used to mark surfaces such as

parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, and

airport runways; they are generally

applied by small commercial

applicators. In contrast, traffic marking

coatings are applied to streets and

highways and are usually applied by

large contractors or State Departments of

Transportation. The commenters noted

two issues associated with meeting the

150 g/l content limit for zone marking

coatings. First, the 150 g/l content limit

could only be met with waterborne

coatings, which require different

application equipment than

solventborne coatings. Small applicators

would be disproportionately impacted

by the cost of acquiring the new

equipment that is compatible with

waterborne zone marking coatings.

Secondly, the commenters asserted that

waterborne zone marking coatings do

not dry or cure properly during high

humidity or low temperatures,

conditions under which they must

sometimes be applied.

After consideration of these

comments, the EPA has added a

separate category for zone marking

coatings and has established the VOC

content limit at 450 g/l. This level

allows the use of solventborne coatings.

However, the new category applies only

to zone marking coatings sold in

containers of 5 gallons or less. Available

information reveals that State

Departments of Transportation buy

traffic marking coatings in larger than 5

gallon containers. Thus, this size

restriction should limit the use of zone

marking coatings to applications smaller

than those of general traffic marking

coatings intended for use on public

roads and highways. Zone marking

coatings sold in larger containers fall

within the traffic marking coatings

category and are subject to the 150 g/l

limit. The establishment of this category

allows the use of solventborne coatings

by small applicators and under adverse

drying and curing conditions.

Conversion Varnishes

Conversion varnishes are specialty

products used by contractors for wood

floor finishing. Under the proposed rule,

these coatings would have been subject

to the 450 g/l VOC content limit for

varnishes. Commenters argued that

conversion varnishes cannot be

reformulated to meet the 450 g/l level,

and that they have unique chemical

formulation and performance

specifications, compared to other

varnishes, (i.e., appearance and proven

durability). Furthermore, the

commenters noted that only three

companies manufacture conversion

varnishes and that they market them

only to licensed wood flooring

contractors, thereby implying that these

are specialty coatings deserving

different standards.

In response to these comments, the

final rule includes a new category for

conversion varnishes with a VOC

content limit of 725 g/l. Due to the

chemical make-up of these products,

manufacturers reportedly have been

unable to reformulate to meet the 450

g/l level for varnishes. The EPA believes

that the category comprises a welldefined coating technology that is

limited, due to its chemical formulation,

to the applications for which it is

intended. Several wood flooring

contractors’ comments support the

performance arguments made by the

manufacturers. The EPA determined

that the VOC content limit of 725 g/l is

the lowest level achievable based on

analysis of currently available products.

The EPA has added a definition for

this category to the rule. The category

definition was developed from

information provided by two of the

manufacturers.

Faux Finishing/Glazing

Under the proposed rule, faux

finishing/glazing coatings were subject

to the VOC content limit of 380 g/l for

nonflat interior coatings. Faux finishing/

glazing coatings include waterborne

acrylic finishes and other waterborne

products with miscible VOC that are

designed to retard drying time. One

commenter stated that these products

provide open time required for wet-inwet techniques, such as faux wood

grain, faux marble, and simulated aging,

which require the finish to remain wet

for an extended period of time.

The commenter stated that, based on

formulation including water, the

calculated VOC content of these

coatings can range up to 340 g/l.

However, because the products are

waterborne, the VOC ‘‘less water’’

calculation results in a range up to 700

g/l. The commenter stated that the VOC

content limit for a similar category

(Japan/faux finishing coatings) has been

proposed by California’s South Coast

Air Quality Management District

(SCAQMD) at 700 g/l. The commenter

stated that, to date, there has not been

an identifiable way to reformulate these

products to achieve a lower VOC while

maintaining the characteristics required

for acceptable use.

Upon review and evaluation of

available information, the EPA has

determined that creating a separate

category for faux finishing/glazing with

a VOC content limit of 700 g/l is

warranted. According to the commenter,

there are no competing compliant

products on the market. Despite 2 years

of reported reformulation efforts, this

coating cannot meet the proposed VOC

content limit of 380 g/l for nonflat

interior coatings. The EPA notes that

this specialty coating category is low

volume and that the foregone VOC

emission reductions that may result

from setting a higher limit for this

category should be limited.

Stain Controllers

Under the proposed rule, stain

controllers were subject to the VOC

content limit of 400g/l for sealers.

‘‘Stain controllers’’ (also called ‘‘wood

conditioners’’ or ‘‘prestains’’) are

products that are applied to soft woods

before applying a stain to prevent

uneven penetration or blotching of the

stain by filling those pores where excess

penetration would occur. One

commenter asserted that these products

cannot achieve the 400 g/l level for

sealers. According to the commenter,

after 3 years of reformulation efforts,

they have concluded that it is

technologically infeasible to reformulate

stain controllers to the proposed 400 g/

l VOC content limit. The current VOC

content of the commenter’s products is

714 g/l. According to the commenter,

the 400 g/l level for sealers would force

a very high solids content, which would

make these products unfit for use as

prestains. The commenter asserted that,

in order to be effective, stain controllers

must have a very low solids content

because excessive solids will overload

the texture of the substrate so that the

wood will not properly accept the stain.
48864 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Water cannot be added to these

products because they are used almost

exclusively to treat interior fine wood

and contact with water would produce

an undesirable grain-raising effect in the

wood. Stain controllers are low-volume,

specialized products that are important

to the consumer and have a minimal

effect on air quality. The commenter

asserted that about 97 percent of total

sales for these products are already

exempt under the small container

exemptions in regulated areas.

After review and evaluation of these

comments and follow-up information

provided by the commenter, the EPA

has determined that a new category for

stain controllers with a VOC content

limit of 720 g/l is warranted. This is a

specialized, limited use product that is

important to consumers, and the EPA

believes that the additional emissions

from this low-volume coating would be

negligible. According to the commenter,

reformulation attempts during the last 3

years have been unsuccessful, and the

commenter considers it technologically

infeasible to reformulate stain

controllers to achieve the proposed VOC

content limit of 400 g/l for sealers (the

category the commenter’s coating would

be subject to under the proposed rule).

According to the commenter, there are

competing waterbased products meeting

the proposed limit on the market, but

there are performance problems with

these coatings. The EPA believes that

this is an example of a low-volume,

specialty niche coating for which it may

not be cost-effective for the

manufacturer to continue reformulation

attempts. Therefore, the final rule

contains a separate category for stain

controllers.

F. Category Overlap

Many commenters expressed concern

about the VOC content limit that applies

to coatings that fall into more than one

category. The proposed rule stated that

if a manufacturer made the

representation that a coating was

suitable for use in more than one

category, then the coating must comply

with the VOC limit for the category with

the most restrictive limit. Commenters

objected that a coating may be

‘‘suitable’’ for many uses, even though

not intended by the manufacturer for

those uses. Coatings could potentially

be used in ways for which they were

never intended and, thus, be subject to

unduly restrictive VOC content limits.

The EPA agrees with the commenters

and has reworded the provisions as

suggested by the commenters. In the

final rule, if the manufacturer or

importer makes any representation that

indicates that the coating ‘‘meets the

definition’’ of more than one coating

category, then the most restrictive limit

applies. The EPA has removed the

phrase ‘‘may be suitable for use’’ from

the rule so that the manufacturer or

importer is not responsible to meet the

limits of other categories if consumers

choose to use them for purposes not

recommended by the manufacturer or

importer. However, if a manufacturer or

importer indicates that a coating may be

suitable for uses like coatings in other

categories, the EPA will consider this a

representation that requires the coating

to meet the most restrictive applicable

limit. Thus, determination of the

applicable category and VOC content

limit is based on a comparison between

the technical criteria in the rule’s

definitions and the coating

manufacturer’s or importer’s

representations.

The proposed rule also included

exceptions for seven types of coatings to

the requirement that the most restrictive

limit always applies. The EPA

recognizes that these seven coatings

potentially meet the definition of more

than one category of coating, but cannot

meet the more restrictive limit. For

these exceptions, the rule explicitly

specifies that the less restrictive limit

applies. Commenters suggested

additional instances of overlap that

might also warrant special exceptions.

After considering the information

presented by these commenters, the

EPA has included further exceptions, in

addition to the proposed exceptions, to

the most restrictive limit provision. The

EPA has added the following

exceptions: (1) anti-graffiti coatings,

high temperature coatings, impacted

immersion coatings, thermoplastic

rubber coatings and mastics, repair and

maintenance thermoplastic coatings,

pretreatment wash primers, and flow

coatings are not required to meet the

VOC content limit for industrial

maintenance coatings; (2) industrial

maintenance coatings are not required

to meet the VOC content limit for

primers and undercoaters, sealers, or

mastic texture coatings; (3) varnishes

and conversion varnishes used as floor

coatings are not required to meet the

VOC content limit for floor coatings; (4)

sanding sealers are not required to meet

the VOC content limit for quick-dry

sealers; (5) waterproofing sealers and

treatment coatings are not required to

meet the VOC content limit for quickdry sealers; (6) quick-dry primers,

sealers, and undercoaters are not

required to meet the VOC content limit

for primers and undercoaters; (7)

nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers

and surface protectants are not required

to meet the VOC content limit for

lacquers; and (8) antenna coatings are

not required to meet the VOC content

limit for industrial maintenance

coatings or primers. These exceptions

are discussed more fully in section

2.2.3.14 of the Architectural Coatings

BID (see ADDRESSES section of this

preamble).

G. Low Volume/Tonnage Exemption

In the preamble to the proposed rule,

the EPA presented the concept of an

exemption for coatings produced in low

volumes and requested comment on this

potential provision. The EPA described

this exemption as a compliance option

under which, ‘‘any manufacturer or

importer may request an exemption

from the VOC levels in table 1 of this

subpart for specialized coating products

that are manufactured or imported in

quantities less than a specified number

of gallons per year.’’ Twenty-one

commenters provided comments on an

exemption for coatings produced in low

volumes.

In general, commenters in favor of the

exemption pointed out that it would

mitigate the impact of the rule on small

manufacturers for which costs of

reformulation would be more

significant, and would prevent the

elimination of specialty products for

niche markets that could not easily be

reformulated. Commenters opposed to

the concept of a low-volume exemption

generally argued that it would create a

loophole allowing continued

manufacture of noncompliant coatings

and that in the aggregate such emissions

would be significant.

The EPA considered these comments

and concluded that some type of

exemption is needed to help ensure the

continued availability of niche

products, to mitigate potential impacts

on small manufacturers, and to enhance

the economic feasibility of the rule. The

exemption in the final rule is based on

VOC tonnage rather than on production

volume, the concept presented at

proposal. This approach continues to

accommodate the needs of small

manufacturers, niche markets, and

specialty products, as did the proposed

low-volume exemptions, but it more

effectively limits the VOC emissions

resulting from the exemption in

response to comments received on the

proposal.

Under the tonnage exemption, each

manufacturer can exempt a volume of

coatings that contains no more than a

specified total mass of VOC for all

coatings included in the exemption (see

table 2 in section II.B, Summary of

Standards). The EPA has designed the

tonnage limits to exempt no more than
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48865

1.5 to 2 percent of the total expected

emission reductions from all

architectural coatings. In addition, the

EPA has structured the tonnage

exemption to decrease over time,

thereby decreasing the aggregate VOC

emissions in a staggered fashion to

provide additional compliance

flexibility. The EPA believes that it is

appropriate to provide the exemption in

this manner for the dual purpose of

preserving niche products and of

providing greater initial assistance to

manufacturers as they reformulate their

products. The EPA believes that limiting

the exemption in this fashion will

address the concerns of commenters

who viewed the low-volume exemption

as a potential loophole that would allow

significant aggregate excess VOC

emissions. The EPA expects that the 9

Mg/yr (10 tpy) exemption that goes into

effect in the third year will help to

preserve niche products and to provide

adequate flexibility for unforeseen

future needs while effectively limiting

emissions due to the exemption. In

addition, the EPA expects that the

initial tonnage exemption of 23 Mg (25

tons) for the time period from

September 13, 1999 through December

31, 2000, will allow manufacturers to

exempt one to three 27,000 liter (7,100

gallon) product lines, depending on the

VOC content, thereby meeting the

functional intent of the originally

proposed low-volume exemption.

The rule provides that the

manufacturer or importer will calculate

emissions from exempt coatings by

multiplying the total sales volume in

liters by the ‘‘in the can’’ VOC content

of the coating in grams of VOC per liter

of coating, including any water or

exempt compounds. The ‘‘in the can’’

VOC content must include

consideration of the maximum thinning

recommended by the manufacturer. The

manufacturer or importer may exempt

any combination of different coatings as

long as the total VOC tonnage from

these coatings does not exceed the limit

for the tonnage exemption. In addition,

the manufacturer or importer may

choose to combine the exceedance fee

provision and the VOC tonnage

exemption for one or more coatings.

For example, under this exemption, in

the time period from September 13,

1999 through December 31, 2000, a

manufacturer could exempt 38,300 liters

(10,000 gallons) of a 600 g/l [5 pounds

per gallon (lb/gal)] coating.

600

1

38 300 1 1 10 23

6 g VOC g

mg

× mg VOC 





 ÷ × , =

Alternatively, a manufacturer could

exempt 18,939 liters (5,000 gallons) of

an 800 g/l (6.67 lb/gal) coating plus

13,731 liters (3,625 gallons) of a 550 g/

l (4.58 lb/gal) coating.

800

1

18 1 550

1

13 7311 1 10 23

6 g VOC g VOC g

mg

× mg VOC 





 + × 











 



 ÷ × ,939 , =

This exemption differs from the lowvolume exemption in the proposal

preamble in three ways. First, the

exemption is on a ‘‘per manufacturer’’

basis rather than a ‘‘per product’’ basis.

This change was necessary due to the

difficulty in defining a ‘‘product’’ and

the potential for abuse in designating

products for exemption. Second, the

exemption level is based on megagrams

of VOC rather than liters of coating.

Using VOC tonnage as the basis for the

exemption places an upper bound on

the emission reductions that are lost

through this exemption while still

accommodating the needs for which it

was intended. Third, the total quantity

of the exemption reduces over time. The

EPA intends for the ratcheting down of

the tonnage exemption over time to

encourage regulated entities using the

exemption to continue to reduce the

VOC content of their coatings.

The EPA has concluded that the

exemption, as structured in the final

rule, provides benefits in terms of

flexibility, mitigation of impacts for

small manufacturers, and continuation

of specialized niche products that

justify the EPA in foregoing the small

percentage of overall potential VOC

reduction lost through the exemption.

Furthermore, the EPA has concluded

that the creation of the tonnage

exemption is consistent with the EPA’s

explicit discretion and authority to

create the appropriate system or systems

of regulation in accordance with section

183(e)(4) of the Act.

H. Compliance Variance Provisions

In the proposed rule, the EPA

included a variance provision allowing

manufacturers and importers of

architectural coatings to obtain

additional time to comply. To obtain a

variance, applicants would have had to

demonstrate that, for reasons beyond

their reasonable control, they could not

comply with the requirements of the

rule. The EPA envisioned the proposed

variance provision as a benefit primarily

for small businesses that might need

extra time to develop new technologies.

Several commenters addressed the

variance provisions. Those who

supported the provisions noted that a

variance would provide the needed

extra time to come into compliance.

Those opposed to the variance generally

argued that it was not sufficiently

protective of the environment. In

addition, even the commenters in favor

of the variance provision stated that the

requirements for applying for a variance

were too burdensome, and that small

businesses would be particularly

impacted by the burden associated with

the application process. Many of these

commenters stated that exceedance fee

provisions are a more effective way to

accommodate the need for compliance

flexibility yet still encourage reductions

of VOC emissions.

Based upon the comments received,

the EPA has not included the variance

provision in the final rule. It is evident

to the EPA that a variance process may

not provide the intended compliance

flexibility, especially for small

manufacturers. Even though the EPA

intended the proposed variance

requirements to be the minimum

necessary to justify and approve a

coating variance, the EPA recognizes

that the requirements may have been

burdensome, particularly for small

manufacturers with limited or no

regulatory compliance staff. It is also

possible that the variance provision

could create an uneven playing field

because small businesses would not

have the resources needed to pursue
48866 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

this option, thereby putting small

businesses at a disadvantage compared

to large businesses.

Moreover, with the tonnage

exemption and exceedance fee

provisions included in the final rule, the

EPA has concluded that a compliance

date variance is not necessary. The EPA

believes that these alternative

provisions provide even greater

flexibility than the variance provision

and are less burdensome to regulated

entities. Both of these compliance

options are automatically available to all

regulated entities and, therefore, do not

involve complex application and

approval processes. These compliance

options require only the limited

recordkeeping and reporting necessary

for the EPA to ensure compliance.

The EPA anticipates that regulated

entities will use the tonnage exemption

for low-volume products that require 2

to 3 years to reformulate, or for

extremely low-volume products that

cannot be reformulated in the

foreseeable future. The exceedance fee

option, described more fully below, is

also designed to give manufacturers

additional time to develop lower VOC

technologies, which are already used for

similar coatings by other manufacturers,

where necessary. This compliance

option allows regulated entities to

continue to sell coatings that exceed the

VOC content limits, provided that they

pay an exceedance fee.

Need for Long-term, Universal Variance

Procedure

Several commenters, including a

national trade association,

recommended a provision in the rule for

a long-term variance procedure for new

products. The commenters expressed

concern that new and innovative

products may not fit into the coating

categories that define particular coating

technologies, and will therefore, by

default, be subject to the VOC content

limits for the general flat or nonflat

categories. Since the VOC content limits

for these default categories are among

the most stringent, the commenters

suggested provisions that would allow

manufacturers up to 5 years to develop

and commercialize innovative coating

technologies under an extended

variance. The commenters argued that a

long-term variance would protect

manufacturers who operate mainly in

unique or niche markets and whose

access to newer technologies may be

limited.

The EPA has determined that such a

variance procedure is not warranted,

given the other provisions in the final

architectural coatings rule. The EPA has

included compliance provisions in the

final rule that it believes will allow for

the development of new technology.

The tonnage exemption and exceedance

fee option in the final rule create such

additional compliance flexibility. In the

event that coatings manufacturers in the

future develop specialized categories of

coatings for uses not now foreseeable,

they could notify the EPA if they believe

a new coating category is needed. The

EPA could then assess the

appropriateness of such a category.

I. Exceedance Fee Option

The EPA received a total of 27

comments on the exceedance fee

provision presented in the proposal

preamble. About half of the commenters

supported this option and half opposed

it. Under this provision, manufacturers

and importers have the option of paying

a fee, based on the extent to which a

coating’s VOC content exceeds the

applicable VOC content limit instead of

meeting the limit listed in table 1 of this

subpart. The fee is calculated by: (1)

determining the difference between the

coating’s actual VOC content and the

allowed VOC content (in grams of VOC

per liter of coating), (2) multiplying this

difference by the fee rate of $0.0028 per

gram of excess VOC per liter of coating,

and (3) multiplying the resulting

product by the volume of the coating

manufactured or imported during the

reporting period. The resulting dollar

amount is owed by the manufacturer or

importer as a fee. After careful

evaluation of all of the comments and

discussions with the Small Business

Administration, the Administrator has

decided to include this compliance

option in the final rule for several

reasons. First, the exceedance fee

provision will provide transition time

over and above the tonnage exemption

provision for those manufacturers that

may need additional time to obtain or

develop lower VOC technologies. The

exceedance fee provision is significantly

less burdensome than the proposed

compliance variance provision, which

the EPA has not retained in the final

rule (see discussion in section V.H of

this preamble). Second, the exceedance

fee provides long-term flexibility and a

less costly compliance option for

manufacturers who sell very low

volume, specialty coatings where the

cost of reformulation may be prohibitive

compared to the potential profit on low

volume products. Thus, these important

specialty products will continue to be

available to consumers. Third, contrary

to some comments received, the EPA

believes that the higher costs resulting

from the exceedance fees can encourage

the development of innovative

technology, such as high-performance

products with lower VOC content, thus

reducing VOC content to the limits in

table 1 for many coatings.

With regard to some commenters’

concerns about enforcement of the

exceedance fee, the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements in the rule will

ensure compliance with this option. The

final rule requires manufacturers and

importers to maintain records and

submit annual reports to the EPA if they

wish to exercise their option to use the

exceedance fee. Any violations of the

recordkeeping and reporting or any

other requirements of the rule could

result in enforcement actions and the

possibility of penalties.

There were various questions and

opinions from several commenters

regarding the level of the fee. The EPA

considered several factors in setting the

fee level. Specifically, the EPA has set

the fee level so that it would not be

advantageous for most manufacturers

and importers merely to opt for the fee

in lieu of reformulating large volume

products, which generate a

disproportionately large share of

emissions. At the same time, the EPA

has sought to set the fee at a level that

will provide flexibility for producers of

small volume or specialty products to

keep products on the market. Clearly,

these are competing considerations, but

they are not mutually exclusive. In fact,

the EIA conducted by the EPA suggests

that manufacturers of a large number of

coatings may opt for the fee (as a lowercost compliance option to reformulation

or product withdrawal). However, the

total sales volumes of these products are

uniformly small and, thus, their

contribution to total market output (and

emission reductions) is relatively small.

The fee level also provides incentive for

fee-paying firms to reduce VOC content

on the margin, as this will reduce the

amount of fee they must pay. The EPA

has concluded that imposition of the fee

is an appropriate mechanism to

encourage development of lower-VOC

content products while at the same time

preserving specialty niche products and

mitigating the impact on small regulated

entities. The level of the fee reflects the

EPA’s attempt to balance the intent to

encourage reformulation without

mandating that products be priced out

of the market. The EPA believes that

this is consistent with its authority to

use economic incentives as part of the

system of regulation as contemplated by

section 183(e)(4) of the Act.

J. Labeling, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting

A number of commenters requested

more flexible labeling requirements to

reduce the compliance burden. After
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48867

consideration of these comments, the

EPA has determined that several

labeling requirements can be adjusted to

provide more flexibility without

adversely affecting their usefulness.

First, the EPA has provided greater

flexibility by allowing the date of

manufacture or date code to appear

either on the bottom of cans or on the

labels or lids. Second, the EPA has

clarified the VOC content labeling

requirement. These provisions allow

manufacturers two options; they may

label the coating with either: (1) the

VOC content of the coating, including

recommended thinning and considering

fluctuations in VOC content that may

occur in the manufacturing process, or

(2) the applicable VOC content limit for

the type coating as listed in table 1 of

the rule. The second option is allowed

only if the VOC content of the coating

does not exceed the applicable VOC

content limit (i.e., it is not available for

coatings complying by exercise of the

exceedance fee or tonnage exemption

provisions). Third, the final rule

includes a more flexible labeling

requirement for industrial maintenance

coatings. Manufacturers may choose

from the following phrases for labeling

industrial maintenance coatings:

(1) For industrial use only;

(2) For professional use only;

(3) Not for residential use;

(4) Not intended for residential use; or

(5) This product is intended for use

under the following condition(s): (list of

each condition from the definition of

industrial maintenance coating that

applies.)

The proposal preamble requested

comment on the inclusion of labeling

requirements for coating coverage

information and an educational

statement about the role of VOC

emissions from coatings in ozone

formation. Based on comments received

concerning coverage information, the

EPA determined that coating coverage is

so variable, depending on the coating

and the substrate being coated, that the

information would be of minimal

benefit. Upon consideration of

comments regarding the educational

statement, the EPA concluded that an

outreach program would just as

effectively educate consumers on the

role of VOC emissions in the formation

of ozone and on the reasons why

ground-level ozone is undesirable.

Thus, the final rule does not require the

proposed coverage information and

educational statements.

K. Determination of Volatile Organic

Compound Content

Four commenters expressed concern

that Method 24 (40 CFR part 60,

appendix A) would not provide reliable

results in certain circumstances, such as

for waterborne coatings, and requested

that the EPA allow the use of alternative

tests in lieu of Method 24. The requests

included methods to test for acetone

content, acid content, water content,

and for testing coatings that cure via

chemical reactions that are quenched by

the dilution solvent used in Method 24.

Two commenters also requested that the

EPA accept compliance demonstrations

based on theoretical formula

calculations or formula batch card

loading information and documentation.

The EPA believes that Method 24

provides consistent, reliable results

when determining the VOC content of

architectural coatings. Specifically

regarding concerns about Method 24’s

reliability for determining the VOC

content of waterborne coatings, the EPA

believes that Method 24 is the best

currently available compliance method

for low-VOC solvent content (high water

content or waterborne) coatings. For

waterborne coatings, VOC content is

determined indirectly using methods

that determine nonvolatile matter

content and water content. The VOC

content is assumed to be what is

unaccounted for by these two fractions.

The EPA acknowledges that the

inherent imprecision of indirectly

determining the VOC content of such

coatings by this method necessitates an

adjustment of the analytical results.

Such adjustments must be based on

confidence limits calculated from the

precision statement established for

Method 24. The precision adjustment

procedure is incorporated in Method 24.

Therefore, the final rule specifies that

Method 24 is to be used for determining

the VOC content of coatings subject to

the rule. However, in response to

comments received and consistent with

other coating regulations established by

the EPA in the past, the final rule does

provide that other means may be used

to determine VOC content.

Nevertheless, the rule also provides that

the Administrator may request at any

time that the coating manufacturer or

importer conduct a Method 24 test for

the purpose of demonstrating

compliance with the rule. If there are

any inconsistencies between Method 24

test results and other means of

determining VOC content, the Method

24 results will govern. The rule also

provides an option for the

Administrator to approve, on a case-bycase basis, alternative methods of

determining the VOC content of

coatings if they are demonstrated to the

Administrator’s satisfaction to provide

results satisfactory for determining

compliance. Such alternative methods

could include procedures for testing for

acetone, acid content, and water

content, procedures for coatings that are

chemically-cured, and procedures for

using formulations and batch processing

data for adjusting or determining VOC

content.

L. Compliance Date

At proposal, the EPA requested

comment on the appropriate compliance

deadline for the rule. Commenters

expressed a range of opinions regarding

the appropriate compliance date.

Commenters who supported a

compliance period of up to 12 months

stated that this amount of time was

necessary to adjust formulations, reprint

labels, adjust inventories, use up

existing label stock, and conduct

research and development. Some

commenters stated that the compliance

period should be greater than 1 year to

allow adequate time for developing,

performance testing, and marketing new

products. Some State Agencies

requested no further delay in the

compliance date, since States are

depending upon the architectural

coatings rule for VOC reduction credit

under their SIP. The latter commenters

stated that extending the compliance

date would have an adverse impact on

the environment, would lead to

additional State regulations, and is

unnecessary given the current state of

technology.

The EPA supports making the

architectural coatings rule effective and

applicable as quickly as possible, but in

a time frame within which regulated

entities may reasonably comply. The

EPA believes that the 12-month

compliance period in the final rule

allows the industry appropriate time to

achieve compliance with the rule. The

EPA believes that coating technologies

currently exist to meet all of the rule’s

VOC content limits. In limited cases

where manufacturers or importers need

additional time to comply, the tonnage

exemption and the exceedance fee

option already provide additional

compliance flexibility and offset any

need for additional compliance time.

At proposal, the EPA requested

comment on whether the final rule

should include a compliance extension

for small manufacturers. Three-quarters

of the commenters providing comments

on this provision were against special

treatment for small manufacturers. After

careful evaluation of the comments, the

EPA has decided not to include a

compliance extension specifically

restricted to small manufacturers.

Instead, the EPA has extended the

compliance period for all manufacturers
48868 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

and importers to 12 months. The EPA

has concluded that the information

provided by commenters demonstrates

that the 12-month compliance period

allows adequate time for all regulated

entities to comply. The EPA believes

that other mechanisms such as the

tonnage exemption and the exceedance

fee will also help alleviate concerns

regarding the compliance period for

small entities.

M. Cost/Economic Impacts

At proposal, the EPA solicited

comment regarding the size and nature

of reformulation costs to gauge the

reasonableness of the estimate used in

the EPA’s EIA. The estimate the EPA

used at proposal ($250,000 per product

reformulation) was based on an estimate

presented to the Regulatory Negotiation

Committee in 1993 (Docket# II–E–52).

The EPA received several public

comments in response to this request

and categorized the estimates provided

based on the following dimensions:

technical staff training, prioritization of

products needing reformulation, survey

of available materials, reformulation to

desired properties, performance tests,

field tests, marketing costs, production

costs (labels), sales training, and

executive expenses. Eleven of the

comments received provided

comparable information for gauging

reformulation costs per product. Other

comments provided less complete

information that the EPA has taken into

account, but did not include the specific

information necessary to assess the

reasonableness of the EPA’s estimate.

The EPA combined the estimates from

these eleven comments with the original

cost estimate and found that

reformulation cost per product ranged

in value from $576 to $272,000 (1991

dollars), with a mean value of

approximately $87,000. This gives an

indication that the EPA’s estimate at

proposal significantly overstated the

average cost to reformulate a product.

Because the mean value from these

comments represents a wide variety of

conditions for reformulation (in

comparison to the one scenario

described to the Regulatory Negotiation

Committee), the EPA revised the EIA

using $87,000 as the average cost to

reformulate a product. Appendix B of

the EIA and the architectural coatings

BID provides a full discussion of the

review of these cost estimates.

Several commenters indicated that

they thought that the estimate of total

social cost was too low because the EPA

underestimated or omitted several cost

factors. Some of the factors cited by

commenters that costs are

underestimated are listed below:

(1) The estimate did not consider

every reformulation such as the

recalibration and reformulation of every

color in a tint base system when the

base is reformulated,

(2) The survey used to estimate costs

excluded 400 small paint manufacturing

companies,

(3) Only the costs of laboratory

personnel are included in the estimate,

(4) The estimate did not consider the

cost of foregone new product

development when expending scarce

technical effort to reformulate existing

products, and

(5) Aggregation of 50 product

categories into 13 market segments

reduces the impact presented.

Commenters also cited several cost

categories that potentially were omitted

from the total cost estimate, including:

(6) Costs for preparing product

literature, including material safety data

sheets, sales aids, color brochures, and

technical data bulletins;

(7) Costs for manufacturer education;

(8) Costs to consumers from increased

surface preparation, application, and

drying time;

(9) Costs associated with warranty

claims and complaints about poor

performance of compliant coatings;

(10) Litigation costs due to increased

safety hazards from using acetone

formulations;

(11) Increased costs to retailers,

contractors, and other consumers;

(12) Additional job losses in the paint

industry and the socioeconomic impact

on low income workers; and

(13) Impacts of product bans on the

nation.

Two of these commenters (a

manufacturer and its legal counsel)

stated that if the EPA included all cost

factors in the total cost estimate, then

the impacts of the rule would exceed

$100 million and would necessitate

additional analyses under Executive

Order 12866 and the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act. Some

commenters also believed that the

method of calculating the national cost

was flawed in that costs are calculated

on an annualized basis. A commenter

also stated that expressing the cost in

1991 dollars did not represent real costs

today and that assuming an interest rate

of 7 percent was not a valid assumption

for small businesses.

The EPA has carefully considered the

comments regarding the economic

impact of the rule, especially in light of

the EPA’s overestimate of the costs of

reformulation in the proposal. The EPA

believes the total social cost estimate

provided at proposal was significantly

above the actual cost of the regulation

because of several conservative

assumptions that were adopted in the

analysis, and the evidence that the perproduct reformulation cost was nearly

three times greater than the average

estimate obtained by public comments.

The method of calculating national

cost for the final rule adheres to the EPA

policy and Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) guidance (OMB Circular

A–94). It is a well-established tenet of

benefit-cost analysis and costeffectiveness analysis that benefits and

costs need to be placed on a timeconsistent basis for direct comparison.

Therefore, the costs of the action must

be computed on an annualized basis

through discounting to be time

consistent with the annual stream of

emission reductions achieved. For the

architectural coatings rule, the costs of

reformulation and its VOC reduction

benefits occur in different time periods.

The reformulation of current

noncompliant products is a ‘‘one-time

event,’’ but the emission reductions of

the new formula and the knowledge

gained from developing the

reformulation continue over the life of

the product, which is an infinite period

of time unless the product is

permanently removed from the market.

In other words, once a formulation is

developed to comply with the

regulation, manufacturers will have

some knowledge to carry forward to all

future modifications of the product (i.e.,

if they adjust the formula to improve

certain attributes or characteristics of

the product). However, the EPA

recognizes that a case can be made for

treating each product formula as having

a finite service life, requiring periodic

reformulation. Under this alternative

assumption, the regulation is viewed as

accelerating each product’s next round

of reformulation, an event that would

have occurred anyway. For example, if

a product is usually reformulated every

8 years, the rule’s implementation may

cause a manufacturer to investigate the

reformulation 4 years earlier, thus

accelerating the reformulation schedule

for all future years. In response to this

issue, the EIA for the final rule presents

a calculation of annualized costs for

both a finite and an infinite product life.

Because the finite product life results in

a higher annualized value, the EPA uses

this estimate for the economic analysis

of the final rule to produce a

conservative estimate of impacts

associated with the rule.

Also, because the survey of

architectural coating producers was

conducted in 1992 with information on

products through the end of 1991, the

EPA has set 1991 as the baseline year for

the analysis. All market data are in 1991

dollars, and so for the purpose of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48869

modeling, the costs are expressed in

1991 dollars. However, in response to

comments, values for the final rule are

expressed in both 1991 (the base year of

analysis) and 1996 dollars. The EPA’s

conclusions regarding the impacts of the

final rule are the same, whether

expressed in 1991 or 1996 dollars.

In addition, OMB (OMB Circular A–

94) stipulates that the discount rate used

for economic analyses of Federal

regulations is 7 percent. This is based

on an assessment of a wide range of

private and public investment returns.

The 7-percent rate is a real discount rate

(adjusting out inflation). In contrast, the

market interest rates paid by firms are

in nominal terms (i.e., they include a

component for inflation). If inflation is

3 percent, then a real rate of 7 percent

is equivalent to a nominal rate of 10

percent. All dollar values in the

economic analysis are expressed in real

terms, thus the discount rate used is a

real discount rate.

Using the stated method for

calculating the per-product costs of

reformulation, the EPA conducted an indepth analysis of national cost and

economic impact to support both the

proposed and final rules. More

specifically, the estimate of net social

cost is based on the average cost to

reformulate products that exceed the

limits set by the standard. These costs

are applied to specific products

identified by the survey. For these

products, costs are applied to two-thirds

of the population of non-compliant

products because one-third of these

products are similar enough in

characteristics to other ‘‘over-the-limit’’

products that a separate reformulation

effort is not likely to be necessary.

Although the survey was unable to

capture all products produced by small

businesses as one commenter states, the

EPA assumed (for an upper bound

estimate) that all product volume in the

non-survey population was produced by

small businesses. Thus, costs are

extrapolated to the nation using

conservative assumptions of the total

number of products requiring

reformulation nationally. The analysis

then considers influences in a

competitive market on product price

and output, along with the

consideration of lower-cost compliance

options such as the exceedance fee

provision or product withdrawal from

the market. The analysis not only

measures the cost to producers that

must comply with the regulation, but

also to all consumers impacted by the

changes in the market resulting from the

regulation. The analysis also identifies

gains in revenues to producers that are

not constrained by the rule (thus, not

incurring costs), but who gain an

advantage of higher market prices for

their products. Thus, the EPA believes

that the analysis reasonably captures all

capital and social costs for surveyed as

well as non-surveyed products.

The original product reformulation

cost estimate included several

components beyond the cost of the

laboratory personnel, which are

itemized in the EIA. Although some of

the items listed by commenters as

improperly omitted may not have been

included in the per-product

reformulation cost estimate at proposal,

several of the estimates from public

comments that were used for the final

rule included these components, and

therefore, they are included in the

estimate used for the final rule. The EPA

also considered the influence (positive

and negative) of other factors that are

not possible to quantify, and presented

these biases in a table of the EIA at

proposal and for the final rule. Most of

the biases are variable and case specific.

For example, product quality changes

were found to have both positive and

negative effects on cost depending on

the product. The EPA found no link

between product quality and VOC

content since quality, high-performing

products are available in a wide range

of VOC content levels in many product

categories. Given this finding, the EPA

does not consider warranty claims and

complaints for poor performance to be

typical or quantifiable for a

reformulated product. The EPA also

found examples of increased and

decreased time utilized for surface

preparation, application, and drying of

compliant coatings. The use of acetone

formulations is also not considered a

necessity to comply with the rule since

there are other raw material substitutes

available to manufacturers. Thus,

incurring increased safety hazards by

choosing an acetone formulation is a

decision that should be made by a

manufacturer based on benefit/cost

considerations, rather than as a result of

the rule. Other categories of influence

on the cost estimate are also discussed

qualitatively in the EIA.

The cost of foregone new product

development is an aspect of opportunity

cost that is implicitly included in the

EPA’s estimate of economic impacts.

The amortized cost of reformulation

reflects both the payment of principal

and the cost of capital. The cost of

capital directly reflects the value of

opportunities foregone by investing

funds in a particular activity, in this

case, reformulation. Thus, if investing in

reformulation diverts funds from

investing in other product

enhancements, the foregone value of

those investments is captured in the

discount rate used in the analysis.

The aggregation of 50 categories into

13 market segments is the result of

cross-referencing the emissions

inventory data from the industry survey

with the coding system set by the

Census of Manufacturers, a large source

of economic data. The methodology to

link survey categories with the Census

data is described in an appendix to the

EIA. The EPA’s objective was to specify

as many market categories as the data

would allow. Using this method, the

largest possible number of meaningful

market categories was 13. The

aggregation process presents an

appropriate way to analyze the cost and

economic impacts and does not in any

way diminish the estimates of the

absolute impact of the regulation.

However, the aggregation process may

make it difficult to detect relatively

large impacts within one subgroup of a

market category, if these impacts are

offset by relatively small impacts in

other subgroups of that market. In other

words, a product may be more likely to

be withdrawn from the market than is

indicated in the 13 market segments of

the analysis since multiple product

niches would be lumped within the

same market segment. On the other

hand, this aggregation may increase the

estimated effect on manufacturers by

over-stating the degree to which

products within the market segment can

substitute for products affected by the

regulation.

While the EPA did not directly

measure impacts on the retailing sector,

contractors, and other consumers, the

indirect impacts to these entities and

other users of coatings products are

captured in the market analysis by the

estimated change in ‘‘consumer

surplus,’’ along with all other

downstream effects beyond the

manufacturer. Consumer surplus

measures the distribution of the burden

of the regulation to all consumers. Since

the impact on consumers calculated for

proposal was less than one-third of the

manufacturers’ burden, and contractors

and retailers are a small subset of this

effect, the EPA saw no indication of a

need for an in-depth analysis of

secondary (indirect) impacts.

It should be recognized that retail

outlets have the ability to substitute

between compliant and noncompliant

coatings offered for sale. While the EPA

projects the number of withdrawn

products to be small, if a manufacturer

does choose to discontinue a product,

retailers will presumably replace this

product with other compliant products

in that category. Thus, although

foregone profits are ‘‘lost’’ for the
48870 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

manufacturer withdrawing a product,

the retailer offsets any lost profits from

selling the withdrawn product with

profits obtained by selling substitutes

within that category. As indicated

above, the number and volume of

product withdrawals is projected to be

quite small (less than 1-percent

nationally), thus suggesting retailing

effects, if they exist at all, are also likely

to be quite small.

The job loss and other substantial

economic impacts that are referred to by

a commenter are the result of assuming

that every reformulation required by the

standards is not feasible, thus the

products would be removed from the

market causing manufacturers,

contractors, retailers, and other

consumers to be economically

impacted. Because there are a very

limited number of products that are

expected to be withdrawn from the

market, most products will be

reformulated or produced with current

formulations (with manufacturers using

the tonnage exemption provision or

paying a fee for emissions in excess of

the standards).

Likewise, this regulatory action

cannot be considered a ‘‘product ban’’

because the EPA believes that it is

technologically feasible to reformulate

all product categories to meet the

standards. The expected level of

product withdrawal is calculated based

upon the aggregate impact on numerous

varieties of products across 13 different

market segments, so it is unlikely to

eliminate (or ban) an entire product

category. In addition, the rule contains

limits for 61 categories of products,

many of which were created to preserve

specialty, niche market sectors within

the industry. Also, the tonnage

exemption and exceedance fee

provisions in the rule are expected to

provide further compliance flexibility

which will allow manufacturers to

maintain product lines with VOC

contents that exceed the applicable VOC

content limits in appropriate

circumstances.

In conclusion, based on the data and

information provided to the EPA prior

to proposal and through public

comments, the revised national

annualized cost estimate of the final

rule of $25.6 million in 1991 dollars (or

$29 million in 1996 dollars) is

representative of all costs to producers

and consumers. This cost and its effect

on the industry do not meet the

minimum criteria set forth by Executive

Order 12866 or the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act to require additional

analyses, as some commenters have

suggested.

N. Small Business Issues

The EPA received several comments

that small businesses would be

disproportionately impacted by the

regulation because: (1) they manufacture

products with higher VOC content in

comparison to the large companies; (2)

due to the lack of resources, it would

take longer for small firms to

reformulate all affected products; and

(3) the rule would discourage niche

market products that support many

regional and local manufacturers. Some

commenters also claimed that the

proposed regulation provided a

competitive advantage to large national

and international companies because a

uniform national rule simplifies

marketing, production, and compliance

activities of these firms.

During development of the rule, the

EPA was aware of the above concerns of

small manufacturers and designed the

architectural coatings rule to minimize

any potential adverse impacts on small

manufacturers. In fact, special

consideration was given to economic

feasibility of VOC levels for coating

categories where small manufacturers

have a disproportionate presence. The

small entity analysis confirmed that

small producers that were included in

the survey of manufacturers do tend to

produce higher VOC content products

(75 percent higher than the average of

all surveyed manufacturers), partly

because of a specialization of products

and partly because of choice of

technology. They produced 20 percent

of the number of products in the survey,

but only account for 4 percent of total

volume of coatings produced, and 4

percent of total revenue of surveyed

manufacturers. Thus, the revenues and

production levels are generally lower

than the average of all manufacturers.

Because the costs to reformulate are

fixed for all levels of production, the

costs to reformulate the products that

exceed the VOC content limits have the

potential to comprise a greater share of

baseline costs and revenues for small

producers, which gives some indication

that a disproportionate impact on small

businesses could occur if reformulation

were the only compliance option

available. The EPA considered this

finding and has taken several steps in

the final rule to mitigate this impact,

provide flexibility and additional

compliance time, and preserve niche

markets, including:

• The creation of new product

categories where warranted,

• An increased compliance time (12

months),

• A tonnage exemption provision,

and

• An exceedance fee provision.

All of these provisions were

considered in part to address niche

markets and small business burdens;

however, the provisions will be

available to all producers regardless of

size. The EPA’s analysis of the impacts

of the final rule shows that small

businesses are likely to utilize these

provisions and that the impact on a

typical small firm is reduced without

significant deterioration of the rule’s

effectiveness (i.e., the foregone emission

reductions are limited). See section VI.E

of this preamble for a summary of

findings from the analysis.

The EPA disagrees that the proposed

architectural coatings rule favors larger

businesses to the detriment of smaller

businesses. As the EIA indicates,

estimated market effects from the

architectural coatings rule are relatively

slight. Approximately one-tenth of 1

percent of industry product volume is

projected to withdraw from the market,

and price effects in each market are

expected to range from no effect to an

increase of less than 2 cents per liter,

which is still less than a 1-percent

increase of the baseline price. The

expected level of product withdrawal

discussed above is based upon the

aggregate of numerous varieties of

products across 13 different market

segments, so it is unlikely to eliminate

an entire product category. Compared to

other industries, the coatings industry is

highly competitive due to the numerous

manufacturers in the industry.

Therefore, a relatively small product

withdrawal effect on a very competitive

industry suggests that significant

degradation of market competition is

unlikely.

The EPA also does not agree that a

uniform national regulation would have

negative implications for competition

with respect to antitrust laws and would

reduce market efficiency. In fact, the

existence of nonuniform standards

across States tends to favor one sector of

the industry (local manufacturers) at the

expense of another (non-local

manufacturers), thereby limiting

competition in those markets. Some

public commenters supported a national

rule because they believe nonuniform

standards harmed small manufacturers.

As one commenter testified at the public

hearing, small companies lack the

resources to deal with a large number of

different State regulations and labeling

requirements and a regulatory climate

that changes frequently. Another

commenter pointed out that these

conditions hinder small companies’

ability to plan for new products,

production, expansion, and marketing.

All of these activities require the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48871

investment of time and money that can

easily be expended if a county, district,

or State implements a new VOC rule.

The EPA considers a national VOC rule

an important element in promoting

consistency among architectural coating

standards. The EPA also recognizes that

a national rule for architectural coatings

sets minimum national requirements,

and that some States may need to adopt

requirements for architectural coatings

more stringent than those in this rule.

The EPA also received comments on

the definition of a small entity that the

EPA adopted for the regulatory

flexibility analysis. One commenter

supported the definition, while several

others argued that the definition was too

restrictive and suggested it be revised to

include more firms (i.e., firms with

architectural coatings sales between $20

and $30 million, or firms with less than

$50 million, or firms with less than

$100 million in sales). Because the

coating manufacturing industry is not

labor-intensive, a revenue value cut-off

rather than a number-of-employees cutoff appeared to be a better measure to

reflect the ability of a manufacturer to

devote time as well as research and

development resources to meet

regulatory requirements. Based on input

from stakeholders during the regulatory

negotiation process (II–E–62), the EPA

has defined small manufacturers as

those having less than $10 million in

annual architectural coating sales and

less than $50 million in total annual

sales from all products. Using this

definition, between 70 and 85 percent of

the architectural coatings industry

would be classified as small. This

definition does not change the

requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA); it is used for

analysis purposes only. If the definition

were changed to include more firms at

sales levels greater than $10 million, the

impacts on this sector of the industry

may appear lower on average because

the impacts on a company with sales

around $30 million may offset impacts

on a $5 million company. In such a

case, the EPA may have been less likely

to consider special provisions such as

the exceedance fee or tonnage

exemption. The EPA believes the

current definition is representative of

the industry and has not revised it for

the final rule.

O. Cost-Effectiveness

In the preamble to the proposed rule

(61 FR 32735, June 25, 1996), the EPA

solicited comments on alternative

approaches to the cost-effectiveness

calculation for the proposed rule. As

distinct from EPA’s consideration of

cost in the BAC analysis, the discussion

in this section did not form a basis for

EPA’s selection of BAC for the

categories of products regulated by the

rule.

Cost-effectiveness is a measure used

to compare alternative strategies for

reducing pollutant emissions, or to

provide a comparison of a new strategy

with historical strategies. The EPA’s

established method of calculating the

cost-effectiveness of a rule with

nationwide applicability is to divide the

total cost of the rule by total emission

reductions. At proposal, the EPA

requested comment on two alternative

ways of calculating cost-effectiveness

for the architectural coatings rule: (1)

cost-effectiveness considering total

emission reductions in ozone

nonattainment areas only, and (2) costeffectiveness considering emission

reductions in ozone nonattainment

areas during the ozone season only.

Before discussing the comments

received on this cost-effectiveness

methodology issue, it is important to

note that the provisions and rationale

for today’s rule are not dependent upon

the disposition of this issue. The EPA

nonetheless took comment on the issue

because this rule was among the first to

be proposed under section 183(e) of the

Act and presented an opportunity to

receive public input early in the

program.

In regard to cost-effectiveness

methodologies, the EPA received

comments from three commenters, all of

whom favored the EPA’s traditional

measure of cost-effectiveness. One

commenter stated that it is important to

characterize cost-effectiveness in a

consistent manner so that various

control strategies can be compared on

equal footing and that calculating costeffectiveness based solely on

nonattainment areas unfairly biases the

calculation by ignoring the benefit of

reducing the transport of ozone and its

precursors. Another commenter advised

the EPA to maintain the traditional

measure since it is commonly used and

will continue to provide meaningful

comparisons. The latter commenter

opposed more narrow measures of costeffectiveness, such as exclusively

measuring the effect on ozone

concentrations or VOC reductions in

ozone nonattainment areas only. The

third commenter considered costeffectiveness based on VOC reductions

solely in ozone nonattainment areas to

be impractical, because the

manufacturer has little control over

where coatings will be used. Such

control would necessitate additional

recordkeeping to track intended and

actual locations of product use.

After considering these comments, the

EPA does not plan to adopt these

alternative approaches to calculating

cost-effectiveness for rules with

nationwide control requirements, for

reasons that are presented below.

One issue raised by the comments is

whether the EPA’s traditional measure

creates a bias against strategies that

apply in a limited geographic area (e.g.,

in nonattainment areas) relative to

nationwide strategies, or against

seasonal strategies relative to year-round

strategies. This issue would arise if the

EPA used cost-effectiveness figures to

compare the desirability of these

dissimilar types of strategies. In fact, the

EPA did not use cost-effectiveness

estimates in this way in developing the

architectural coatings rule. In the case of

the architectural coatings rule, the EPA

considered applying restrictions to

architectural coatings only in

nonattainment areas (either by rule or

through a CTG). The EPA believes that

such geographically targeted restrictions

for these nationally distributed

architectural coatings would pose

substantial implementation difficulties

for government and would impose

substantial compliance burdens on a

large number of regulated entities. The

EPA also believes that such

geographically targeted restrictions for

these nationally distributed products

would be less effective at reducing

emissions than a national rule (see

section V.A of this preamble for further

discussion). Because the EPA

determined that a strategy applicable

only to nonattainment areas would be

less desirable than a national rule for

architectural coatings, the EPA did not

see a need to invest resources to pursue

that strategy and calculate its costeffectiveness.

The EPA considered whether use of

one of the alternative cost-effectiveness

methodologies would enable the EPA to

make valid cost-effectiveness

comparisons between nationwide and

targeted geographic strategies, or yearround and seasonal strategies, for

reducing ozone pollution. The EPA has

not chosen these alternatives because it

has the following concerns about the

two alternative approaches:

First, VOC emission reductions have

benefits other than reducing ozone

levels in nonattainment areas. As a

result, the EPA believes the costeffectiveness calculation for a

nationwide, year-round rule should not

exclude VOC emission reductions in

attainment areas or outside the ozone

season. The EPA recognizes that a

primary objective of section 183(e) of

the Act is to reduce VOC emissions in

ozone nonattainment areas. However, as
48872 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

previously explained, in the

development of the architectural

coatings rule, the EPA believes that the

best policy alternative is to implement

a nationwide rule. Therefore, emission

reductions from this rule will not only

be realized in ozone nonattainment

areas, but also in all other parts of the

country in which architectural coatings

are distributed and consumed.

In general, the benefits of VOC

reductions in ozone attainment areas

include reductions in emissions of VOC

air toxics, reductions in the contribution

from VOC emissions to the formation of

fine particulate matter, and reductions

in damage to agricultural crops, forests,

and ecosystems from ozone exposure.

Emission reductions in attainment areas

help to maintain clean air as the

economy grows and new pollution

sources come into existence. Also,

ozone health benefits can result from

reductions in attainment areas, although

the most certain health effects from

ozone exposure below the NAAQS

appear to be both transient and

reversible. The closure letter from the

Clean Air Science Advisory Committee

(CASAC) for the recent review of the

ozone NAAQS states that there is no

apparent threshold for biological

responses to ozone exposure [See U.S.

EPA; Review of NAAQS for Ozone,

Assessment of Scientific and Technical

Information, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards Staff Paper;

document number: EPA–452\R–96–007].

Second, under either alternative

approach, emission reductions in ozone

attainment areas would not be included

in the calculation. This appears to imply

that emissions reductions in attainment

areas do not contribute to cleaner air in

nonattainment areas. VOC sources in

regions adjacent to nonattainment areas

may contribute to ozone levels in

nonattainment areas. As a result, a costeffectiveness comparison based on the

alternative approaches sometimes could

create a bias against a nationwide rule

relative to a strategy that applies in

nonattainment areas only.

In light of the transport issue, it has

been suggested that the EPA apply a

weighting factor to account for

differences in the extent to which

emissions inside and outside

nonattainment areas contribute to ozone

formation in nonattainment areas. The

EPA is concerned that in order to

calculate cost-effectiveness using this

concept, the EPA would have to

conduct extensive and costly air quality

modeling to estimate ozone reductions

resulting from each candidate control

strategy and that this would require

extensive data on the location of

emissions. Such detailed analysis is

appropriate for some policy decisions,

but not for all. As a result, the EPA is

skeptical that this weighting approach

would represent a generally useful

analytical tool for decision making.

The EPA, of course, agrees that

differences in the location and timing of

emission reductions are a significant

consideration in choosing among

alternative strategies. The extent of

ozone reductions and other benefits

resulting from VOC emission reductions

varies, partly based on location and

season. In considering nationwide vs.

geographically targeted controls, and

year-round vs. seasonal controls, the

EPA considers available information on

the effectiveness of those strategies in

reducing ozone—as well as other health

and environmental considerations,

economic considerations, and other

relevant factors—in making a holistic

assessment of which strategy is most

desirable from an overall public policy

standpoint.

There are instances where the EPA

does provide an estimate of costeffectiveness of a control strategy during

the ozone season, i.e., generally, when

a control strategy is feasible to apply on

a seasonal basis, or when limits are set

on a seasonal basis. Although these

figures are useful for comparing

different seasonal strategies, the EPA

does not plan to use cost-effectiveness

figures for inappropriate (i.e., apple to

orange) comparisons between seasonal

and year-round strategies for the 183(e)

program for the reasons presented

above. In regard to today’s rule, the EPA

notes that the nature of architectural

coatings emissions does not allow for

control strategies that reduce emissions

only during the ozone season to be an

objective for consideration. One reason

is that the shelf life and consumption

rate of architectural coatings varies

greatly and one cannot predict that a

certain percentage of a product made

with a specified formulation will be

consumed and, thus, result in VOC

emitted during the ozone season.

Because the Agency has concluded that

an ozone season-based approach is not

a viable control strategy for architectural

coatings, the EPA did not believe it was

appropriate to develop a seasonal-based

approach to measuring costeffectiveness for the architectural

coatings rule.

P. Future Study and Future Limits

The EPA has determined to regulate

architectural coatings based upon the

study and Report to Congress required

by Section 183(e) of the Act. For the

reasons discussed in the separate final

listing decision published today in the

Federal Register, the 183(e) study

established that the EPA should regulate

architectural coatings to reduce VOC

emissions, as directed by the Act. The

final rule’s VOC content limits, in

combination with the exceedance fee

and tonnage exemption provisions,

reflect the EPA’s determination of BAC

for architectural coatings, based on the

EPA’s analysis of currently available

information on coating technologies.

However, the EPA recognizes that

manufacturers are continuously

developing new and innovative

products in response to competitive

markets as well as to regulatory

pressures. The EPA has developed the

final requirements for architectural

coatings largely from data for coatings

manufactured in the early 1990s, and

the EPA believes, therefore, that VOC

reductions beyond those reflected in

table 1 of the rule may be

technologically and economically

feasible in the future. In the preamble

for the proposed rule, the EPA

discussed the idea of a joint study with

the industry to investigate the cost and

performance characteristics of coatings

with VOC contents lower than the

promulgated limits and to assess the

environmental and economic impacts of

requiring lower VOC contents. The EPA

requested comments concerning such an

EPA/industry study and any

performance, cost, or reactivity

considerations that should be included

in such a study. The EPA also requested

information on coating categories where

recent progress in low-VOC resin

systems has resulted in the introduction

of new low-VOC coatings into the

market since 1990. In addition, the EPA

requested cost information and

comments on the ability of coatings

with VOC content limits lower than the

proposed levels to meet the performance

needs within the coating category.

A total of 27 commenters responded

to the EPA’s request for comments,

representing a wide variety of positions.

The comments generally addressed

three issues: (1) the usefulness of the

proposed joint study, (2) how the EPA

should conduct the study, and (3) the

merit of promulgating additional or

more stringent standards for

architectural coatings.

Based on these comments, the EPA

has concluded that an additional study

for this category may be warranted to

determine the feasibility of additional

reductions in VOC limits. However,

contrary to some commenters’

assertions, the EPA would not

necessarily impose future requirements

as a result of any study. A study could

indicate that further regulation of

architectural coatings is unwarranted.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48873

The EPA appreciates the willingness

expressed by many commenters to

participate in a joint study. The

effectiveness of any study is highly

dependent on a spirit of openness and

cooperation between all affected parties.

In order to determine the potential for

useful results from a second study, the

EPA will solicit input from industry

representatives and other interested

parties on the timing, scope, and

content of the study. Decisions

concerning the additional study will be

made on the basis of this input.

Some commenters questioned the

EPA’s authority to engage in any future

regulatory initiatives involving

architectural coatings. These

commenters did not identify any

statutory language in section 183(e) of

the Act that supports this position. The

EPA believes that section 183(e)

explicitly authorizes the EPA to use

‘‘any system or systems of regulation’’

that are appropriate to achieve the goals

of the statute, and the EPA’s explicit

directive is to require BAC. Nothing in

section 183(e) explicitly or implicitly

prohibits the EPA from updating or

amending the regulations in the future,

if appropriate. The EPA has striven to

promulgate the appropriate regulations

given the current state of technology.

Future innovation in technology may

justify reexamination of the regulations,

and the EPA wishes to encourage such

innovation in order to achieve the

objectives of section 183(e).

Q. Administrative Provisions

Since proposal, the EPA has added

several new sections to the regulation to

aid in implementing the rule. These

administrative provisions do not add

any new compliance requirements to

the rule, and pose no additional impacts

on regulated entities. The EPA has

added the new requirements to provide

consistent procedures for

implementation. The provisions that

were added are as follows: (1) Addresses

of the EPA Regional Offices, (2) State

Authority, (3) Circumvention, (4)

Incorporations by Reference, and (5)

Availability of Information and

Confidentiality.

The section on addresses specifies the

mailing addresses of the EPA Regional

Offices for the submittal of required

reports. The States and territories served

by the various Regional Offices are

listed in this section as well. The

appropriate Regional Office for purposes

of reporting would be that Regional

Office which serves the State or territory

in which the regulated entity’s corporate

headquarters are physically located.

The section on State authority

clarifies that this rule in no way

prevents States from adopting more

stringent regulations. The section on

circumvention prohibits regulated

entities from doing anything to conceal

what would otherwise be

noncompliance, by such means as

falsifying records of product

formulation or VOC content. The

section on incorporations by reference

includes as part of the rule the ASTM

methods and technical standards of the

American Architectural Manufacturer’s

Association that are cited by reference.

Finally, the section on availability of

information and confidentiality clarifies

the type of information that is available

to the public, and provides for the

confidential handling of any proprietary

information that may be submitted to

the EPA in response to the rule.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

considered by the EPA in the

development of this rule. The docket is

a dynamic file, since material is added

throughout the rulemaking

development. The docketing system is

intended to allow members of the public

to identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

rulemaking process. Along with the

statement of basis and purpose of the

proposed and promulgated standards

and the EPA responses to significant

comments, the contents of the docket

will serve as the record in case of

judicial review [see 42 U.S.C.

7607(d)(7)(A)].

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this rule have been

submitted for approval to OMB under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501, et seq. An Information Collection

Request (ICR) document has been

prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1750.02)

and a copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division, United States Environmental

Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460, or by

calling (202) 260–2740. The information

requirements are not effective until

OMB approves them.

The information collections required

under this rule are needed as part of the

overall compliance and enforcement

program. The information will be used

by the EPA to identify the regulated

entities subject to the rule and to ensure

their compliance with the rule. The

recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling

requirements are mandatory and are

being established under sections 114

and 183(e) of the Act. All information

submitted to the EPA for which a claim

of confidentiality is made will be

safeguarded according to the EPA

policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1,

Part 2, Subpart B-Confidentiality of

Information (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR

36902, September 1, 1976, as amended

by: 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43

FR 42251, September 28, 1978; and 44

FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

The total annual reporting and

recordkeeping burden for this

information collection averaged over the

first 3 years is estimated to be 65,851

hours per year. The total annualized

recordkeeping and reporting costs for

this rule are estimated to be $2,452,683.

This is the estimated burden for the

estimated 500 respondents (i.e.,

architectural coating manufacturers).

The average estimated burden, per

respondent, is 132 hours per year. The

total reporting and recordkeeping

burden for an individual respondent

will vary depending on the compliance

option chosen. Respondents meeting the

VOC content limits will have the lowest

reporting and recordkeeping burden.

Manufacturers and importers that

choose the option of calculating an

‘‘adjusted-VOC content’’ (for recycled

coatings), paying an exceedance fee, or

exercising the tonnage exemption will

have a higher reporting and

recordkeeping burden. The final rule

requires an initial one-time notification

from each respondent. Respondents

whose coating products have a VOC

content that is less than or equal to the

VOC content limits have no periodic

reporting requirements. Respondents

using the recycled coatings provision

must keep records and submit annual

reports. Respondents taking advantage

of the tonnage exemption must file

annual reports and must maintain

records for the coatings being claimed

under the exemption. Respondents

paying an exceedance fee must submit

reports on an annual basis. These

manufacturers must also keep records

for each coating product on which fees

are paid.

Burden in this context means the total

time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate,

maintain, retain, disclose, or provide

information to or for a Federal agency.

This includes the time needed to: (1)

Review instructions; (2) 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; (3) adjust

the existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and
48874 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

requirements; (4) train personnel to be

able to respond to a collection of

information; (5) search data sources; (6)

complete and review the collection of

information; and (7) 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 the EPA’s regulations are

listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR

chapter 15.

Send comments on the EPA’s need for

this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division, United

States Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20460, and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20503, marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer

for EPA.’’ Comments are requested

within October 13, 1998. Include the

ICR number in any correspondence.

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine whether a regulatory action is

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Order defines

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive

Order, the EPA has determined that this

final rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under criterion (4) above, based

on the novel use of economic incentives

(an exceedance fee) for this industry.

Therefore, the EPA submitted this

action to OMB for review. Any changes

made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations are documented in

the public record.

D. Executive Order 12875

To reduce the burden of Federal

regulations on States and small

governments, the President issued

Executive Order 12875 on October 26,

1993, entitled Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership. This

Executive Order requires agencies to

assess the effects of regulations that are

not required by statute and that create

mandates upon State, local, or tribal

governments. In compliance with

Executive Order 12875, the EPA has

involved State and local governments in

the development of this rule. State and

local air pollution control agencies

participated in the regulatory

negotiation and have also submitted

comments after proposal for

consideration in developing the final

rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996

The RFA of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et

seq.), as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), requires the EPA to

give special consideration to the effect

of Federal regulations on small entities

and to consider regulatory options that

might mitigate any such impacts. The

EPA is required to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis, including

consideration of regulatory options for

reducing any significant impacts, unless

the EPA determines that a rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The EPA prepared analyses to support

both the proposed and final rules to

meet the requirements of the RFA as

modified by the SBREFA. The EPA

undertook these analyses because of the

large presence of small entities in the

architectural coatings industry and

because the EIA indicated that there

could be a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities

if mitigating regulatory options were not

adopted for the rule. After evaluating

public comment on the proposed

mitigating options, the EPA made a

number of changes to the proposed rule

to further mitigate the rule’s small

business impacts. As a result, the EPA

believes that it is highly unlikely that

the rule will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. However, in

light of the EPA’s inability to quantify

the effect of all of the mitigating

provisions included in the rule, the EPA

has elected to conduct a regulatory

flexibility analysis and to prepare a

SBREFA compliance guide to eliminate

any potential dispute about whether the

EPA has fulfilled SBREFA requirements.

The EPA expects to complete the

compliance guide by the end of 1998.

The analysis supporting the proposed

rule was published in the report titled,

‘‘Economic Impact and Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis of Air Pollution

Regulations: Architectural and

Industrial Maintenance Coatings,’’ (June

1996). For the purpose of the analysis,

the EPA considered small

manufacturers to be firms with less than

$10 million of total gross annual

revenues from the sale of architectural

coatings and less than $50 million in

total gross annual revenues from all

products. The EPA proposed this

definition of small entity for the reasons

stated in the September 3, 1996 Federal

Register (61 FR 46411) and has

determined that this definition is

appropriate. The Small Business

Administration has concurred on this

definition of small entity.

Using this definition, one-third of the

116 firms for which the EPA has survey

data are classified as small. There are

approximately 500 total manufacturers.

Since the EPA does not have data to

indicate the total number of small firms

producing architectural coatings, the

EPA assumes as a conservative estimate

that the unsurveyed manufacturer

population (i.e., the remaining 384

manufacturers) are all small, and

consequently, all product volume not

captured by the 116 manufacturers

surveyed is manufactured by small

firms. Using this assumption, the EPA

conducted an analysis that assumed 84

percent of the estimated 500

architectural coating producers, i.e., 420

firms, are small entities.

Based on an analysis of the survey

data at proposal, the EPA recognized the

fact that small businesses tend to

produce products in specialized or

niche markets and also to produce

products that tend to have higher than

industry-average VOC contents within

less specialized markets. In addition,

small manufacturers’ revenue and

production levels are generally lower

than the average for all manufacturers.

One benefit of their smaller production

levels is that small manufacturers have

a greater ability to adjust quickly to

changes in markets. However, because

the costs to reformulate are fixed for all

levels of production, and small

manufacturers have lower than average

production levels, the costs for small

manufacturers to reformulate represents

a greater share of baseline costs and

revenues. Without any rule provisions

designed to mitigate impacts on small
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48875

manufacturers’ niche markets and

smaller production levels, there is some

indication that a disproportionate

impact on small businesses could occur.

At proposal, the EPA included

categories and limits to preserve niche

product markets. In addition, to

evaluate whether further steps were still

needed to accommodate niche market

coatings, the EPA requested that

commenters identify any additional

specialty coatings which would not

comply with VOC content requirements.

The EPA also requested comment on

whether to include an ‘‘exceedance fee’’

which would allow companies the

option of paying a fee, based on the

amount that VOC content limits are

exceeded, instead of achieving the limit.

In addition, the EPA requested comment

on the concept of a low volume cut-off,

under which a coating may be exempt

from regulation. The analysis prepared

to support the final rule builds upon the

analysis performed for the proposal and

takes into consideration compliance

options the EPA has added to the final

rule.

Due to confidentiality considerations

associated with the survey data

provided by the industry trade

association, the EPA could not derive

compliance cost as a percentage of

revenues for each small manufacturer

included in the survey population. This

is because the aggregated information

provided to the EPA did not have sales

and VOC content information linked to

any particular small manufacturer. The

data compiled all responses for small

manufacturers without any indication of

firm name. Therefore, individual

product VOC content information is

available, and total revenues of all firms

responding to the survey as a small

business is available, but no method

exists for the EPA to connect each

response to an individual firm for a

calculation of actual firm-level cost-torevenues ratios. Absent exact

information for each firm, the EPA

performed the analysis based upon an

average small business, using reasonable

assumptions based upon the available

data. In lieu of firm-level measures, the

analysis presents an average cost/

revenue ratio for a typical small firm

based on the survey data.

The analysis has several other

limitations. Although the EPA included

specialty niche market categories in the

rule, based on the data available to the

EPA, there was no way to account for

the extent to which these additional

categories mitigated impacts. For

example, the EPA’s proposal included

the following categories: ‘‘impacted

immersion coatings’’, ‘‘flow coatings’’,

and ‘‘nonferrous ornamental metal

lacquer and surface coatings’’ which

likely would have been reported in the

survey under the broader ‘‘industrial

maintenance’’ category. The analysis

would likely overestimate impacts on

some of the markets represented in the

survey due to the inability to account

for the subset niche markets within

these surveyed categories for which the

EPA created additional categories.

Additionally, the EPA’s analysis

assumes that manufacturers bear the full

cost of each reformulation. Since the

VOC content limits in the rule reflect

available resin technologies, the EPA

expects that the cost to comply for those

manufacturers needing to reformulate

their higher VOC content coatings will

be partially reduced through the

assistance of resin manufacturers/

suppliers. Upon request, most resin

suppliers are willing to share

information and sample low VOC

content formulations with interested

paint manufacturers, both large and

small. For this reason, the analysis may

overestimate the impact of

reformulation costs. A further

consideration is that the EPA’s analysis

is based on 1990 data, and there has

been much technological progress in the

past 8 years in addition to new State

regulations with requirements similar to

the EPA’s rule (e.g., Massachusetts,

Kentucky, and Oregon).

In response to public comments, the

EPA added 7 coating categories and

increased the VOC content limits for 4

coating categories, as well as the

exceedance fee provision and a

provision which would enable each

manufacturer to claim as exempt a

specified amount of VOC (known as the

tonnage exemption). The EPA also

added an extended period of

compliance after promulgation to allow

additional time for reformulations. The

EPA expects these provisions to mitigate

rule impacts on small businesses’ low

production volumes and to allow for the

preservation of several niche markets.

However, based on the limited data

available to the EPA, only the mitigating

impact of exceedance fees can be

quantified.

The EPA first conducted the analysis

without incorporating the quantifiable

mitigating impacts of compliance

options available in the final rule. The

analysis shows that when reformulation

is the only option for compliance, the

cost/revenue ratio is 2.5 percent on

average. When the alternative

compliance options of the exceedance

fee or product withdrawal are

considered, the ratio decreases to 2

percent. This ratio would likely

decrease further if the cost effects of the

additional niche product categories, use

of the tonnage exemption, and reduction

in cost to reformulate due to resin

supplier assistance could be specifically

quantified.

The analysis in the EIA suggests that

a large percentage of small firms will

opt for one of the alternative compliance

strategies in lieu of reformulation. For

some of the products listed in the

survey as produced by a small

manufacturer, the EPA anticipates that

it would be less costly for a firm to

utilize the exemption provision, pay the

exceedance fee, or withdraw a product

(and forego profits on the product)

rather than to reformulate. Although the

lack of data at the firm level does not

allow for an approximation of the use of

the exemption, the analysis suggests

that 35.5 percent of the small business

products in the survey that exceed the

standards will be maintained at current

VOC content levels through the

payment of the exceedance fee, 4

percent will be removed from the

market, and 60.5 percent of the products

will undergo reformulation. The

availability of the alternative

compliance strategies reduces the cost

to small manufacturers by 23 percent (or

more if the effect of the tonnage

exemption and the portion of

reformulation cost borne by resin

manufacturers/suppliers could be

quantified).

Based on the findings of the analysis

and consideration of additional

provisions which are designed to

mitigate impacts, the EPA believes that

it is highly unlikely that the rule will

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The EPA believes that these measures

adopted in the final rule will

significantly mitigate the economic

impacts on small businesses that might

otherwise have occurred.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. Under section 205, the

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires the

EPA to establish a plan for informing

and advising any small governments
48876 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

that may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

Based upon the analysis presented in

the EIA, the EPA has determined that

the action promulgated today does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, in any one year.

Therefore, the requirements of sections

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act do not apply to this action.

The EPA has likewise determined that

the final rule does not include

regulatory requirements that would

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Thus, today’s action is not

subject to the requirements of section

203 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.

G. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the

SBREFA 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 this rule and

other required information to the United

States Senate, the United States House

of Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication of the rule in the Federal

Register. A Major rule cannot take effect

until 60 days after it is published in the

Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2). This rule will be effective

September 11, 1998.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (the NTTAA), Pub. L. No.

104–113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),

directs the EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures,

business practices, etc.) that are

developed or adopted by voluntary

consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA

requires the EPA to provide Congress,

through OMB, explanations when the

EPA decides not to use available and

applicable voluntary consensus

standards.

In the case of this rule, the proposed

rule required the use of Method 24 to

determine VOC content of coatings. This

method is a compilation of existing

voluntary consensus methods to

determine the volatile matter content,

water content, and density of coatings.

In response to the proposed rule, the

EPA received no comments pertaining

to the use of additional voluntary

consensus standards rather than the

proposed Method 24, either during or

after the comment period. In preparing

the final rule, however, the EPA has

investigated to determine the

availability of any other existing

voluntary consensus standards for use

in lieu of Method 24.

The EPA has searched for additional

voluntary consensus standards that

might be applicable. The search

included use of the National Standards

System Network, an automated service

provided by the American National

Standards Institute for identifying

available national and international

standards. The EPA has not identified

any voluntary consensus standards that

are not presently included in Method 24

and that would result in equivalent

results. The EPA did identify another

voluntary consensus method (ASTM

Method D 3960) that provides

instructions for calculating VOC content

in many different units. Because this

other method does not specify which

units to use, it may result in

inconsistent applications of the

procedure and could make the standard

more difficult to enforce. Consequently,

the EPA determined that this other

voluntary consensus method would be

impractical to adopt. In addition, the

EPA believes that it is appropriate to use

Method 24 both because it has proven

reliable and practical to achieve the

goals of reducing VOC and because the

EPA wishes to foster uniformity in

testing nationwide. Accordingly, the

EPA has determined that Method 24

constitutes the appropriate method for

determining product compliance under

this final rule.

I. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045 applies to any

rule that the EPA determines (1) is

economically significant as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

for which the environmental health or

safety risk addressed by the rule has a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the EPA must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the EPA.

This final rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it is not an economically

significant regulatory action as defined

by Executive Order 12866, and it does

not address an environmental health or

safety risk that would have a

disproportionate effect on children.

Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, the

EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that

significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or the EPA provides to the

Office of Management and Budget a

description of the prior consultation and

communications the agency has had

with representatives of tribal

governments and a statement supporting

the need to issue the regulation. In

addition, Executive Order 13084

requires the EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Information available to

the Administrator does not indicate that

this action will have any effect on

Indian tribal governments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Architectural

coatings, Consumer and commercial

products, Incorporation by reference,

Ozone, volatile organic compound.

Dated: August 14, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 59 of title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 59—NATIONAL VOLATILE

ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER AND

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS

1. The authority citation for part 59

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2. Part 59 is amended by adding

subpart D to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48877

Subpart D—National Volatile Organic

Compound Emission Standards for

Architectural Coatings

Secs.

59.400 Applicability and compliance dates.

59.401 Definitions.

59.402 VOC content limits.

59.403 Exceedance fees.

59.404 Tonnage exemption.

59.405 Container labeling requirements.

59.406 Compliance provisions.

59.407 Recordkeeping requirements.

59.408 Reporting requirements.

59.409 Addresses of EPA Regional Offices.

59.410 State authority.

59.411 Circumvention.

59.412 Incorporations by reference.

59.413 Availability of information and

confidentiality.

Appendix A to subpart D—Determination of

Volatile Matter Content of Methacrylate

Multicomponent Coatings Used as

Traffic Marking Coatings

Table 1 to Subpart D—Volatile Organic

Compound (VOC) Content Limits for

Architectural Coatings

Subpart D—National Volatile Organic

Compound Emission Standards for

Architectural Coatings

§ 59.400 Applicability and compliance

dates.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs

(b) and (c) of this section, the provisions

of this subpart apply to each

architectural coating manufactured on

or after September 13, 1999 for sale or

distribution in the United States.

(b) For any architectural coating

registered under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7

U.S.C. Section 136, et seq.), the

provisions of this subpart apply to any

such coating manufactured on or after

March 13, 2000 for sale or distribution

in the United States.

(c) The provisions of this subpart do

not apply to any architectural coating

described in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(c)(5) of this section:

(1) A coating that is manufactured for

sale or distribution to architectural

coating markets outside the United

States; such a coating must not be sold

or distributed within the United States

as an architectural coating.

(2) A coating that is manufactured

prior to September 13, 1999.

(3) A coating that is sold in a

nonrefillable aerosol container.

(4) A coating that is collected and

redistributed at a paint exchange.

(5) A coating that is sold in a

container with a volume of one liter or

less.

§ 59.401 Definitions.

Act means the Clean Air Act (42

U.S.C. 7401, et seq., as amended by Pub.

L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399).

Adhesive means any chemical

substance that is applied for the purpose

of bonding two surfaces together other

than by mechanical means. Under this

subpart, adhesives are not considered

coatings.

Administrator means the

Administrator of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.

EPA) or an authorized representative.

Antenna coating means a coating

formulated and recommended for

application to equipment and associated

structural appurtenances that are used

to receive or transmit electromagnetic

signals.

Anti-fouling coating means a coating

formulated and recommended for

application to submerged stationary

structures and their appurtenances to

prevent or reduce the attachment of

marine or freshwater biological

organisms, including, but not limited to,

coatings registered with the EPA under

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section 136,

et seq.) and nontoxic foul-release

coatings.

Anti-graffiti coating means a clear or

opaque high performance coating

formulated and recommended for

application to interior and exterior

walls, doors, partitions, fences, signs,

and murals to deter adhesion of graffiti

and to resist repeated scrubbing and

exposure to harsh solvents, cleansers, or

scouring agents used to remove graffiti.

Appurtenance means any accessory to

a stationary structure, whether installed

or detached at the proximate site of

installation, including but not limited

to: bathroom and kitchen fixtures;

cabinets; concrete forms; doors;

elevators; fences; hand railings; heating

equipment, air conditioning equipment,

and other fixed mechanical equipment

or stationary tools; lamp posts;

partitions; pipes and piping systems;

rain gutters and downspouts; stairways,

fixed ladders, catwalks, and fire

escapes; and window screens.

Architectural coating means a coating

recommended for field application to

stationary structures and their

appurtenances, to portable buildings, to

pavements, or to curbs. This definition

excludes adhesives and coatings

recommended by the manufacturer or

importer solely for shop applications or

solely for application to non-stationary

structures, such as airplanes, ships,

boats, and railcars.

Below-ground wood preservative

means a coating that is formulated and

recommended to protect below-ground

wood from decay or insect attack and

that is registered with the EPA under

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section 136,

et seq.).

Bituminous coating and mastic means

a coating or mastic formulated and

recommended for roofing, pavement

sealing, or waterproofing that

incorporates bitumens. Bitumens are

black or brown materials including, but

not limited to, asphalt, tar, pitch, and

asphaltite that are soluble in carbon

disulfide, consist mainly of

hydrocarbons, and are obtained from

natural deposits of asphalt or as

residues from the distillation of crude

petroleum or coal.

Bond breaker means a coating

formulated and recommended for

application between layers of concrete

to prevent a freshly poured top layer of

concrete from bonding to the layer over

which it is poured.

Calcimine recoater means a flat

solventborne coating formulated and

recommended specifically for recoating

calcimine-painted ceilings and other

calcimine-painted substrates.

Chalkboard resurfacer means a

coating formulated and recommended

for application to chalkboards to restore

a suitable surface for writing with chalk.

Clear means allowing light to pass

through, so that the substrate may be

distinctly seen.

Coating means a material applied

onto or impregnated into a substrate for

protective, decorative, or functional

purposes. Such materials include, but

are not limited to, paints, varnishes,

sealants, inks, maskants, and temporary

coatings. Protective, decorative, or

functional materials that consist only of

solvents, acids, bases, or any

combination of these substances are not

considered coatings for the purposes of

this subpart.

Colorant means a concentrated

pigment dispersion of water, solvent,

and/or binder that is added to an

architectural coating in a paint store or

at the site of application to produce the

desired color.

Concrete curing compound means a

coating formulated and recommended

for application to freshly placed

concrete to retard the evaporation of

water.

Concrete curing and sealing

compound means a liquid membraneforming compound marketed and sold

solely for application to concrete

surfaces to reduce the loss of water

during the hardening process and to seal

old and new concrete providing

resistance against alkalis, acids, and

ultraviolet light, and provide adhesion

promotion qualities. The coating must

meet the requirements of American

Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) C 1315–95, Standard
48878 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Specification for Liquid MembraneForming Compounds Having Special

Properties for Curing and Sealing

Concrete (incorporated by reference—

see § 59.412 of this subpart).

Concrete protective coating means a

high-build coating, formulated and

recommended, for application in a

single coat over concrete, plaster, or

other cementitious surfaces. These

coatings are formulated to be primerless,

one-coat systems that can be applied

over form oils and/or uncured concrete.

These coatings prevent spalling of

concrete in freezing temperatures by

providing long-term protection from

water and chloride ion intrusion.

Concrete surface retarder means a

mixture of retarding ingredients such as

extender pigments, primary pigments,

resin, and solvent that interact

chemically with the cement to prevent

hardening on the surface where the

retarder is applied, allowing the

retarded mix of cement and sand at the

surface to be washed away to create an

exposed aggregate finish.

Container means the individual

receptacle that holds the coating for

storage and/or sale or distribution.

Conversion varnish means a clear acid

curing coating with an alkyd or other

resin blended with amino resins and

supplied as a single component or twocomponent product. Conversion

varnishes produce a hard, durable, clear

finish designed for professional

application to wood flooring. The film

formation is the result of an acidcatalyzed condensation reaction,

affecting a transetherification at the

reactive ethers of the amino resins.

Dry fog coating means a coating

formulated and recommended only for

spray application such that overspray

droplets dry before subsequent contact

with incidental surfaces in the vicinity

of the surface coating activity.

Exempt compounds means specific

organic compounds that are not

considered volatile organic compounds

(VOC) due to negligible photochemical

reactivity. The exempt compounds are

specified in 40 CFR 51.100.

Exterior coating means an

architectural coating formulated and

recommended for use in conditions

exposed to the weather.

Extreme high durability coating

means an air dry coating, including a

fluoropolymer-based coating, that is

formulated and recommended for

touchup of precoated architectural

aluminum extrusions and panels and to

ensure the protection of architectural

subsections, and that meets the

weathering requirements of American

Architectural Manufacturer’s

Association (AAMA) specification 605–

98, Voluntary Specification Performance

Requirements and Test Procedures for

High Performance Organic Coatings on

Aluminum Extrusions and Panels,

Section 7.9 (incorporated by reference—

see § 59.412 of this subpart).

Faux-finishing/glazing means a

coating used for wet-in-wet techniques,

such as faux woodgrain, faux marble,

and simulated aging, which require the

finish to remain wet for an extended

period of time.

Fire-retardant/resistive coating means

a coating formulated and recommended

to retard ignition and flame spread, or

to delay melting or structural weakening

due to high heat, that has been fire

tested and rated by a certified laboratory

for use in bringing buildings and

construction materials into compliance

with Federal, State, and local building

code requirements.

Flat coating means a coating that is

not defined under any other definition

in this section and that registers gloss

less than 15 on an 85-degree meter or

less than 5 on a 60-degree meter

according to ASTM Method D 523–89,

Standard Test Method for Specular

Gloss (incorporated by reference—see

§ 59.412 of this subpart).

Floor coating means an opaque

coating with a high degree of abrasion

resistance that is formulated and

recommended for application to flooring

including, but not limited to, decks,

porches, and steps in a residential

setting.

Flow coating means a coating that is

used by electric power companies or

their subcontractors to maintain the

protective coating systems present on

utility transformer units.

Form release compound means a

coating formulated and recommended

for application to a concrete form to

prevent the freshly placed concrete from

bonding to the form. The form may

consist of wood, metal, or some material

other than concrete.

Graphic arts coating or sign paint

means a coating formulated and

recommended for hand-application by

artists using brush or roller techniques

to indoor or outdoor signs (excluding

structural components) and murals

including lettering enamels, poster

colors, copy blockers, and bulletin

enamels.

Heat reactive coating means a high

performance phenolic-based coating

requiring a minimum temperature of

191 °C (375 °F) to 204 °C (400 °F) to

obtain complete polymerization or cure.

These coatings are formulated and

recommended for commercial and

industrial use to protect substrates from

degradation and maintain product

purity in which one or more of the

following extreme conditions exist:

(1) Continuous or repeated immersion

exposure of 90 to 98 percent sulfuric

acid, or oleum;

(2) Continuous or repeated immersion

exposure to strong organic solvents;

(3) Continuous or repeated immersion

exposure to petroleum processing at

high temperatures and pressures; and

(4) Continuous or repeated immersion

exposure to food or pharmaceutical

products which may or may not require

high temperature sterilization.

High temperature coating means a

high performance coating formulated

and recommended for application to

substrates exposed continuously or

intermittently to temperatures above

202°C (400°F).

Impacted immersion coating means a

high performance maintenance coating

formulated and recommended for

application to steel structures subject to

immersion in turbulent, debris-laden

water. These coatings are specifically

resistant to high-energy impact damage

caused by floating ice or debris.

Imported means that a coating

manufactured outside the United States

has been brought into the United States

for sale or distribution.

Importer means a person that brings

architectural coatings into the United

States for sale or distribution within the

United States. This definition does not

include any person that brings a coating

into the United States and repackages

the coating by transferring it from one

container to another, provided the

coating VOC content is not altered and

the coating is not sold or distributed to

another party. For purposes of applying

this definition, divisions of a company,

subsidiaries, and parent companies are

considered to be a single importer.

Industrial maintenance coating means

a high performance architectural

coating, including primers, sealers,

undercoaters, intermediate coats, and

topcoats formulated and recommended

for application to substrates exposed to

one or more of the following extreme

environmental conditions in an

industrial, commercial, or institutional

setting:

(1) Immersion in water, wastewater,

or chemical solutions (aqueous and

nonaqueous solutions), or chronic

exposure of interior surfaces to moisture

condensation;

(2) Acute or chronic exposure to

corrosive, caustic, or acidic agents, or to

chemicals, chemical fumes, or chemical

mixtures or solutions;

(3) Repeated exposure to temperatures

above 120 °C (250 °F);

(4) Repeated (frequent) heavy

abrasion, including mechanical wear
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48879

and repeated (frequent) scrubbing with

industrial solvents, cleansers, or

scouring agents; or

(5) Exterior exposure of metal

structures and structural components.

Interior clear wood sealer means a

low viscosity coating formulated and

recommended for sealing and preparing

porous wood by penetrating the wood

and creating a uniform smooth substrate

for a finish coat of paint or varnish.

Interior coating means an

architectural coating formulated and

recommended for use in conditions not

exposed to natural weathering.

Label means any written, printed, or

graphic matter affixed to, applied to,

attached to, blown into, formed, molded

into, embossed on, or appearing upon

any architectural coating container for

purposes of branding, identifying, or

giving information with respect to the

product, use of the product, or contents

of the container.

Lacquer means a clear or pigmented

wood finish, including clear lacquer

sanding sealers, formulated with

cellulosic or synthetic resins to dry by

evaporation without chemical reaction

and to provide a solid, protective film.

Lacquer stains are considered stains, not

lacquers.

Low solids means containing 0.12

kilogram or less of solids per liter (1

pound or less of solids per gallon) of

coating material and for which at least

half of the volatile component is water.

Magnesite cement coating means a

coating formulated and recommended

for application to magnesite cement

decking to protect the magnesite cement

substrate from erosion by water.

Manufactured means that coating

ingredients have been combined and

put into containers that have been

labeled and made available for sale or

distribution.

Manufacturer means a person that

produces, packages, or repackages

architectural coatings for sale or

distribution in the United States. A

person that repackages architectural

coatings as part of a paint exchange, and

does not produce, package, or repackage

any other architectural coatings for sale

or distribution in the United States, is

excluded from this definition. A person

that repackages a coating by transferring

it from one container to another is

excluded from this definition, provided

the coating VOC content is not altered

and the coating is not sold or distributed

to another party. For purposes of

applying this definition, divisions of a

company, subsidiaries, and parent

companies are considered to be a single

manufacturer.

Mastic texture coating means a

coating formulated and recommended to

cover holes and minor cracks and to

conceal surface irregularities, and is

applied in a single coat of at least 10

mils (0.010 inch) dry film thickness.

Metallic pigmented coating means a

nonbituminous coating containing at

least 0.048 kilogram of metallic pigment

per liter of coating (0.4 pound per

gallon) including, but not limited to,

zinc pigment.

Multi-colored coating means a coating

that is packaged in a single container

and exhibits more than one color when

applied.

Nonferrous ornamental metal

lacquers and surface protectant means a

clear coating formulated and

recommended for application to

ornamental architectural metal

substrates (bronze, stainless steel,

copper, brass, and anodized aluminum)

to prevent oxidation, corrosion, and

surface degradation.

Nonflat coating means a coating that

is not defined under any other

definition in this section and that

registers a gloss of 15 or greater on an

85-degree meter or 5 or greater on a 60-

degree meter according to ASTM

Method D 523–89, Standard Test

Method for Specular Gloss

(incorporated by reference—see § 59.412

of this subpart).

Nuclear coating means a protective

coating formulated and recommended to

seal porous surfaces such as steel (or

concrete) that otherwise would be

subject to intrusion by radioactive

materials. These coatings must be

resistant to long-term (service life)

cumulative radiation exposure (ASTM

Method D 4082–89, Standard Test

Method for Effects of Gamma Radiation

on Coatings for Use in Light-Water

Nuclear Power Plants (incorporated by

reference—see § 59.412 of this subpart)),

relatively easy to decontaminate, and

resistant to various chemicals to which

the coatings are likely to be exposed

(ASTM Method D 3912–80 (Reapproved

1989), Standard Test Method for

Chemical Resistance of Coatings Used in

Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants

(incorporated by reference—see § 59.412

of this subpart)).

Opaque means not allowing light to

pass through, so that the substrate is

concealed from view.

Paint exchange means a program in

which consumers, excluding

architectural coating manufacturers and

importers, may drop off and pick up

usable post-consumer architectural

coatings in order to reduce hazardous

waste.

Person means an individual,

corporation, partnership, association,

State municipality, political subdivision

of a State, and any agency, department,

or instrumentality of the United States

and any officer, agent, or employee

thereof.

Pigmented means containing finely

ground insoluble powder used to

provide one or more of the following

properties: color; corrosion inhibition;

conductivity; fouling resistance;

opacity; or improved mechanical

properties.

Post-consumer coating means an

architectural coating that has previously

been purchased by a consumer or

distributed to a consumer but not

applied, and reenters the marketplace to

be purchased by or distributed to a

consumer. Post-consumer coatings

include, but are not limited to, coatings

collected during hazardous waste

collection programs for repackaging or

blending with virgin coating materials.

Pretreatment wash primer means a

primer that contains a minimum of 0.5

percent acid, by weight, that is

formulated and recommended for

application directly to bare metal

surfaces in thin films to provide

corrosion resistance and to promote

adhesion of subsequent topcoats.

Primer means a coating formulated

and recommended for application to a

substrate to provide a firm bond

between the substrate and subsequent

coatings.

Quick-dry enamel means a nonflat

coating that has the following

characteristics:

(1) Is capable of being applied directly

from the container under normal

conditions with ambient temperatures

between 16 and 27°C (60 and 80°F);

(2) When tested in accordance with

ASTM Method D 1640–83 (Reapproved

1989), Standard Test Methods for

Drying, Curing, or Film Formation of

Organic Coatings at Room Temperature

(incorporated by reference—see

§ 59.412), sets to touch in 2 hours or

less, is tack free in 4 hours or less, and

dries hard in 8 hours or less by the

mechanical test method; and

(3) Has a dried film gloss of 70 or

above on a 60 degree meter.

Quick-dry primer, sealer, and

undercoater means a primer, sealer, or

undercoater that is dry to the touch in

a 1⁄2 hour and can be recoated in 2 hours

when tested in accordance with ASTM

Method D 1640–83 (Reapproved 1989),

Standard Test Methods for Drying,

Curing, or Film Formation of Organic

Coatings at Room Temperature

(incorporated by reference—see § 59.412

of this subpart).

Recycled coating means an

architectural coating that contains some

portion of post-consumer coating.

Recycled architectural coatings include,

but are not limited to, post-consumer
48880 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

coatings that have been repackaged or

blended with virgin coating materials.

Repackage means to transfer an

architectural coating from one container

to another.

Repair and maintenance

thermoplastic coating means an

industrial maintenance coating that has

vinyl or chlorinated rubber as a primary

resin and is recommended solely for the

repair of existing vinyl or chlorinated

rubber coatings without the full removal

of the existing coating system.

Roof coating means a coating

formulated and recommended for

application to exterior roofs for the

primary purpose of preventing

penetration of the substrate by water or

reflecting heat and reflecting ultraviolet

radiation. This does not include

thermoplastic rubber coatings.

Rust preventative coating means a

coating formulated and recommended

for use in preventing the corrosion of

ferrous metal surfaces in residential

situations.

Sanding sealer means a clear wood

coating formulated and recommended

for application to bare wood to seal the

wood and to provide a coat that can be

sanded to create a smooth surface. A

sanding sealer that also meets the

definition of a lacquer is not included

in this category, but is included in the

lacquer category.

Sealer means a coating formulated

and recommended for application to a

substrate for one or more of the

following purposes: to prevent

subsequent coatings from being

absorbed by the substrate; to prevent

harm to subsequent coatings by

materials in the substrate; to block

stains, odors, or efflorescence; to seal

fire, smoke, or water damage; or to

condition chalky surfaces.

Semitransparent means not

completely concealing the surface of a

substrate or its natural texture or grain

pattern.

Shellac means a clear or pigmented

coating formulated with natural resins

(except nitrocellulose resins) soluble in

alcohol (including, but not limited to,

the resinous secretions of the lac beetle,

Laciffer lacca). Shellacs dry by

evaporation without chemical reaction

and provide a quick-drying, solid

protective film that may be used for

blocking stains.

Shop application means that a coating

is applied to a product or a component

of a product in a factory, shop, or other

structure as part of a manufacturing,

production, or repairing process (e.g.,

original equipment manufacturing

coatings).

Stain means a coating that produces a

dry film with minimal coloring. This

includes lacquer stains.

Stain controller means a conditioner

or pretreatment coating formulated and

recommended for application to wood

prior to the application of a stain in

order to prevent uneven penetration of

the stain.

Swimming pool coating means a

coating formulated and recommended to

coat the interior of swimming pools and

to resist swimming pool chemicals.

Thermoplastic rubber coating and

mastic means a coating or mastic

formulated and recommended for

application to roofing or other structural

surfaces and that incorporates no less

than 40 percent by weight of

thermoplastic rubbers in the total resin

solids and may also contain other

ingredients including, but not limited

to, fillers, pigments, and modifying

resins.

Tint base means a coating to which

colorant is added in a paint store or at

the site of application to produce a

desired color.

Traffic marking coating means a

coating formulated and recommended

for marking and striping streets,

highways, or other traffic surfaces

including, but not limited to, curbs,

berms, driveways, parking lots,

sidewalks, and airport runways.

Undercoater means a coating

formulated and recommended to

provide a smooth surface for subsequent

coatings.

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.

Varnish means a clear or semitransparent coating, excluding lacquers

and shellacs, formulated and

recommended to provide a durable,

solid, protective film. Varnishes may

contain small amounts of pigment to

color a surface, or to control the final

sheen or gloss of the finish.

Volatile organic compound or VOC

means any organic compound that

participates in atmospheric

photochemical reactions, that is, any

organic compound other than those

which the Administrator designates as

having negligible photochemical

reactivity. For a list of compounds that

the Administrator has designated as

having negligible photochemical

reactivity, also referred to as exempt

compounds, refer to 40 CFR 51.100(s).

VOC content means the weight of

VOC per volume of coating, calculated

according to the procedures in

§ 59.406(a) of this subpart.

Waterproofing sealer and treatment

means a coating formulated and

recommended for application to a

porous substrate for the primary

purpose of preventing the penetration of

water.

Wood preservative means a coating

formulated and recommended to protect

exposed wood from decay or insect

attack, registered with the EPA under

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section 136,

et seq.).

Zone marking coating means a coating

formulated and recommended for

marking and striping driveways, parking

lots, sidewalks, curbs, or airport

runways, and sold or distributed in a

container with a volume of 19 liters (5

gallons) or less.

§ 59.402 VOC Content limits.

(a) Each manufacturer and importer of

any architectural coating subject to this

subpart shall ensure that the VOC

content of the coating does not exceed

the applicable limit in table 1 of this

subpart, except as provided in §§ 59.403

and 59.404 of this subpart.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section, if anywhere on the

container of any architectural coating, or

any label or sticker affixed to the

container, or in any sales, advertising, or

technical literature supplied by a

manufacturer or importer or anyone

acting on their behalf, any

representation is made that indicates

that the coating meets the definition of

more than one of the coating categories

listed in table 1 of this subpart, then the

most restrictive VOC content limit shall

apply.

(c) The provision in paragraph (b) of

this section does not apply to the

coatings described in paragraphs (c)(1)

through (c)(15) of this section.

(1) High temperature coatings that are

also recommended for use as metallic

pigmented coatings are subject only to

the VOC content limit in table 1 of this

subpart for high temperature coatings.

(2) Lacquer coatings (including

lacquer sanding sealers) that are also

recommended for use in other

architectural coating applications to

wood, except as stains, are subject only

to the VOC content limit in table 1 of

this subpart for lacquers.

(3) Metallic pigmented coatings that

are also recommended for use as roof

coatings, industrial maintenance

coatings, or primers are subject only to

the VOC content limit in table 1 of this

subpart for metallic pigmented coatings.

(4) Shellacs that are also

recommended for use as any other
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48881

architectural coating are subject only to

the VOC content limit in table 1 of this

subpart for shellacs.

(5) Fire-retardant/resistive coatings

that are also recommended for use as

any other architectural coating are

subject only to the VOC content limit in

table 1 of this subpart for fire-retardant/

resistive coatings.

(6) Pretreatment wash primers that are

also recommended for use as primers or

that meet the definition for industrial

maintenance coatings are subject only to

the VOC content limit in table 1 of this

subpart for pretreatment wash primers.

(7) Industrial maintenance coatings

that are also recommended for use as

primers, sealers, undercoaters, or mastic

texture coatings are subject only to the

VOC content limit in table 1 of this

subpart for industrial maintenance

coatings.

(8) Varnishes and conversion

varnishes that are recommended for use

as floor coatings are subject only to the

VOC content limit in table 1 of this

subpart for varnishes and conversion

varnishes, respectively.

(9) Anti-graffiti coatings, high

temperature coatings, impacted

immersion coatings, thermoplastic

rubber coatings and mastics, repair and

maintenance thermoplastic coatings,

and flow coatings that also meet the

definition for industrial maintenance

coatings are subject only to the VOC

content limit in table 1 of this subpart

for their respective categories (i.e., they

are not subject to the industrial

maintenance coatings VOC content limit

in table 1 of this subpart).

(10) Waterproofing sealers and

treatments that also meet the definition

for quick-dry sealers are subject only to

the VOC content limit in table 1 of this

subpart for waterproofing sealers and

treatments.

(11) Sanding sealers that also meet the

definition for quick-dry sealers are

subject only to the VOC content limit in

table 1 of this subpart for sanding

sealers.

(12) Nonferrous ornamental metal

lacquers and surface protectants that

also meet the definition for lacquers are

subject only to the VOC content limit in

table 1 of this subpart for nonferrous

ornamental metal lacquers and surface

protectants.

(13) Quick-dry primers, sealers, and

undercoaters that also meet the

definition for primers and undercoaters

are subject only to the VOC content

limit in table 1 of this subpart for quickdry primers, sealers, and undercoaters.

(14) Antenna coatings that also meet

the definition for industrial

maintenance coatings or primers are

subject only to the VOC content limit in

table 1 of this subpart for antenna

coatings.

(15) Bituminous coatings and mastics

that are recommended for use as any

other architectural coatings are subject

only to the VOC content limit in table

1 of this subpart for bituminous coatings

and mastics.

§ 59.403 Exceedance fees.

(a) Except as provided in § 59.404 of

this subpart, each manufacturer and

importer of any architectural coating

subject to the provisions of this subpart

may exceed the applicable VOC content

limit in table 1 of this subpart for the

coating if the manufacturer or importer

pays an annual exceedance fee. The

exceedance fee must be calculated using

the procedures in paragraphs (b) and (c)

of this section.

(b) The exceedance fee paid by a

manufacturer or importer, which is

equal to the sum of the applicable

exceedance fees for all coatings, must be

calculated using equation 1 as follows:

Annual Exceedance Fee = Coating Feec ( )1

c 1

n

=

∑

Where:

Annual Exceedance Fee=The total

annual exceedance fee for a

manufacturer or importer, in

dollars.

Coating Feec=The annual exceedance

fee for each coating (c), for which a

fee applies, in dollars.

n=number of coatings to which a fee

applies.

(c) The exceedance fee to be paid for

each coating must be determined using

equation 2 as follows:

Coating Fee = Fee Rate Excess VOC Volume Manufactured or Imported (2) c × ×

Where:

Fee Rate = The rate of $0.0028 per gram

of excess VOC.

Excess VOC = The VOC content of the

coating, or adjusted VOC content of

a recycled coating (if applicable), in

grams of VOC per liter of coating,

minus the applicable VOC content

limit from table 1 of this subpart

(that is, VOC content of the coating

minus VOC content limit).

Volume Manufactured or Imported =

The volume of the coating

manufactured or imported per year,

in liters, excluding any volume for

which a tonnage exemption is

claimed under § 59.404 of this

subpart.

(d) The exceedance fee shall be paid

no later than 2 months after the end of

the calendar year in which the coatings

are manufactured or imported, and shall

be sent to the Regional Office of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, as

listed in § 59.409 of this subpart, that

serves the State or Territory in which

the corporate headquarters of the

manufacturer or importer is located.

§ 59.404 Tonnage exemption.

(a) Each manufacturer and importer of

any architectural coating subject to the

provisions of this subpart may designate

a limited quantity of coatings to be

exempt from the VOC content limits in

table 1 of this subpart and the

exceedance fee provisions of § 59.403 of

this subpart, provided all of the

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)

through (a)(4) of this section are met.

(1) The total amount of VOC

contained in all the coatings selected for

exemption must be equal to or less than

23 megagrams (25 tons) for the period of

time from September 13, 1999 through

December 31, 2000; 18 megagrams (20

tons) in the year 2001; and 9 megagams

(10 tons) per year in the year 2002 and

each subsequent year. The amount of

VOC contained in each coating shall be

calculated using the procedure in

paragraph (b) of this section.

(2) The container labeling

requirements of § 59.405 of this subpart.

(3) The recordkeeping requirements of

§ 59.407(c) of this subpart.

(4) The reporting requirements of

§ 59.408(b), (e), and (f) of this subpart.

(b) Each manufacturer and importer

choosing to use the exemption
48882 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

described in paragraph (a) of this

section must use equations 3 and 4 to

calculate the total amount of VOC for

each time period the exemption is

elected.

Total VOC VOCc

c

n

=

=

∑

1

( ) 3

Where:

Total VOC = Total megagrams of VOC

contained in all coatings being

claimed under the exemption.

VOCc = The amount of VOC, in

megagrams, for each coating (c)

claimed under the exemption, as

computed by equation 4.

n = Number of coatings for which

exemption is claimed.

VOC (Volume Manufactured or Imported) VOC Content)/1 10 c

6 = ∗ × ( ( ) 4

Where:

Volume Manufactured or Imported =

Volume of the coating

manufactured or imported, in liters,

for the time period the exemption is

claimed.

VOC Content = VOC content of the

coating in grams of VOC per liter of

coating thinned to the

manufacturer’s maximum

recommendation, including the

volume of any water, exempt

compounds, or colorant added to

tint bases.

§ 59.405 Container labeling requirements.

(a) Each manufacturer and importer of

any architectural coating subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall provide

the information listed in paragraphs

(a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section on

the coating container in which the

coating is sold or distributed.

(1) The date the coating was

manufactured, or a date code

representing the date shall be indicated

on the label, lid, or bottom of the

container.

(2) A statement of the manufacturer’s

recommendation regarding thinning of

the coating shall be indicated on the

label or lid of the container. This

requirement does not apply to the

thinning of architectural coatings with

water. If thinning of the coating prior to

use is not necessary, the

recommendation must specify that the

coating is to be applied without

thinning.

(3) The VOC content of the coating as

described in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or

(a)(3)(ii) of this section shall be

indicated on the label or lid of the

container.

(i) The VOC content of the coating,

displayed in units of grams of VOC per

liter of coating; or

(ii) The VOC content limit in table 1

of this subpart with which the coating

is required to comply and does comply,

displayed in units of grams of VOC per

liter of coating.

(b) In addition to the information

specified in paragraph (a) of this

section, each manufacturer and importer

of any industrial maintenance coating

subject to the provisions of this subpart

shall display on the label or lid of the

container in which the coating is sold or

distributed one or more of the

descriptions listed in paragraphs (b)(1)

through (b)(4) of this section.

(1) ‘‘For industrial use only.’’

(2) ‘‘For professional use only.’’

(3) ‘‘Not for residential use’’ or ‘‘Not

intended for residential use.’’

(4) ‘‘This coating is intended for use

under the following condition(s):’’

(Include each condition in paragraphs

(b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(v) of this section

that applies to the coating.)

(i) Immersion in water, wastewater, or

chemical solutions (aqueous and

nonaqueous solutions), or chronic

exposure of interior surfaces to moisture

condensation;

(ii) Acute or chronic exposure to

corrosive, caustic, or acidic agents, or to

chemicals, chemical fumes, or chemical

mixtures or solutions;

(iii) Repeated exposure to

temperatures above 120° C (250° F);

(iv) Repeated (frequent) heavy

abrasion, including mechanical wear

and repeated (frequent) scrubbing with

industrial solvents, cleansers, or

scouring agents; or

(v) Exterior exposure of metal

structures and structural components.

(c) In addition to the information

specified in paragraph (a) of this

section, each manufacturer and importer

of any recycled coating who calculates

the VOC content using equations 7 and

8 in § 59.406(a)(3) of this subpart shall

include the following statement

indicating the post-consumer coating

content on the label or lid of the

container in which the coating is sold or

distributed: ‘‘CONTAINS NOT LESS

THAN X PERCENT BY VOLUME POSTCONSUMER COATING,’’ where ‘‘X’’ is

replaced by the percent by volume of

post-consumer architectural coating.

§ 59.406 Compliance provisions.

(a) For the purpose of determining

compliance with the VOC content limits

in table 1 of this subpart, each

manufacturer and importer shall

determine the VOC content of a coating

using the procedures described in

paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this

section, as appropriate. The VOC

content of a tint base shall be

determined without colorant that is

added after the tint base is

manufactured or imported.

(1) With the exception of low solids

stains and low solids wood

preservatives, determine the VOC

content in grams of VOC per liter of

coating thinned to the manufacturer’s

maximum recommendation, excluding

the volume of any water and exempt

compounds. Calculate the VOC content

using equation 5 as follows:

VOC Content

W W W

V V V

s w ec

m w ec

= ( ) − −

( ) − − ( ) 5

Where:

VOC content = grams of VOC per liter

of coating

Ws = weight of volatiles, in grams

Ww = weight of water, in grams

Wec = weight of exempt compounds, in

grams

Vm = volume of coating, in liters

Vw = volume of water, in liters

Vec = volume of exempt compounds, in

liters

(2) For low solids stains and low

solids wood preservatives, determine

the VOC content in units of grams of

VOC per liter of coating thinned to the

manufacturer’s maximum

recommendation, including the volume

of any water and exempt compounds.

Calculate the VOC content using

equation 6 as follows:

VOC Content

W W W

V ls

s w ec

m

= ( ) − −

( ) ( ) 6

Where:

VOC content 1s = the VOC content of a

low solids coating in grams of VOC

per liter of coating

Ws = weight of volatiles, in grams

Ww = weight of water, in grams

Wec = weight of exempt compounds, in

grams

Vm = volume of coating, in liters

(3) For recycled coatings, the

manufacturer or importer has the option

of calculating an adjusted VOC content

to account for the post-consumer
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48883

coating content. If this option is used,

the manufacturer or importer shall

determine the adjusted VOC content

using equations 7 and 8 as follows:

Where:

Adjusted VOC Content = Actual VOC Content OC Content Percent Post-consumer Coating − 











 

 Actual V  100 ( ) 7

Adjusted VOC content = The VOC

content assigned to the recycled

coating for purposes of complying

with the VOC content limits in table

1 of this subpart.

Actual VOC content = The VOC content

of the coating as determined using

equation 5 in paragraph (a)(1) of

this section.

Percent Post-consumer Coating = The

volume percent of a recycled

coating that is post-consumer

coating materials (as determined in

equation 8)

Percent Post-consumer Coating = Volume of Post-consumer Coating

(Volume of Post-consumer Coating + Volume of Virgin Materials)

×100 Percent (8)

Where:

Percent Post-consumer Coating = The

volume percent of a recycled

coating that is post-consumer

coating materials.

Volume of Post-consumer Coating = The

volume, in liters, of post-consumer

coating materials used in the

production of a recycled coating.

Volume of Virgin Materials = The

volume, in liters, of virgin coating

materials used in the production of

a recycled coating.

(b) To determine the composition of a

coating in order to perform the

calculations in paragraph (a) of this

section, the reference method for VOC

content is Method 24 of appendix A of

40 CFR part 60, except as provided in

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. To

determine the VOC content of a coating,

the manufacturer or importer may use

Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part

60, an alternative method as provided in

paragraph (c) of this section,

formulation data, or any other

reasonable means for predicting that the

coating has been formulated as intended

(e.g., quality assurance checks,

recordkeeping). However, if there are

any inconsistencies between the results

of a Method 24 test and any other means

for determining VOC content, the

Method 24 test results will govern,

except as provided in paragraph (c) of

this section. The Administrator may

require the manufacturer or importer to

conduct a Method 24 analysis.

(c) The Administrator may approve,

on a case-by-case basis, a manufacturer’s

or importer’s use of an alternative

method in lieu of Method 24 for

determining the VOC content of

coatings if the alternative method is

demonstrated to the Administrator’s

satisfaction to provide results that are

acceptable for purposes of determining

compliance with this subpart.

(d) Analysis of methacrylate

multicomponent coatings used as traffic

marking coatings shall be conducted

according to the procedures specified in

appendix A to this subpart. Appendix A

to this subpart is a modification of

Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part

60. The modification of Method 24

provided in appendix A to this subpart

has not been approved for methacrylate

multicomponent coatings used for other

purposes than as traffic marking

coatings or for other classes of

multicomponent coatings.

(e) The Administrator may determine

a manufacturer’s or importer’s

compliance with the provisions of this

subpart based on information required

by this subpart (including the records

and reports required by §§ 59.407 and

59.408 of this subpart) or any other

information available to the

Administrator.

§ 59.407 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) Each manufacturer and importer

using the provisions of § 59.406(a)(3) of

this subpart to determine the VOC

content of a recycled coating shall

maintain in written or electronic form

records of the information specified in

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this

section for a period of 3 years.

(1) The minimum volume percent

post-consumer coating content for each

recycled coating.

(2) The volume of post-consumer

coating received for recycling.

(3) The volume of post-consumer

coating received that was unusable.

(4) The volume of virgin materials.

(5) The volume of the final recycled

coating manufactured or imported.

(6) Calculations of the adjusted VOC

content as determined using equation 7

in § 59.406(a)(3) of this subpart for each

recycled coating.

(b) Each manufacturer and importer

using the exceedance fee provisions in

§ 59.403 of this subpart, as an

alternative to achieving the VOC content

limits in table 1 of this subpart, shall

maintain in written or electronic form

the records specified in paragraphs

(b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section for a

period of 3 years.

(1) A list of the coatings and the

associated coating categories in table 1

of this subpart for which the exceedance

fee is used.

(2) Calculations of the annual fee for

each coating and the total annual fee for

all coatings using the procedure in

§ 59.403 (b) and (c) of this subpart.

(3) The VOC content of each coating

in grams of VOC per liter of coating.

(4) The excess VOC content of each

coating in grams of VOC per liter of

coating.

(5) The total volume of each coating

manufactured or imported per calendar

year in liters of coating, excluding the

volume of any water and exempt

compounds.

(6) The annual fee for each coating.

(7) The total annual fee for all

coatings.

(c) Each manufacturer and importer

claiming the tonnage exemption in

§ 59.404 of this subpart shall maintain

in written or electronic form the records

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(c)(4) of this section for a period of 3

years.

(1) A list of all coatings and associated

coating categories in table 1 of this

subpart for which the exemption is

claimed.

(2) The VOC content, in grams of VOC

per liter of coating, including water, of

each coating for which the exemption is

claimed.

(3) The planned and actual sales, in

liters, for each coating for which the

exemption is claimed for the time

period the exemption is claimed.

(4) The total megagrams of VOC

contained in each coating for which the
48884 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

exemption is claimed, and for all

coatings combined for which the

exemption is claimed, for the time

period the exemption is claimed, as

calculated in § 59.404(b) of this subpart.

§ 59.408 Reporting requirements.

(a) Each manufacturer and importer of

any architectural coating subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall submit

reports and exceedance fees specified in

this section to the appropriate address

as listed in § 59.409 of this subpart.

(b) Each manufacturer and importer of

any architectural coating subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall submit

an initial notification report no later

than September 13, 1999 or within 180

days after the date that the first

architectural coating is manufactured or

imported, whichever is later. The initial

report must include the information in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this

section.

(1) The name and mailing address of

the manufacturer or importer.

(2) The street address of each one of

the manufacturer’s or importer’s

facilities in the United States that is

producing, packaging, or repackaging

any architectural coating subject to the

provisions of this subpart.

(3) A list of the categories from table

1 of this subpart for which the

manufacturer’s or importer’s coatings

meet the definitions in § 59.401 of this

subpart.

(4) If a date code is used on a coating

container to represent the date a coating

was manufactured, as allowed in

§ 59.405(a)(1) of this subpart, the

manufacturer or importer of the coating

shall include an explanation of each

date code in the initial notification

report and shall submit an explanation

of any new date code no later than 30

days after the new date code is first used

on the container for a coating.

(c) Each manufacturer and importer of

a recycled coating that chooses to

determine the adjusted VOC content

according to the provisions of

§ 59.406(a)(3) to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable VOC

content limit in table 1 of this subpart

shall submit a report containing the

information in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(c)(5) of this section. The report must be

submitted for each coating for which the

adjusted VOC content is used to

demonstrate compliance. This report

must be submitted by March 1 of the

year following any calendar year in

which the adjusted VOC content

provision is used.

(1) The minimum volume percent

post-consumer coating content for each

recycled coating.

(2) The volume of post-consumer

coating received for recycling.

(3) The volume of post-consumer

coating received that was unusable.

(4) The volume of virgin materials

used.

(5) The volume of the final recycled

coating manufactured or imported.

(d) Each manufacturer and importer

that uses the exceedance fee provisions

of § 59.403 of this subpart shall report

the information in paragraphs (d)(1)

through (d)(7) of this section for each

coating for which the exceedance fee

provisions are used. This report and the

exceedance fee payment must be

submitted by March 1 following the

calendar year in which the coating is

manufactured or imported.

(1) Manufacturer’s or importer’s name

and mailing address.

(2) A list of all coatings and the

associated coating categories in table 1

of this subpart for which the exceedance

fee provision is being used.

(3) The VOC content of each coating

that exceeds the applicable VOC content

limit in table 1 of this subpart.

(4) The excess VOC content of each

coating in grams of VOC per liter of

coating.

(5) The total volume of each coating

manufactured or imported per calendar

year, in liters.

(6) The annual fee for each coating.

(7) The total annual fee for all

coatings.

(e) Each manufacturer and importer of

architectural coatings for which a

tonnage exemption under § 59.404 of

this subpart is claimed shall submit a

report no later than March 1 of the year

following the calendar year in which the

exemption was claimed. The report

must include the information in

paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this

section.

(1) A list of all coatings and the

associated coating categories in table 1

of this subpart for which the exemption

was claimed.

(2) The VOC content, in grams of VOC

per liter of coating, including water, of

each coating for which the exemption

was claimed.

(3) The actual sales, in liters, for each

coating for which the exemption was

claimed for the time period the

exemption was claimed.

(4) The total megagrams of VOC

contained in all coatings for which the

exemption was claimed for the time

period the exemption was claimed, as

calculated in § 59.404(b) of this subpart.

§ 59.409 Addresses of EPA Regional

Offices.

Each manufacturer and importer of

any architectural coating subject to the

provisions of this subpart shall submit

all requests, reports, submittals,

exceedance fee payments, and other

communications to the Administrator

pursuant to this regulation to the

Regional Office of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency that

serves the State or Territory in which

the corporate headquarters of the

manufacturer or importer resides. 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, J.F.K. Federal Building, Boston, MA

02203–2211.

EPA Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto

Rico, Virgin Islands), Director, Division of

Environmental Planning and Protection,

290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007–1866.

EPA Region III (Delaware, District of

Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,

Virginia, West Virginia), Director, Air

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, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA

30303.

EPA Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,

Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin), Director, Air

and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604–3507.

EPA Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New

Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), Director,

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX

75202–2733.

EPA Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,

Nebraska), Director, Air, RCRA, and Toxics

Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas

City, KS 66101.

EPA Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North

Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming),

Director, Office of Partnerships and

Regulatory Assistance, 999 18th Street,

Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466.

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, Office of Air

Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA

98101.

§ 59.410 State authority.

The provisions of this subpart must

not be construed in any manner to

preclude any State or political

subdivision thereof from:

(a) Adopting and enforcing any

emissions standard or limitation

applicable to a manufacturer or importer

of architectural coatings; or

(b) Requiring the manufacturer or

importer of architectural coatings to

obtain permits, licenses, or approvals

prior to initiating construction,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48885

modification, or operation of a facility

for manufacturing an architectural

coating.

§ 59.411 Circumvention.

Each manufacturer and importer of

any architectural coating 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 datecoding information, altering the VOC

content of a coating batch, or altering

the results of any required tests to

determine VOC content.

§ 59.412 Incorporations by reference.

(a) The materials listed in this section

are incorporated by reference in the

paragraphs noted in § 59.401. 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 the approval, and notice

of any changes in these materials will be

published in the Federal Register. The

materials are available for purchase at

the corresponding addresses noted

below, and all are available for

inspection at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW,

Suite 700, Washington, DC; at the Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460; and at the EPA

Library (MD–35), U.S. EPA, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina.

(b) The materials listed below are

available for purchase at the following

address: American Society for Testing

and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor

Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–

2959.

(1) ASTM Method C 1315–95,

Standard Specification for Liquid

Membrane-Forming Compounds Having

Special Properties for Curing and

Sealing Concrete, incorporation by

reference approved for § 59.401,

Concrete curing and sealing compound.

(2) ASTM Method D 523–89, Standard

Test Method for Specular Gloss,

incorporation by reference approved for

§ 59.401, Flat coating and Nonflat

coating.

(3) ASTM Method D 1640–83

(Reapproved 1989), Standard Test

Methods for Drying, Curing, or Film

Formation of Organic Coatings at Room

Temperature, incorporation by reference

approved for § 59.401, Quick-dry

enamel and Quick-dry primer, sealer,

and undercoater.

(4) ASTM Method D 3912–80

(Reapproved 1989), Standard Test

Method for Chemical Resistance of

Coatings Used in Light-Water Nuclear

Power Plants, incorporation by

reference approved for § 59.401, Nuclear

coating.

(5) ASTM Method D 4082–89,

Standard Test Method for Effects of

Gamma Radiation on Coatings for Use in

Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,

incorporation by reference approved for

§ 59.401, Nuclear coating.

(c) The following material is available

from the AAMA, 1827 Walden Office

Square, Suite 104, Schaumburg, IL

60173.

(1) AAMA 605–98, Voluntary

Specification Requirements and Test

Procedures for High Performance

Organic Coatings on Aluminum

Extrusions and Panels, incorporation by

reference approved for § 59.401,

Extreme high durability coating.

(2) [Reserved]

§ 59.413 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

Act that must be submitted or

maintained by each manufacturer or

importer of architectural coatings

pursuant to this section shall be treated

in accordance with 40 CFR part 2,

subpart B.

Appendix A to Subpart D—

Determination of Volatile Matter

Content of Methacrylate

Multicomponent Coatings Used as

Traffic Marking Coatings

1.0 Principle and Applicability

1.1 Applicability. This modification to

Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60

applies to the determination of volatile

matter content of methacrylate

multicomponent coatings used as traffic

marking coatings.

1.2 Principle. A known amount of

methacrylate multicomponent coating is

dispersed in a weighing dish using a stirring

device before the volatile matter is removed

by heating in an oven.

2.0 Procedure

2.1 Prepare about 100 milliliters (mL) of

sample by mixing the components in a

storage container, such as a glass jar with a

screw top or a metal can with a cap. The

storage container should be just large enough

to hold the mixture. Combine the

components (by weight or volume) in the

ratio recommended by the manufacturer.

Tightly close the container between additions

and during mixing to prevent loss of volatile

materials. Most manufacturers’ mixing

instructions are by volume. Because of

possible error caused by expansion of the

liquid when measuring the volume, it is

recommended that the components be

combined by weight. When weight is used to

combine the components and the

manufacturer’s recommended ratio is by

volume, the density must be determined by

section 3.5 of Method 24 of appendix A of

40 CFR part 60.

2.2 Immediately after mixing, take

aliquots from this 100 mL sample for

determination of the total volatile content,

water content, and density. To determine

water content, follow section 3.4 of Method

24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. To

determine density, follow section 3.5 of

Method 24. To determine total volatile

content, use the apparatus and reagents

described in section 3.8.2 of Method 24 and

the following procedures:

2.2.1 Weigh and record the weight of an

aluminum foil weighing dish and a metal

paper clip. Using a syringe as specified in

section 3.8.2.1 of Method 24, weigh to 1

milligrams (mg), by difference, a sample of

coating into the weighing dish. For

methacrylate multicomponent coatings used

for traffic marking use 3.0 ± 0.1 g.

2.2.2 Add the specimen and use the metal

paper clip to disperse the specimen over the

surface of the weighing dish. If the material

forms a lump that cannot be dispersed,

discard the specimen and prepare a new one.

Similarly, prepare a duplicate. The sample

shall stand for a minimum of 1 hour, but no

more than 24 hours before being oven dried

at 110 ± 5 degrees Celsius for 1 hour.

2.2.3 Heat the aluminum foil dishes

containing the dispersed specimens in the

forced draft oven for 60 minutes at 110 ± 5

degrees Celsius. Caution—provide adequate

ventilation, consistent with accepted

laboratory practice, to prevent solvent vapors

from accumulating to a dangerous level.

2.2.4 Remove the dishes from the oven,

place immediately in a desiccator, cool to

ambient temperature, and weigh to within 1

mg. After weighing, break up the film of the

coating using the metal paper clip. Weigh

dish to within 1 mg. Return to forced draft

oven for an additional 60 minutes at 110 ±

5 degrees Celsius.

2.2.5 Remove the dishes from the oven,

place immediately in a desiccator, cool to

ambient temperature, and weigh to within 1

mg.

2.2.6 Run analyses in pairs (duplicate sets

for each coating mixture until the criterion in

section 4.3 of Method 24 of appendix A of

40 CFR part 60 is met. Calculate the weight

of volatile matter for each heating period

following Equation 24–2 of Method 24 and

record the arithmetic average. Add the

arithmetic average for the two heating

periods to obtain the weight fraction of the

volatile matter.

3.0 Data Validation Procedure

3.1 Follow the procedures in Section 4 of

Method 24 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

3.2 If more than 10 percent of the sample

is lost when the sample is being broken up

in 2.2.4, the sample is invalid.
48886 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

4.0 Calculations

Follow the calculation procedures in

Section 5 of Method 24 of appendix A of 40

CFR part 60.

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART D.—VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC), CONTENT LIMITS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS

[Unless otherwise specified, limits are expressed in grams of VOC per liter of coating thinned to the manufacturer’s maximum recommendation

excluding the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or colorant added to tint bases.]

Coating category Grams VOC

per liter

Pounds VOC

per gallon a

Antenna coatings ..................................................................................................................................................... 530 4.4

Anti-fouling coatings ................................................................................................................................................. 450 3.3

Anti-graffiti coatings .................................................................................................................................................. 600 5.0

Bituminous coatings and mastics ............................................................................................................................ 500 4.2

Bond breakers .......................................................................................................................................................... 600 5.0

Calcimine recoater ................................................................................................................................................... 475 4.0

Chalkboard resurfacers ............................................................................................................................................ 450 3.8

Concrete curing compounds .................................................................................................................................... 350 2.9

Concrete curing and sealing compounds ................................................................................................................ 700 5.8

Concrete protective coatings ................................................................................................................................... 400 3.3

Concrete surface retarders ...................................................................................................................................... 780 6.5

Conversion varnish .................................................................................................................................................. 725 6.0

Dry fog coatings ....................................................................................................................................................... 400 3.3

Extreme high durability coatings .............................................................................................................................. 800 6.7

Faux finishing/glazing ............................................................................................................................................... 700 5.8

Fire-retardant/resistive coatings:

Clear .................................................................................................................................................................. 850 7.1

Opaque ............................................................................................................................................................. 450 3.8

Flat coatings:

Exterior coatings ............................................................................................................................................... 250 2.1

Interior coatings ................................................................................................................................................ 250 2.1

Floor coatings ........................................................................................................................................................... 400 3.3

Flow coatings ........................................................................................................................................................... 650 5.4

Form release compounds ........................................................................................................................................ 450 3.8

Graphic arts coatings (sign paints) .......................................................................................................................... 500 4.2

Heat reactive coatings ............................................................................................................................................. 420 3.5

High temperature coatings ....................................................................................................................................... 650 5.4

Impacted immersion coatings .................................................................................................................................. 780 6.5

Industrial maintenance coatings .............................................................................................................................. 450 3.8

Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers) ......................................................................................................... 680 5.7

Magnesite cement coatings ..................................................................................................................................... 600 5.0

Mastic texture coatings ............................................................................................................................................ 300 2.5

Metallic pigmented coatings ..................................................................................................................................... 500 4.2

Multi-colored coatings .............................................................................................................................................. 580 4.8

Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and surface protectants ............................................................................ 870 7.3

Nonflat coatings:

Exterior coatings ............................................................................................................................................... 380 3.2

Interior coatings ................................................................................................................................................ 380 3.2

Nuclear coatings ...................................................................................................................................................... 450 3.8

Pretreatment wash primers ...................................................................................................................................... 780 6.5

Primers and undercoaters ........................................................................................................................................ 350 2.9

Quick-dry coatings:

Enamels ............................................................................................................................................................ 450 3.8

Primers, sealers, and undercoaters .................................................................................................................. 450 3.8

Repair and maintenance thermoplastic coatings ..................................................................................................... 650 5.4

Roof coatings ........................................................................................................................................................... 250 2.1

Rust preventative coatings ....................................................................................................................................... 400 3.3

Sanding sealers (other than lacquer sanding sealers) ............................................................................................ 550 4.6

Sealers (including interior clear wood sealers) ........................................................................................................ 400 3.3

Shellacs:

Clear .................................................................................................................................................................. 730 6.1

Opaque ............................................................................................................................................................. 550 4.6

Stains:

Clear and semitransparent ............................................................................................................................... 550 4.6

Opaque 350 2.9

Low solids b 120 b 1.0

Stain controllers ....................................................................................................................................................... 720 6.0

Swimming pool coatings .......................................................................................................................................... 600 5.0

Thermoplastic rubber coatings and mastics ............................................................................................................ 550 4.6

Traffic marking coatings ........................................................................................................................................... 150 1.3

Varnishes ................................................................................................................................................................. 450 3.8

Waterproofing sealers and treatments ..................................................................................................................... 600 5.0

Wood preservatives:

Below ground wood preservatives .................................................................................................................... 550 4.6
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 48887

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART D.—VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC), CONTENT LIMITS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS—

Continued

[Unless otherwise specified, limits are expressed in grams of VOC per liter of coating thinned to the manufacturer’s maximum recommendation

excluding the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or colorant added to tint bases.]

Coating category Grams VOC

per liter

Pounds VOC

per gallon a

Clear and semitransparent ............................................................................................................................... 550 4.6

Opaque ............................................................................................................................................................. 350 2.9

Low solids ......................................................................................................................................................... b 120 b 1.0

Zone marking coatings ............................................................................................................................................. 450 3.8

aEnglish units are provided for information only. Compliance will be determined based on the VOC content limit, as expressed in metric units.

b Units are grams of VOC per liter (pounds of VOC per gallon) of coating, including water and exempt compounds, thinned to the maximum

thinning recommended by the manufacturer.

[FR Doc. 98–22659 Filed 9–10–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–p
Appendix A

APPENDIX A (Continued)

Final rule, corrections and amendments. National Volatile Organic Compound

Emissions Standards for Architectural Coatings; Correction

(40 CFR part 59, subpart D, 64 FR 34997, June 30, 1999)

To determine whether EPA has published any changes to this regulation, 

browse the list of CFR sections affected at:

http://www.access.gpo/nara/lsa/browslsa.html
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 125 /Wednesday, June 30, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 34997

1.46. Section 165.100 is also issued under

authority of Sec. 311, Pub.L. 105–383.

2. Add temporary § 165.T01–CGD1–

095 to read as follows:

§ 165.T01–CGD1–095 Fenwick Fireworks

Display, Old Saybrook, Long Island Sound.

(a) Location. The safety zone includes

all waters of Long Island Sound within

a 600 foot radius of the launch barge

located off of Fenwick Pier, Old

Saybrook, CT. in approximate position

41°16′ N, 072°23′ W (NAD 1983).

(b) Effective date. This section is

effective on July 3, 1999, from 8:45 p.m.

until 10:00 p.m. In case of inclement

weather, the rain date will be July 4,

1999, at the same time and place.

(c)(1) Regulations. The general

regulations covering safety zones

contained in § 165.23 of this part apply.

(2) All persons and vessels shall

comply with the instructions of the

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the

designated on scene patrol personnel.

U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel

include commissioned, warrant, and

petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon

being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard

Vessel via siren, radio, flashing light, or

other means, the operator of a vessel

shall proceed as directed.

Dated: June 21, 1999.

P.K. Mitchell,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port, Long Island Sound.

[FR Doc. 99–16665 Filed 6–29–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 59

[AD–FRL–6368–7]

RIN 2060–AE55

National Volatile Organic Compound

Emission Standards for Architectural

Coatings; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; corrections and

amendments.

SUMMARY: On September 11, 1998 (63

FR 48848), EPA published the ‘‘National

Volatile Organic Compound Emission

Standards for Architectural Coatings’’

under the authority of section 183(e) of

the Clean Air Act (Act). In today’s

action, we’re issuing technical

corrections and clarifications for that

rule. Today’s action won’t change the

volatile organic compound (VOC

content limits for architectural coatings

or the level of health protection that the

rule provides. In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), today’s

action also amends the table that lists

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) control numbers issued under

the PRA for the architectural coatings

regulation.

DATES: The effective date is June 30,

1999.

ADDRESSES: Technical Support

Documents. The promulgated regulation

is supported by two background

information documents: one specific to

the architectural coatings rule, and one

that addresses comments on the study

and Report to Congress under section

183(e). You can obtain both documents

from the docket for the architectural

coatings rule (see below); through the

Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

uatw/183e/aim/aimpg.html; or from the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Library (MD–35), Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone

(919) 541–2777. Please refer to

‘‘National Volatile Organic Compound

Emission Standards for Architectural

Coatings—Background for Promulgated

Standards,’’ EPA–453/R–98–006b, or

‘‘Response to Comments on Section

183(e) Study and Report to Congress,’’

EPA–453/R–98–007.

Docket. Docket No. A–92–18 contains

information considered by EPA in

developing the promulgated standards

and this action. You can inspect the

docket and copy materials from 8 a.m.

to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The docket is

located at the EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center,

Waterside Mall, Room M1500, 1st Floor,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460; telephone (202) 260–7548 or fax

(202) 260–4400. A reasonable fee may

be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Linda Herring at (919) 541–5358,

Coatings and Consumer Products Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711 (herring.linda@epa.gov). Any

correspondence related to compliance

with this rule must be submitted to the

appropriate EPA Regional Office listed

in § 59.409 of 40 CFR Part 59 (see 63 FR

48848, September 11, 1998).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated

Entities. You may be affected by these

rule amendments if you fall into one of

the categories in the following table.

Category NAICS code SIC

code Examples of regulated entities

Industry ......................... 32551

325510

2851 Manufacturers (which includes packagers and repackagers) and importers of architectural

coatings that are manufactured for sale or distribution in the U.S., including all U.S. territories.

State/local/tribal governments..................... ............ State Departments of Transportation that manufacture their own coatings.

Architectural coatings are coatings

that are recommended for field

application to stationary structures and

their appurtenances, to portable

buildings, to pavements, or to curbs.

Use this table only as a guide because

this action may also regulate other

entities. To determine if it regulates

your facility, business, or organization,

carefully examine the applicability

criteria in § 59.400 of 40 CFR part 59. If

you have questions about how it

applies, contact Linda Herring (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of

this preamble).

I. Technical Corrections

The EPA published in the Federal

Register of September 11, 1998 (63 FR

48848), the final rule regulating VOC

emissions from architectural coatings.

The preamble and rule (FR Doc. 98–

22659) contain errors and require

clarification. Thus, we’re correcting and

clarifying the rule as follows.

1. We are adding a definition for the

term ‘‘megagram’’ to § 59.401. We are

adding this definition at the request of

some regulated entities to assist them in

understanding and applying the units of

measure used in the rule.

2. We are correcting § 59.402(a) by

adding a sentence to the end of

paragraph (a) to clarify that we’ll use
34998 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 125 /Wednesday, June 30, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

metric units, rather than English units,

to determine compliance.

3. We are correcting § 59.402(c)(1),

(c)(3) through (c)(8), and (c)(15), to use

consistent terminology throughout the

section. We are removing the phrases

‘‘are also recommended for use as’’ and

‘‘are recommended for use as,’’ and

replacing them with the phrase ‘‘also

meet the definition for.’’

4. We are correcting § 59.402(c)(13) by

adding the word ‘‘sealers,’’ which we

omitted by mistake in the published

rule.

5. We are adding a paragraph (16) to

§ 59.402(c). This addition corrects an

inadvertent overlap between the

definitions for zone marking coating and

traffic marking coating.

6. We are adding a paragraph (17) to

§ 59.402(c). This addition corrects an

inadvertent overlap between the

definitions for rust preventative coatings

and primers and undercoaters.

7. We are correcting the definition for

the term ‘‘Volume Manufactured or

Imported’’ in equation 2, which is

referenced in § 59.403(c). This change

clarifies that for the exceedance fee, you

must include the volume of any water

and exempt compounds in the coating

and exclude the volume of colorant

added to tint bases when calculating the

volume manufactured or imported.

8. We are adding a sentence to the end

of § 59.404(a)(1). This addition clarifies

that you must use metric units, not

English units, to determine compliance.

9. We are correcting § 59.404(a)(4) by

removing the erroneous cross-reference

to § 59.408(f), which does not exist.

10. We are adding a sentence to the

end of § 59.404(b) to clarify that the

VOC amount used in the tonnage

exemption calculations excludes the

volume of any colorant added to tint

bases.

11. We are correcting the definition

for the term ‘‘VOCC’’ in equation 3,

which is referenced in § 59.404(b). This

change is necessary to be consistent

with the clarifying changes to the terms

used in equation 4, described in change

numbers 12 and 14 below. The change

is intended to distinguish between the

term ‘‘VOCC’’ and the new term ‘‘VOC

Amount’’ in equation 4.

12. We are replacing the term ‘‘VOC

Content’’ with ‘‘VOC Amount’’ in

equation 4, which is referenced in

§ 59.404(b). We’re replacing the term

‘‘VOC Content’’ with ‘‘VOC Amount’’ to

distinguish this term from the term

‘‘VOC Content.’’ The term ‘‘VOC

Amount’’ in equation 4 is used only for

calculating the grams VOC per liter of

each coating claimed under the tonnage

exemption. The VOC amount in

equation 4 includes the volume of water

and exempt compounds (see change

number 13 below). The ‘‘VOC Content’’

in § 59.406 is used for calculating the

trams VOC per liter of each coating to

determine compliance with the VOC

content limits. The VOC content in

§ 59.406 excludes the volume of any

water and exempt compounds, except

for low solids stains and low solids

wood preservatives.

13. We are correcting the definition

for the term ‘‘Volume Manufactured or

Imported’’ in equation 4, which is

referenced in § 59.404(b), to clarify that

for the tonnage exemption, the volume

of coating is calculated including the

volume of any water and exempt

compounds, and excluding the volume

of any colorant added to tint bases.

14. We are removing the term and

definition of ‘‘VOC Content’’ in equation

4, which is referenced in § 59.404(b),

and replacing it with the term and

definition of ‘‘VOC Amount.’’ We’re

adding a definition for the new term

‘‘VOC Amount’’ to clarify that for the

tonnage exemption, you determine the

VOC amount by calculating the grams of

VOC in each liter of coating including

the volume of any water and exempt

compounds. Colorant added to tint

bases is not included in this calculation,

and the reference to it in the final rule

which we are correcting was in error.

15. We are correcting § 59.405(a)(3)(i)

and (ii) to allow you to label the VOC

content in either metric or English units.

16. We are correcting § 59.407(b)(5) to

make this paragraph concerning

recordkeeping for the exceedance fee

consistent with the definition of

‘‘Volume Manufactured or Imported’’ in

Equation 2.

17. We are correcting § 59.407(c)(2) to

make this paragraph concerning

recordkeeping for the tonnage

exemption consistent with the

definition for ‘‘VOC Amount’’ in

equation 4.

18. We are correcting § 59.407(c)(3), to

reflect EPA’s intent for the tonnage

exemption: Records must be kept of the

volume of coating manufactured or

imported, not the sales volume.

19. We are correcting the first

sentence of § 59.408(b) to reflect EPA’s

intent that the deadline for submitting

the initial notification report for

coatings registered under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) is March 13, 2000; and the

deadline for submitting the report for all

other coatings subject to the rule is

September 13, 1999.

20. We are correcting § 59.408(d)(5) to

make this paragraph concerning

reporting for the exceedance fee

consistent with the revised definition

for ‘‘Volume Manufactured or

Imported’’ in equation 2.

21. We are correcting § 59.408(e)(2) to

make this paragraph concerning

reporting for the tonnage exemption

consistent with the definition for ‘‘VOC

Amount’’ in equation 4.

22. We are correcting § 59.408(e)(3) to

reflect EPA’s intent that reports be

submitted for the volume of coating

manufactured or imported, not the sales

volume.

23. We are correcting the addresses

for EPA Regional Offices. These are

administrative changes of addresses of

EPA Regional Offices necessary to

ensure that submittals by regulated

entities reach the correct EPA address.

24. In the third column of table to

Subpart D—Volatile Organic Compound

(VOC) Content Limits for Architectural

Coatings, for Anti-fouling coatings, we

are correcting the number of pounds

VOC per gallon to read ‘‘3.8.’’ The

number ‘‘3.3’’ was a typographical error.

We’re making these technical

corrections effective immediately. By

issuing these technical corrections

directly as a final rule, we’re foregoing

an opportunity for public comment on

a notice of proposed rulemaking.

Section 553(b) of title 5 of the United

States Code (U.S.C.) and section 307(b)

of the Act permit an agency to forego

notice and comment when ‘‘the Agency

for good cause finds (and incorporates

the finding and brief statement of

reasons therefore in the rule issues) that

notice and public procedure thereon are

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary

to the public interest.’’ We find that

notice and comment regarding these

minor technical corrections are

unnecessary because the corrections are

not controversial and don’t

substantively change the requirements

of the architectural coatings rule. We

find that this constitutes good cause

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and section 307(b)

of the Act for a determination that the

issuance of a notice of proposed

rulemaking is unnecessary.

Amendment to 40 CFR Part 9

Today, we’re amending the table of

currently approved information

collection request (ICR) control numbers

issued by OMB for various EPA

regulations. The amendment updates

the table to list those information

collection requirements promulgated

under the ‘‘National Volatile Organic

Compound Emission Standards for

Architectural Coatings,’’ which

appeared in the Federal Register on

September 11, 1998, at 63 FR 48848.

The affected regulations are codified at

40 CFR part 59. We’ll continue to

present the OMB control numbers in a
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 125 /Wednesday, June 30, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 34999

consolidated table format to be codified

in 40 CFR part 9 of the EPA’s

regulations, and in each CFR volume

containing EPA regulations. The table

lists CFR sections with reporting,

recordkeeping, or other information

collection requirements, and the current

OMB control numbers. This listing of

the OMB control numbers and their

subsequent codification in the CFR

satisfy the requirements of the PRA (44

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and OMB’s

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part

1320.

The ICR was subject to public notice

and comment before OMB’s approval.

Due to the technical nature of the table,

we find there is ‘‘good cause’’ under

section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) to

amend this table without prior notice

and comment.

Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information that

we considered in developing the rule

and today’s technical amendments. The

docket is a dynamic file, since we add

material throughout the rulemaking

development. The docketing system

allows you to identify and locate

documents so you can participate in the

rulemaking process. Along with the

statement of basis and purpose of the

proposed and promulgated standards

and EPA responses to significant

comments, the contents of the docket

will serve as the record in case of

judicial review (see 42 U.S.C.

7607(d)(7)(A)).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The OMB has approved the

information collection requirements of

the previously promulgated rule under

the provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.,

and has assigned OMB Control Number

2060–0393. A copy of the ICR No.

1750.02 may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2137), 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460, or by calling

(202) 260–2740. The information

collection requirements were effective

upon OMB’s approval on January 8,

1999.

Today’s amendments to the rule will

have no effect on the estimates of the

information collection burden. The

technical changes are clarifications of

requirements and don’t impose

additional requirements. Therefore, we

haven’t revised the ICR.

Today’s action amends 40 CFR part 9

by adding the architectural coatings ICR

to section 9.1, OMB approvals under the

PRA.

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must

determine whether a regulatory action is

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Executive

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ is one that is likely to result in

a rule that may:

1. Have an annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more or adversely affect

in a material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,

the environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

2. Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency;

3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising

out of legal mandates, the President’s

priorities, or the principles set forth in the

Executive Order.

The regulation published on

September 11, 1998 was considered a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

criterion (4) above, based on the novel

use of economic incentives (an

exceedance fee) for this industry.

Therefore, EPA submitted the final rule

to OMB for review before publication.

Today’s amendments to the rule include

minor technical corrections and

clarifications to several rule

requirements. Therefore, EPA

determined that this action is not

significant and does not require OMB

review.

D. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a

mandate upon a State, local, or tribal

government, unless the Federal

Government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

EPA complies by consulting, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to

the OMB a description of the extent of

EPA’s prior consultation with

representatives of affected State, local,

and tribal governments, the nature of

their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of State, local, and tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.’’

In compliance with Executive Order

12875, EPA involved State and local

governments in the development of the

rule published on September 11, 1998.

Today’s action does not create a

mandate upon State, local, or tribal

governments because it clarifies and

makes minor technical corrections to

several rule requirements and it does

not impose any additional requirements.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do

not apply to this rule.

E. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. The EPA is

not aware of any tribal governments that

manufacture or import architectural

coatings. Nevertheless, today’s action

does not create a mandate upon tribal

governments because it clarifies and

makes minor technical corrections to

several rule requirements and it does

not impose any additional requirements.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.
35000 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 125 /Wednesday, June 30, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), requires EPA to give

special consideration to the effect of

Federal regulations on small entities

and to consider regulatory options that

might mitigate any such impacts. As

discussed in the preamble to the rule

published on September 11, 1998 (63 FR

48874–48875), EPA prepared analyses

to support both the proposed and final

rules to meet the requirements of the

RFA as modified by SBREFA.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble to the rule, EPA believes that

the measures adopted in the final rule

will significantly mitigate the economic

impacts on small businesses that might

otherwise have occurred. Today’s action

is not subject to the requirements of the

RFA as modified by SBREFA because it

only makes minor technical corrections

and clarifications to some of the rule’s

requirements and it does not impose

any additional requirements.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

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 costeffective, 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 last

costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirement 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.

The EPA has determined that today’s

action does not include a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs of $100 million or more to either

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, in any

one year. Therefore, the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA do

not apply to this action. The EPA has

likewise determined that today’s

amendments to the rule do not include

regulatory requirements that would

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Thus, today’s action is not

subject to the requirements of section

203 of the UMRA.

H. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. § 801, et seq., as added by the

SBREFA 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 rule, its

amendments, and other required

information to the United States Senate,

the United States House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication of the rule in the Federal

Register. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’

as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 804(2).

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs

EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

material specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, business

practices, etc.) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standard bodies. The NTTAA requires

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when EPA decides not to

use available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble to the final rule (63 FR 48876),

EPA determined that its analytical test

method for determining product

compliance under the rule is consistent

with the requirements of NTTAA.

Today’s action does not amend or

modify the rule’s test method and,

therefore, the requirements of the

NTTAA do not apply.

J. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that EPA determines

(1) is economically significant as

defined under Executive Order 12866,

and (2) for which the environmental

health or safety risk addressed by the

rule has a disproportionate effect on

children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, EPA must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by EPA.

Today’s action is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it is not

an economically significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order

12866, and it does not address an

environmental health or safety risk that

would have a disproportionate effect on

children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 9 and

59

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Architectural

coatings, Consumer and commercial

products, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: June 21, 1999.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

Technical Corrections

The EPA published in the Federal

Register of September 11, 1998 (63 FR

48848), the final rule regulating VOC

emissions from architectural coatings.

The preamble and rule (FR Doc. 98–

22659) contain errors and require

clarification. Thus, we’re correcting and

clarifying the preamble and rule as

follows.

A. In the Federal Register issue of

September 11, 1998 in FR Doc. 98-

22659, on page 48851, second column,
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 125 /Wednesday, June 30, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 35001

in the last line of the first paragraph in

section II.A., correct the date ‘‘March 10,

2000’’ to read ‘‘March 13, 2000.’’

B. In the rule FR Doc. 98–22659

published on September 11, 1998 (63 FR

48848), make the following corrections.

PART 59—[CORRECTED]

Subpart D—[Corrected]

§ 59.401 [Corrected]

1. On page 48879, in the second

column, correct § 59.401 by adding

immediately before the definition of

Matallic pigmented coating the

definition for the term ‘‘megagram’’ to

read as follows. ‘‘Megagram means one

million grams or 1.102 tons.’’

§ 59.402 [Corrected]

2. On page 48880, in the third

column, correct § 59.402(a) by adding

the following sentence to the end of

paragraph (a): ‘‘Compliance with the

VOC content limits will be determined

based on the VOC content, as expressed

in metric units.’’

3. On page 48880, in the third

column, and page 48881, in the first and

third columns, correct § 59.402(c)(1),

(c)(3) through (c)(8), and (c)(15), by

removing the phrases ‘‘are also

recommended for use as’’ and ‘‘are

recommended for use as,’’ and replacing

them with the phrase ‘‘also meet the

definition for.’’

4. On page 48881, in the second

column, correct § 59.402(c)(13) to read:

‘‘Quick-dry primers, sealers, and

undercoaters that also meet the

definition for primers, sealers, or

undercoaters are subject only to the

VOC content limit in table 1 of this

subpart for quick-dry primers, sealers,

and undercoaters.’’

5. On page 48881, in the third

column, add the following new

paragraph (c)(16) to § 59.402: ‘‘(16) Zone

marking coatings that also meet the

definition for traffic marking coatings

are subject only to the VOC content

limit in table 1 of this subpart for zone

marking coatings.’’

6. On page 48881, in the third

column, add the following new

paragraph (c)(17) to § 59.402: ‘‘(17) Rust

preventative coatings that also meet the

definition for primers or undercoaters

are subject only to the VOC content

limit in table 1 of this subpart for rust

preventative coatings.’’

§ 59.403 [Corrected]

7. On page 48881, in the first column,

correct the definition for the term

‘‘Volume Manufactured or Imported’’ in

equation 2, which is referenced in

§ 59.403(c), to read: ‘‘The volume of the

coating manufactured or imported per

year, in liters, including the volume of

any water and exempt compounds and

excluding the volume of any colorant

added to tint bases. Any volume for

which a tonnage exemption in claimed

under § 59.404 of this subpart is also

excluded.’’

§ 59.404 [Corrected]

8. On page 48881, in the third

column, add the following sentence to

the end of § 59.404(a)(1): ‘‘Compliance

with the tonnage exemption will be

determined based on the amount of

VOC, as expressed in metric units.’’

9. On page 48881, in the third

column, correct § 59.404(a)(4) to read:

‘‘The reporting requirements of

§ 59.408(b) and (e) of this subpart.’’

10. On page 48882, in the first

column, add the following sentence to

the end of § 59.404(b): ‘‘The VOC

amount shall be determined without

colorant that is added after the tint base

is manufactured or imported.’’

11. On page 48882, in the third

column, correct the definition for the

term ‘‘VOCC’’ in equation 3, which is

referenced in § 59.404(b), to read:

‘‘Megagrams of VOC, for each coating (c)

claimed under the exemption, as

computed by equation 4.’’

12. On page 48882, in equation 4,

which is referenced in § 59.404(b),

replace the term ‘‘VOC Content’’ with

‘‘VOC Amount.’’

13. On page 48882, in the first

column, correct the definition for the

term ‘‘Volume Manufactured or

Imported’’ in equation 4, which is

referenced in § 59.404(b), to read:

‘‘Volume of the coating manufactured or

imported, in liters, including the

volume of any water and exempt

compounds and excluding the volume

of any colorant added to tint bases, for

the time period the exemption is

claimed.’’

14. On page 48882, in the first

column, correct the term and definition

of ‘‘VOC Content’’ in equation 4, which

is referenced in § 59.404(b), to read as

follows: ‘‘VOC Amount = Grams of VOC

per liter of coating thinned to the

manufacturer’s maximum

recommendation, including the volume

of any water and exempt compounds.’’

§ 59.405 [Corrected]

15. On page 48882, in the first

column, correct § 59.405(a)(3)(i) and (ii)

to read:

‘‘(i) The VOC content of the coating,

displayed in units of grams of VOC per

liter of coating or in units of pounds of

VOC per gallon of coating; or

‘‘(ii) The VOC content limit in table 1

of this subpart with which the coating

is required to comply and does comply,

displayed in units of grams of VOC per

liter of coating or in units of pounds of

VOC per gallon of coating.’’

§ 59.407 [Corrected]

16. On page 48883, in the third

column, correct § 59.407(b)(5) to read:

‘‘The total volume of each coating

manufactured or imported per calendar

year, in liters, including the volume of

any water and exempt compounds and

excluding the volume of any colorant

added to tint bases.’’

17. On page 48883, in the third

column, correct § 59.407(c)(2) to read:

‘‘The VOC amount as used in equation

4.’’

18. On page 48883, in the third

column, correct § 59.407(c)(3) to read:

‘‘The volume manufactured or

imported, in liters, for each coating for

which the exemption is claimed for the

time period the exemption is claimed.’’

§ 59.408 [Corrected]

19. On page 48884, in the first

column, correct the first sentence of

§ 59.408(b) to read: ‘‘Each manufacturer

and importer of any architectural

coating subject to the provisions of this

subpart shall submit an initial

notification report no later than the

applicable compliance date specified in

§ 59.400, or within 180 days after the

date that the first architectural coating is

manufactured or imported, whichever is

later.’’

20. On page 48884, in the second

column, correct § 59.408(d)(5) to read:

‘‘The total volume of each coating

manufactured or imported per calendar

year, in liters, including the volume of

any water and exempt compounds and

excluding the volume of any colorant

added to tint bases.’’

21. On page 48884, in the second

column, correct § 59.408(e)(2) to read:

‘‘The VOC amount as used in equation

4.’’

22. On page 48884, in the second

column, correct § 59.408(e)(3) to read:

‘‘The volume manufactured or

imported, in liters, for each coating for

which the exemption is claimed for the

time period the exemption is claimed.’’

§ 59.409 [Corrected]

23. On page 48884, in the third

column, correct the addresses for EPA

Regional Offices as follows:

For Region I, correct the street address

by removing ‘‘J.F.K. Federal Building,

Boston, MA 02203–2211’’ and replacing

it with ‘‘One Congress Street, Boston,

MA 02114–2023.’’

For Region II, correct the name of the

division by removing ‘‘Division of

Environmental Planning and
35002 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 125 /Wednesday, June 30, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

Protection’’ and replacing it with

‘‘Division of Enforcement and

Compliance Assistance.’’

For Region VII, correct the street

address by removing ‘‘726 Minnesota

Avenue’’ and replacing it with ‘‘901

North 5th Street.’’

Table 1 to Subpart D

24. On page 48886, in the third

column of table 1 to Subpart D—Volatile

Organic Compound (VOC) Content

Limits for Architectural Coatings, for

‘‘Anti-fouling coatings,’’ correct the

number of pounds VOC per gallon to

read ‘‘3.8.’’

Amendment to 40 CFR Part 9

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 9 of title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 9—OMB APPROVALS UNDER

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

1. The authority citation for part 9

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135, et seq., 136–136y;

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671;

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251, et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318,

1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and

(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,

1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1,

300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857, et seq.,

6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657,

11023, 11048.

2. In § 9.1 amend the table by

removing the heading ‘‘National Volatile

Organic Compound Emission Standards

for Automobile Refinish Coatings’’ and

add in its place the heading ‘‘National

Volatile Organic Compound Emission

Standards for Consumer and

Commercial Products’’; and by adding

new entries under the heading in

numerical order to read as follows:

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

* * * * *

40 CFR citation OMB control

No.

* * * * *

National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer and Commercial Products

* * * * *

59.405 ................................. 2060–0393

59.407 ................................. 2060–0393

59.408 ................................. 2060–0393

40 CFR citation OMB control

No.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99–16384 Filed 6–29–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 009–130c; FRL–6368–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision; San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This action redesignates the

number of a paragraph in Title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations that

appeared in a direct final rule published

in the Federal Register on June 3, 1999.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

on August 2, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie

A. Rose, Rulemaking Office, Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,

Telephone: (415) 744–1184.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 3,

1999, at 64 FR 29790, EPA published a

direct final rulemaking action approving

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD),

Rule 1010 and Rule 1130 of the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP). This action contained

amendments to 40 CFR part 52, subpart

F. The amendments which incorporated

material by reference into § 52.220,

Identification of plan, paragraph

(c)(199)(i)(D)(4) are being redesignated

as (c)(199)(i)(D)(5) in this action.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and, is therefore not subject to review by

the Office of Management and Budget.

In addition, this action does not impose

any enforceable duty or contain any

unfunded mandate as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4), or require prior

consultation with State officials as

specified by Executive Order 12875 (58

FR 58093, October 28, 1993), or involve

special consideration of environmental

justice related issues as required by

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994).

Because this action is not subject to

notice-and-comment requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute, it is not subject to

the provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of this rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: June 14, 1999.

David P. Howekamp,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52— [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

redesignating the paragraph

(c)(199)(i)(D)(4) added at 64 FR 29793

on June 3, 1999 as (c)(199)(i)(D)(5).

[FR Doc. 99–16386 Filed 6–29–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[GA–33–2–9926a; FRL–6368–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Georgia:

Approval of Revisions to the Georgia

State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).
Appendix B

APPENDIX B

Fact sheets for each architectural coating category,

including the definitions and VOC content limit
Appendix B

B-1

ANTENNA COATINGS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to

equipment and associated structural appurtenances that are used

to receive or transmit electromagnetic signals.

VOC content limit: 530 grams per liter (4.4 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Antenna Coatings Industrial maintenance 530 g/l for antenna coatings

Primers 530 g/l for antenna coatings

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

industrial maintenance or limit for any category for

primers which the coating meets the

definition

ANTI-FOULING COATINGS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to

submerged stationary structures and their appurtenances to

prevent or reduce the attachment of marine or freshwater biological

organisms, including, but not limited to, coatings registered with the

EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(7 U.S.C. Section 136, et seq.) and nontoxic foul-release coatings.

VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallons)

If your coating meets the definition for anti-fouling coatings and the definition for other

categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
Appendix B

B-2

ANTI-GRAFFITI COATINGS

Definition: A clear or opaque high performance coating formulated and

recommended for application to interior and exterior walls, doors,

partitions, fences, signs, and murals to deter adhesion of graffiti

and to resist repeated scrubbing and exposure to harsh solvents,

cleansers, or scouring agents used to remove graffiti.

Related definitions:

Clear: Showing light to pass through, so that the substrate may be

distinctly seen. 

Opaque: Not allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate is

concealed from view.

VOC content limit: 600 grams per liter (5.0 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Anti-graffiti coatings Industrial maintenance 600 g/l for anti-graffiti

coatings

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

industrial maintenance limit for all categories for

which the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

B-3

BITUMINOUS COATINGS & MASTICS

Definition: A coating or mastic formulated and recommended for roofing,

pavement sealing, or waterproofing that incorporates bitumens. 

Bitumens are black or brown materials including, but not limited to,

asphalt, tar, pitch, and asphaltite that are soluble in carbon

disulfide, consist mainly of hydrocarbons, and are obtained from

natural deposits of asphalt or as residues from the distillation of

crude petroleum or coal.

VOC content limit: 500 grams per liter (4.2 pounds per gallon)

Bituminous coatings and mastics are always subject to the 500 gram per liter

(4.2 pounds per gallon) limit even if they meet the definition of another category. 

BOND BREAKERS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application between

layers of concrete to prevent a freshly poured top layer of concrete

from bonding to the layer over which it is poured.

VOC content limit: 600 grams per liter (5.0 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for bond breakers and the definition for other

categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories. 
Appendix B

B-4

CALCIMINE RECOATER

Definition: A flat solventborne coating formulated and recommended

specifically for recoating calcimine-painted ceilings and other

calcimine-painted substrates.

VOC content limit: 475 grams per liter (4.0 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for calcimine recoater and the definition for other

categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.

CHALKBOARD RESURFACERS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to

chalkboards to restore a suitable surface for writing with chalk.

VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for chalkboard resurfacers and the definition for

other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
Appendix B

B-5

CONCRETE CURING COMPOUNDS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to freshly

placed concrete to retard the evaporation of water.

VOC content limit: 350 grams per liter (2.9 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for concrete curing compounds and the definition for

other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.

CONCRETE CURING AND SEALING COMPOUNDS

Definition: A liquid membrane-forming compound marketed and sold solely for

application to concrete surfaces to reduce the loss of water during

the hardening process and to seal old and new concrete providing

resistance against alkalis, acids, and ultraviolet light, and provide

adhesion promotion qualities. The coating must meet the

requirements of American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) C 1315-95, Standard Specification for Liquid MembraneForming Compounds Having Special Properties for Curing and

Sealing Concrete. 

VOC content limit: 700 grams per liter (5.8 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for concrete curing and sealing compounds and the

definition for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those

categories.
Appendix B

B-6

CONCRETE PROTECTIVE COATINGS

Definition: A high-build coating, formulated and recommended for application

in a single coat over concrete, plaster, or other cementitious

surfaces. These coatings are formulated to be primerless, onecoat systems that can be applied over form oils and/or uncured

concrete. These coatings prevent spilling of concrete in freezing

temperatures by providing long-term protection from water and

chloride ion intrusion.

VOC content limit: 400 grams per liter (3.3 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for concrete protective coatings and the definition for

other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.

CONCRETE SURFACE RETARDERS

Definition: A mixture of retarding ingredients such as extender pigments,

primary pigments, resin, and solvent that interact chemically with

the cement to prevent hardening on the surface where the retarder

is applied, allowing the retarded mix of cement and sand at the

surface to be washed away to create an exposed aggregate finish.

VOC content limit: 780 grams per liter (6.5 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for concrete surface retarders and the definition for

other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
Appendix B

B-7

CONVERSION VARNISH

Definition: A clear acid curing coating with an alkyd or other resin blended with

amino resins and supplied as a single component or

two-component product. Conversion varnishes produce a hard,

durable, clear finish designed for professional application to wood

flooring. The film formation is the result of an acid-catalyzed

condensation reaction, affecting a transetherification at the reactive

ethers of the amino resins.

VOC content limit: 725 grams per liter (6.0 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Conversion varnish Floor coating 725 g/l for conversion

varnish

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

floor coating limit for all categories for

which the coating meets the

definition

DRY FOG COATINGS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended only for spray application

such that overspray droplets dry before subsequent contact with

incidental surfaces in the vicinity of the surface coating activity.

VOC content limit: 400 grams per liter (3.3 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for dry fog coatings and the definition for other

categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
Appendix B

B-8

EXTREME HIGH DURABILITY COATINGS

Definition: An air dry coating, including a fluoropolymer-based coating, that is

formulated and recommended for touchup of precoated

architectural aluminum extrusions and panels and to ensure the

protection of architectural subsections, and that meets the

weathering requirements of American Architectural Manufacturer's

Association (AAMA) specification 605-98, Voluntary Specification

Performance Requirements and Test Procedures for High

Performance Organic Coatings on Aluminum Extrusions and

Panels. 

VOC content limit: 800 grams per liter (6.7 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for extreme high durability coatings and the

definition for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those

categories.

FAUX FINISHING/GLAZING

Definition: A coating used for wet-in-wet techniques, such as faux woodgrain,

faux marble, and simulated aging, which require the finish to

remain wet for an extended period of time.

VOC content limit: 700 grams per liter (5.8 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for faux finishing/glazing and the definition for other

categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
Appendix B

B-9

FIRE-RETARDANT/RESISTIVE COATINGS-CLEAR

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended to retard ignition and

flame spread, or to delay melting or structural weakening due to

high heat, that has been fire tested and rated by a certified

laboratory for use in bringing buildings and construction materials

into compliance with Federal, State, and local building code

requirements.

Related definitions:

Clear: Allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate may be

distinctly seen. 

VOC content limit: 850 grams per liter (7.1 pounds per gallon)

Clear fire-retardant/resistive coatings are subject only to the 850 gram per liter (7.1

pounds per gallon) limit even if they meet the definition of another category.

FIRE-RETARDANT/RESISTIVE COATINGS-OPAQUE

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended to retard ignition and

flame spread, or to delay melting or structural weakening due to

high heat, that has been fire tested and rated by a certified

laboratory for use in bringing buildings and construction materials

into compliance with Federal, State, and local building code

requirements.

Related definitions:

Opaque: Not allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate is

concealed from view.

VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)

Opaque fire-retardant/resistive coatings are subject only to the 450 gram per liter (3.8

pounds per gallon) limit even if they meet the definition of another category.
Appendix B

B-10

FLAT COATINGS-EXTERIOR

Definition: A coating that is not defined under any other definition in this

section and that registers gloss less than 15 on an 85-degree

meter or less than 5 on a 60-degree meter according to the

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D 523-

89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss. 

Related definitions:

Exterior coatings: An architectural coating formulated and recommended for use in

conditions exposed to the weather.

VOC content limit: 250 grams per liter (2.1 pounds per gallon)

Since a flat coating is defined as “a coating that is not defined under any other

definition....”, a coating that meets the flat coating definition cannot meet any other

category definition. Therefore, a flat coating will always be subject to a VOC content

limit of 250 grams per liter (2.1 pounds per gallon).
Appendix B

B-11

FLAT COATINGS-INTERIOR

Definition: A coating that is not defined under any other definition in this

section and that registers gloss less than 15 on an 85-degree

meter or less than 5 on a 60-degree meter according to the

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D 523-

89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss. 

Related definitions:

Interior coatings: An architectural coating formulated and recommended for use in

conditions not exposed to natural weathering.

VOC content limit: 250 grams per liter (2.1 pounds per gallon)

Since a flat coating is defined as “a coating that is not defined under any other

definition....”, a coating that meets the flat coating definition cannot meet any other

category definition. Therefore, a flat coating will always be subject to a VOC content

limit of 250 grams per liter (2.1 pounds per gallon).
Appendix B

B-12

FLOOR COATINGS

Definition: An opaque coating with a high degree of abrasion resistance that is

formulated and recommended for application to flooring including,

but not limited to, decks, porches, and steps in a residential setting.

VOC content limit: 400 grams per liter (3.3 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the then your coating is

the definition of ... definition of ... subject to the following

VOC content limit ...

Floor coatings Conversion varnish 725 g/l for conversion

varnish

Varnish 450 g/l varnish

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

varnish or conversion limit for all categories for

varnish which the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

B-13

FLOW COATINGS

Definition: A coating that is used by electric power companies or their

subcontractors to maintain the protective coating systems present

on utility transformer units.

VOC content limit: 650 grams per liter (5.4 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Flow coatings Industrial maintenance 650 g/l for flow coatings

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

industrial maintenance limit for all categories for

which the coating meets the

definition

FORM RELEASE COMPOUNDS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to a

concrete form to prevent the freshly placed concrete from bonding

to the form. The form may consist of wood, metal, or some

material other than concrete.

VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for form release compounds and the definition for

other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
Appendix B

B-14

GRAPHIC ARTS COATINGS (SIGN PAINTS)

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for hand-application by

artists using brush or roller techniques to indoor or outdoor signs

(excluding structural components) and murals including lettering

enamels, poster colors, copy blockers, and bulletin enamels. 

VOC content limit: 500 grams per liter (4.2 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for graphic arts coatings (sign paints) and the

definition for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those

categories.

HEAT REACTIVE COATINGS

Definition: A high performance phenolic-based coating requiring a minimum

temperature of 191 C (375 F) to 204 C (400 F) to obtain oo oo

complete polymerization or cure. These coatings are formulated

and recommended for commercial and industrial use to protect

substrates from degradation and maintain product purity in which

one or more of the following extreme conditions exist:

1. Continuous or repeated immersion exposure of 90 to

98 percent sulfuric acid, or oleum;

2. Continuous or repeated immersion exposure to strong

organic solvents;

3. Continuous or repeated immersion exposure to petroleum

processing at high temperatures and pressures; and

4. Continuous or repeated immersion exposure to food or

pharmaceutical products which may or may not require high

temperature sterilization.

VOC content limit: 420 grams per liter (3.5 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for heat reactive coatings and the definition for other

categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
Appendix B

B-15

HIGH TEMPERATURE COATINGS

Definition: A high performance coating formulated and recommended for

application to substrates exposed continuously or intermittently to

temperatures above 202 C (400 F). o o

VOC content limit: 650 grams per liter (5.4 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the and also meets the subject to the following

definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

High temperature coatings Industrial maintenance 650 g/l for high temperature

coatings

Metallic pigmented 650 g/l for high temperature

coatings

Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit

metallic pigmented and for all categories for which

industrial maintenance the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

B-16

IMPACTED IMMERSION COATINGS

Definition: A high performance maintenance coating formulated and

recommended for application to steel structures subject to

immersion in turbulent, debris-laden water. These coatings are

specifically resistant to high-energy impact damage caused by

floating ice or debris.

VOC content limit: 780 grams per liter (6.5 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Impacted immersion Industrial maintenance 780 g/l for impacted

coatings immersion coatings

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

industrial maintenance limit for all categories for

which the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

B-17

INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE COATINGS

Definition: A high performance architectural coating, including primers,

sealers, undercoaters, intermediate coats, and topcoats formulated

and recommended for application to substrates exposed to one or

more of the following extreme environmental conditions in an

industrial, commercial, or institutional setting:

1. Immersion in water, wastewater, or chemical solutions

(aqueous and nonaqueous solutions), or chronic exposure

of interior surfaces to moisture condensation;

2. Acute or chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic, or acidic

agents, or to chemicals, chemical fumes, or chemical

mixtures or solutions;

3. Repeated exposure to temperatures above 120 C (250 F); o o

4. Repeated (frequent) heavy abrasion, including mechanical

wear and repeated (frequent) scrubbing with industrial

solvents, cleansers, or scouring agents; or

5. Exterior exposure of metal structures and structural

components.

VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the and also meets the definition to the following VOC content

definition of ... of ... limit ...

then your coating is subject

Industrial maintenance Antenna coatings 530 g/l for antenna coatings

Anti-graffiti coating 600 g/l for anti-graffiti coatings

Flow coatings 650 g/l for flow coatings

High temperature coating 650 g/l for high temperature

coatings

Impacted immersion coating 780 g/l for impacted immersion

coatings

Mastic texture coating 450 g/l for industrial

maintenance

Metallic pigmented coating 500 g/l for metallic pigmented

coatings

Pretreatment wash primer 780 g/l for pretreatment wash

primers

Primer 450 g/l for industrial

maintenance
INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE COATINGS (Continued)

Appendix B

If your coating meets the and also meets the definition to the following VOC content

definition of ... of ... limit ...

then your coating is subject

B-18

Industrial maintenance Repair and maintenance 650 g/l for repair and

thermoplastic coatings maintenance thermoplastic

coatings

Sealer 450 g/l for industrial

maintenance

Thermoplastic rubber coatings 550 g/l for thermoplastic rubber

and mastics coatings

Undercoater 450 g/l for industrial

maintenance

Any category other than those The lowest VOC content limit

listed above for all categories for which the

coating meets the definition
Appendix B

B-19

LACQUERS

Definition: A clear or pigmented wood finish, including clear lacquer sanding

sealers, formulated with cellulosic or synthetic resins to dry by

evaporation without chemical reaction and to provide a solid,

protective film. Lacquer stains are considered stains, not lacquers.

VOC content limit: 680 grams per liter (5.7 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Lacquers Nonferrous ornamental 870 g/l for nonferrous

metal lacquers and surface ornamental metal lacquers

protectants and surface protectants

Other architectural coating 680 g/l for lacquers

applications to wood,

except stains

Any category or application The lowest VOC content

other than those listed limit for all categories for

above. which the coating meets the

definition

MAGNESITE CEMENT COATINGS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to

magnesite cement decking to protect the magnesite cement

substrate from erosion by water.

VOC content limit: 600 grams per liter (5.0 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for magnesite cement coatings and the definition for

other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
Appendix B

B-20

MASTIC TEXTURE COATINGS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended to cover holes and minor

cracks and to conceal surface irregularities, and is applied in a

single coat of at least 10 mils (0.010 inch) dry film thickness.

VOC content limit: 300 grams per liter (2.5 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Mastic texture coatings Industrial maintenance 450 g/l for industrial

maintenance

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

industrial maintenance limit for all categories for

which the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

B-21

METALLIC PIGMENTED COATINGS

Definition: A nonbituminous coating containing at least 0.048 kilogram of

metallic pigment per liter of coating (0.4 pound per gallon)

including, but not limited to, zinc pigment. 

VOC content limit: 500 grams per liter (4.2 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Metallic pigmented High temperature coatings 650 g/l for high temperature

coatings coatings

Industrial maintenance 500 g/l for metallic

pigmented coatings

Primers 500 g/l for metallic

pigmented coatings

Roof coatings 500 g/l for metallic

pigmented coatings

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

those listed above limit for all categories for

which the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

B-22

MULTI-COLORED COATINGS

Definition: A coating that is packaged in a single container and exhibits more

than one color when applied.

VOC content limit: 580 grams per liter (4.8 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for multi-colored coatings and the definition for other

categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.

NONFERROUS ORNAMENTAL METAL LACQUERS 

AND SURFACE PROTECTANTS

Definition: A clear coating formulated and recommended for application to

ornamental architectural metal substrates (bronze, stainless steel,

copper, brass, and anodized aluminum) to prevent oxidation,

corrosion, and surface degradation.

VOC content limit: 870 grams per liter (7.3 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Nonferrous ornamental Lacquers 870 g/l for nonferrous

metal lacquers and ornamental metal lacquers

surface protectants and surface protectants

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

lacquers limit for all categories for

which the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

B-23

NONFLAT COATINGS-EXTERIOR

Definition: A coating that is not defined under any other definition in this

section and that registers a gloss of 15 or greater on an 85-degree

meter or 5 or greater on a 60-degree meter according to ASTM

Method D 523-89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss. 

Related definitions:

Exterior coating: An architectural coating formulated and recommended for use in

conditions exposed to the weather.

VOC content limit: 380 grams per liter (3.2 pounds per gallon)

Since a nonflat coating is defined as “a coating that is not defined under any other

definition....”, a coating that meets the nonflat coating definition cannot meet any other

category definition. Therefore, a nonflat coating will always be subject to a VOC content

limit of 380 grams per liter (3.2 pounds per gallon).

NONFLAT COATINGS-INTERIOR

Definition: A coating that is not defined under any other definition in this

section and that registers a gloss of 15 or greater on an 85-degree

meter or 5 or greater on a 60-degree meter according to ASTM

Method D 523-89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss. 

Related definitions:

Interior coating: An architectural coating formulated and recommended for use in

conditions not exposed to natural weathering.

VOC content limit: 380 grams per liter (3.2 pounds per pounds)

Since a nonflat coating is defined as “a coating that is not defined under any other

definition....”, a coating that meets the nonflat coating definition cannot meet any other

category definition. Therefore, a nonflat coating will always be subject to a VOC content

limit of 380 grams per liter (3.2 pounds per gallon).
Appendix B

B-24

NUCLEAR COATINGS

Definition: A protective coating formulated and recommended to seal porous

surfaces such as steel (or concrete) that otherwise would be

subject to intrusion by radioactive materials. These coatings must

be resistant to long-term (service life) cumulative radiation

exposure (ASTM Method D 4082-89, Standard Test Method for

Effects of Gamma Radiation on Coatings for Use in Light-Water

Nuclear Power Plants ), relatively easy to decontaminate, and

resistant to various chemicals to which the coatings are likely to be

exposed (ASTM Method D 3912-80 (Reapproved 1989), Standard

Test Method for Chemical Resistance of Coatings Used in LightWater Nuclear Power Plants

VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for nuclear coatings and the definition for other

categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
Appendix B

B-25

PRETREATMENT WASH PRIMERS

Definition: A primer that contains a minimum of 0.5 percent acid, by weight,

that is formulated and recommended for application directly to bare

metal surfaces in thin films to provide corrosion resistance and to

promote adhesion of subsequent topcoats.

VOC content limit: 780 grams per liter (6.5 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Pretreatment wash Industrial maintenance 780 g/l for pretreatment

primers wash primers

Primers 780 g/l for pretreatment

wash primers

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

primers or industrial limit for all categories for

maintenance which the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent

overlap between the definitions for rust preventative coatings and primers and

undercoaters.

B-26

PRIMERS AND UNDERCOATERS

Definition: 

Primer: A coating formulated and recommended for application to a

substrate to provide a firm bond between the substrate and

subsequent coatings.

Undercoater: A coating formulated and recommended to provide a smooth

surface for subsequent coatings.

VOC content limit: 350 grams per liter (2.9 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the and also meets the definition the following VOC 

definition of ... of ... content limit ...

then your coating is subject to

Primers Antenna coatings 530 g/l for antenna coatings

Industrial maintenance 450 g/l for industrial maintenance

Metallic pigmented coatings 500 g/l for metallic pigmented

coatings

Pretreatment wash primers 780 g/l for pretreatment wash

primers

Quick-dry primers 450 g/l for quick-dry primers

Rust preventative coatings 400 g/l for preventative coatings*

Any category other than those The lowest VOC content limit for

listed above all categories for which the

coating meets the definition

Undercoaters Industrial maintenance 450 g/l for industrial maintenance

Quick-dry undercoaters 450 g/l for quick-dry undercoaters

Rust preventative coatings 400 g/l for preventative coatings*

Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit for

industrial maintenance or quick- all categories for which the

dry undercoaters coating meets the definition
Appendix B

B-27

QUICK DRY COATINGS - ENAMELS

Definition: A nonflat coating that has the following characteristics:

1. Is capable of being applied directly from the container under

normal conditions with ambient temperatures between

16 and 27 C (60 and 80 F); o o

2. When tested in accordance with ASTM Method D 1640-83

(Reapproved 1989), Standard Test Methods for Drying,

Curing, or Film Formation of Organic Coatings at Room

Temperature sets to touch in 2 hours or less, is tack free in

4 hours or less, and dries hard in 8 hours or less by the

mechanical test method; and

3. has a dried film gloss of 70 or above on a 60 degree meter.

VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for quick dry coatings - enamels and the definition

for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
Appendix B

*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent

omission of the word "sealers."

B-28

QUICK-DRY COATINGS - PRIMERS, SEALERS AND UNDERCOATERS

Definition: A primer, sealer, or undercoater that is dry to the touch in a 1⁄2 hour

and can be recoated in 2 hours when tested in accordance with

ASTM Method D 1640-83 (Reapproved 1989), Standard Test

Methods for Drying, Curing, or Film Formation of Organic Coatings

at Room Temperature (incorporated by reference--see §59.412 of

this subpart).

VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the and also meets the subject to the following

definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Quick-dry primers Primers 450 g/l for quick-dry primers

Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit

primers for all categories for which

the coating meets the

definition

Quick-dry sealers Sanding sealers 550 g/l for sanding sealers

Sealers 450 g/l for quick dry sealers*

Waterproofing sealers and 600 g/l for waterproofing

treatments sealers and treatments 

Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit

those listed above for all categories for which

the coating meets the

definition

Quick-dry undercoaters Undercoaters 450 g/l for quick-dry

undercoaters

Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit

undercoaters for all categories for which

the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

B-29

REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE THERMOPLASTIC COATINGS

Definition: An industrial maintenance coating that has vinyl or chlorinated

rubber as a primary resin and is recommended solely for the repair

of existing vinyl or chlorinated rubber coatings without the full

removal of the existing coating system.

VOC content limit: 650 grams per liter (5.4 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the and also meets the to the following VOC

definition of ... definition of ... content limit ...

then your coating is subject

Repair and maintenance Industrial maintenance 650 g/l for repair and

thermoplastic coatings maintenance thermoplastic

coatings

Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit

industrial maintenance for all categories for which the

coating meets the definition

ROOF COATINGS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to exterior

roofs for the primary purpose of preventing penetration of the

substrate by water or reflecting heat and reflecting ultraviolet

radiation. This definition does not include thermoplastic rubber

coatings. 

VOC content limit: 250 grams per liter (2.1 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the and also meets the to the following VOC

definition of ... definition of ... content limit ...

then your coating is subject

Roof coatings Metallic pigmented coatings 500 g/l for metallic pigmented

coatings

Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit

metallic pigmented coatings for all categories for which the

coating meets the definition
Appendix B

*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent

overlap between the definitions for rust preventative coatings and primers and

undercoaters.

B-30

RUST PREVENTATIVE COATINGS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for use in preventing the

corrosion of ferrous metal surfaces in residential situations.

VOC content limit: 400 grams per liter ( 3.3 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the and also meets the to the following VOC

definition of ... definition of ... content limit ...

then your coating is subject

Rust preventative coatings Primer 400 g/l rust preventative

coatings*

Undercoater 400 g/l for rust preventative

coatings*

Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit

primer and undercoater for all categories for which the

coating meets the definition
Appendix B

B-31

SANDING SEALERS

Definition: A clear wood coating formulated and recommended for application

to bare wood to seal the wood and to provide a coat that can be

sanded to create a smooth surface. A sanding sealer that also

meets the definition of a lacquer is not included in this category, but

is included in the lacquer category.

VOC content limit: 550 grams per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Sanding sealers Quick-dry sealers 550 g/l for sanding sealers

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

quick-dry sealers limit for all categories for

which the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

B-32

SEALERS (INCLUDING INTERIOR CLEAR WOOD SEALERS)

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to a

substrate for one or more of the following purposes: to prevent

subsequent coatings from being absorbed by the substrate; to

prevent harm to subsequent coatings by materials in the substrate;

to block stains, odors, or efflorescence; to seal fire, smoke, or

water damage; or to condition chalky surfaces.

VOC content limit: 400 grams per liter (3.3 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Sealers Industrial maintenance 450 g/l for industrial

maintenance

Quick-dry sealers 450 g/l for quick-dry sealers

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

industrial maintenance and limit for all categories for

quick-dry sealers which the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

B-33

SHELLACS-CLEAR

Definition: A clear coating formulated with natural resins (except nitrocellulose

resins) soluble in alcohol (including, but not limited to, the resinous

secretions of the lac beetle, Laciffer lacca). Shellacs dry by

evaporation without chemical reaction and provide a quick-drying,

solid protective film that may be used for blocking stains.

Related definitions:

Clear: Allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate may be

distinctly seen. 

VOC content limit: 730 grams per liter (6.1 pounds per gallon)

Clear shellacs are subject only to the 730 gram per liter (6.1 pounds per gallon) limit

even if they meet the definition of another category.

SHELLACS-OPAQUE

Definition: A pigmented coating formulated with natural resins (except

nitrocellulose resins) soluble in alcohol (including, but not limited to,

the resinous secretions of the lac beetle, Laciffer lacca). Shellacs

dry by evaporation without chemical reaction and provide a quickdrying, solid protective film that may be used for blocking stains.

Related definitions:

Opaque: Not allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate is

concealed from view.

VOC content limit: 550 grams per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon)

Opaque shellacs are subject only to the 550 gram per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon) limit

even if they meet the definition of another category.
Appendix B

B-34

STAINS-CLEAR AND SEMITRANSPARENT

Definition: A coating that produces a dry film with minimal coloring. This

includes lacquer stains.

Related definitions:

Clear: Allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate may be

distinctly seen. 

Semitransparent: Not completely concealing the surface of a substrate or its natural

texture or grain pattern.

VOC content limit: 550 grams per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for stains-clear and semitransparent and the

definition for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those

categories.

STAINS-OPAQUE

Definition: A coating that produces a dry film with minimal coloring. This

includes lacquer stains.

Related definitions:

Opaque: Not allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate is

concealed from view.

VOC content limit: 350 grams per liter (2.9 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for stains-opaque and the definition for other

categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
Appendix B

B-35

STAINS - LOW SOLIDS

Definition: A coating that produces a dry film with minimal coloring. This

includes lacquer stains. 

Related definitions:

Low solids: Containing 0.12 kilogram or less of solids per liter (1 pound or less

of solids per gallon) of coating material and for which at least half of

the volatile component is water.

VOC content limit: 120 grams per liter (1.0 pound per gallon)a

Units are grams of VOC per liter (pounds of VOC per gallon) of coating, including water a

and exempt compounds, thinned to the maximum thinning recommended by the

manufacturer.

STAIN CONTROLLERS

DEFINITION: A conditioner or pretreatment coating formulated and

recommended for application to wood prior to the application of a

stain in order to prevent uneven penetration of the stain.

VOC content limit: 720 grams per liter (6.0 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for stain controllers and the definition for other

categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
Appendix B

B-36

SWIMMING POOL COATINGS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended to coat the interior of

swimming pools and to resist swimming pool chemicals.

VOC content limit: 600 grams per liter (5.0 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for swimming pool coatings and the definition for

other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.

THERMOPLASTIC RUBBER COATINGS AND MASTICS 

Definition: A coating or mastic formulated and recommended for application to

roofing or other structural surfaces and that incorporates no less

than 40 percent by weight of thermoplastic rubbers in the total resin

solids and may also contain other ingredients including, but not

limited to, fillers, pigments, and modifying resins.

VOC content limit: 550 grams per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Thermoplastic rubber Industrial maintenance 550 g/l for thermoplastic

coatings and mastics rubber coatings and

mastics

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

industrial maintenance limit for all categories for

which the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

*Regulation correction [§ 59.402], see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent

overlap between the definitions for traffic marking coatings and zone marking coatings.

B-37

TRAFFIC MARKING COATINGS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for marking and striping

streets, highways, or other traffic surfaces including, but not limited

to, curbs, beams, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, and airport

runways.

Related definitions:

Zone marking coating: A coating formulated and recommended for marking and

striping driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, curbs, or airport

runways, and sold or distributed in a container with a volume

of 19 liters (5 gallons) or less.

VOC content limit: 150 grams per liter (1.3 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Traffic Marking Zone marking coating 450 g/l for zone marking

Coatings coatings*

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

zone marking coatings limit for all categories for

which the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

B-38

VARNISHES

Definition: A clear wood coating formulated and recommended for application

to bare wood to seal the wood and to provide a coat that can be

sanded to create a smooth surface. A sanding sealer that also

meets the definition of a lacquer is not included in this category, but

is included in the lacquer category.

VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Varnishes Floor coatings 450 g/l for varnish

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

floor coatings limit for all categories for

which the coating meets the

definition
Appendix B

B-39

WATERPROOFING SEALERS AND TREATMENTS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to a porous

substrate for the primary purpose of preventing the penetration of

water.

VOC content limit: 600 grams per liter (5.0 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the and also meets the to the following VOC

definition of ... definition of ... content limit ...

then your coating is subject

Waterproofing sealers and Quick-dry sealers 600 g/l for waterproofing

treatments sealers and treatments

Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit

quick-dry sealers for all categories for which the

coating meets the definition

WOOD PRESERVATIVES-BELOW-GROUND

Definition: A coating that is formulated and recommended to protect

below-ground wood from decay or insect attack and that is

registered with the EPA under FIFRA.

Related definitions:

Wood preservatives: A coating formulated and recommended to protect exposed

wood from decay or insect attack, registered with the EPA

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA).

VOC content limit: 550 grams per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for wood preservatives-below-ground and the

definition for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those

categories.
Appendix B

B-40

WOOD PRESERVATIVES-CLEAR AND SEMITRANSPARENT

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended to protect exposed wood

from decay or insect attack, registered with the EPA under the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Related definitions:

Clear: Allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate may be

distinctly seen. 

Semitransparent: Not completely concealing the surface of a substrate or its

natural texture or grain pattern.

VOC content limit: 550 grams per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for wood preservatives-clear and semitransparent

and the definition for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of

those categories.

WOOD PRESERVATIVES-OPAQUE

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended to protect exposed wood

from decay or insect attack, registered with the EPA under the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(7 U.S.C. Section 136, et seq.).

Related definitions:

Opaque: Not allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate is

concealed from view.

VOC content limit: 350 grams per liter (2.9 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets the definition for wood preservatives-opaque and the definition for

other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
Appendix B

B-41

WOOD PRESERVATIVES-LOW SOLIDS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended to protect exposed wood

from decay or insect attack, registered with the EPA under the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Related definitions:

Low solids: Means containing 0.12 kilogram or less of solids per liter (1 pound

or less of solids per gallon) of coating material and for which at

least half of the volatile component is water.

VOC content limit: 120 grams per liter (1.0 pound per gallon)a

Units are grams of VOC per liter (pounds of VOC per gallon) of coating, including water a

and exempt compounds, thinned to the maximum thinning recommended by the

manufacturer.
Appendix B

*Regulation correction [§ 59.402 (c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent

overlap between the definitions for zone marking coatings and traffic marking coatings. 

B-42

ZONE MARKING COATINGS

Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for marking and striping

driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, curbs, or airport runways, and

sold or distributed in a container with a volume of 19 liters

(5 gallons) or less.

Related definitions:

Traffic marking coating: A coating formulated and recommended for marking and

striping streets, highways, or other traffic surfaces including,

but not limited to, curbs, beams, driveways, parking lots,

sidewalks, and airport runways.

VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)

If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following

the definition of ... definition of ... VOC content limit ...

then your coating is

Zone marking coatings Traffic marking coatings 450 g/l for zone marking

coatings*

Any category other than The lowest VOC content

traffic marking coatings limit for all categories for

which the coating meets the

definition
Appendix C

APPENDIX C

Summary of the exceptions to meeting the 

most restrictive coating category VOC content limit
Appendix C

C-1

SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE

COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT

If your coating meets the then your coating is subject to

definition of... and also meets the definition of... the following VOC content limit...

Antenna coatings Industrial maintenance 530 g/l for antenna coatings

Primers 530 g/l for antenna coatings

Any category other than industrial The lowest VOC content limit for all

maintenance or primers categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Anti-graffiti coatings Industrial maintenance 600 g/l for anti-graffiti coatings

Any category other than industrial The lowest VOC content limit for all

maintenance categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Bituminous coatings and Any other category 500 g/l for bituminous

mastics

Conversion varnish Floor coating 725 g/l for conversion varnish

Any category other than floor coating The lowest VOC content limit for all

categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Fire retardant/resistive Any other category 850 g/l for fire retardant/resistive

coatings - Clear coatings - clear

Fire retardant/resistive Any other category 450 g/l for fire retardant/resistive

coatings - Opaque coatings - opaque

Floor coatings Conversion varnish 725 g/l for conversion varnish

Varnish 450 g/l for varnish

Any category other than varnish or The lowest VOC content limit for all

conversion varnish categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Flow coatings Industrial maintenance 650 g/l for flow coatings

Any category other than industrial The lowest VOC content limit for all

maintenance categories for which the coating

meets the definition
SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE

COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT (CONTINUED)

Appendix C

If your coating meets the then your coating is subject to

definition of... and also meets the definition of... the following VOC content limit...

C-2

High temperature coatings Metallic pigmented 650 g/l for high temperature

coatings

Industrial maintenance 650 g/l for high temperature

coatings

Any category other than metallic The lowest VOC content limit for all

pigmented or industrial maintenance categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Impacted immersion Industrial maintenance 780 g/l for impacted immersion

coatings coatings

Any category other than industrial The lowest VOC content limit for all

maintenance categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Industrial maintenance Antenna coatings 530 g/l for antenna coatings

Anti-graffiti coating 600 g/l for anti-graffiti coatings

Flow coatings 650 g/l for flow coatings

High temperature coating 650 g/l for high temperature

coatings

Impacted immersion coating 780 g/l for impacted immersion

coatings

Mastic texture coating 450 g/l for industrial maintenance

Metallic pigmented coating 500 g/l for metallic pigmented

coatings

Pretreatment wash primers 780 g/l for pretreatment wash

primers

Primers 450 g/l for industrial maintenance

Repair and maintenance 650 g/l for repair and maintenance

thermoplastic coatings thermoplastic coatings

Sealers 450 g/l for industrial maintenance

Thermoplastic rubber coatings and 550 g/l for thermoplastic rubber

mastics coatings

Undercoaters 450 g/l for industrial maintenance

Any category other than those listed The lowest VOC content limit for all

above categories for which the coating

meets the definition
SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE

COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT (CONTINUED)

Appendix C

If your coating meets the then your coating is subject to

definition of... and also meets the definition of... the following VOC content limit...

C-3

Lacquers Nonferrous ornamental metal 870 g/l for nonferrous ornamental

lacquers and surface protectants metal lacquers and surface

protectants

Other architectural coating 680 g/l for lacquers

applications to wood, except stains

Any category or application other The lowest VOC content limit for all

than those listed above. categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Mastic texture coatings Industrial maintenance 450 g/l for industrial maintenance

Any category other than industrial The lowest VOC content limit for all

maintenance categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Metallic pigmented coatings High temperature coatings 650 g/l for high temperature

coatings

Industrial maintenance 500 g/l for metallic pigmented

coatings

Primers 500 g/l for metallic pigmented

coatings

Roof coatings 500 g/l for metallic pigmented

coatings

Any category other than those listed The lowest VOC content limit for all

above categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Nonferrous ornamental Lacquers 870 g/l for nonferrous ornamental

metal lacquers and surface metal lacquers and surface

protectants protectants

Any category other than lacquers The lowest VOC content limit for all

categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Pretreatment wash primers Primers 780 g/l for pretreatment wash

primers

Industrial maintenance 780 g/l for pretreatment wash

primers

Any category other than primers or The lowest VOC content limit for all

industrial maintenance categories for which the coating

meets the definition
SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE

COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT (CONTINUED)

Appendix C

If your coating meets the then your coating is subject to

definition of... and also meets the definition of... the following VOC content limit...

*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent

overlap between the definitions for rust preventative coatings and primers and

undercoaters.

C-4

Primers Antenna coatings 530 g/l for antenna coatings

Industrial maintenance 450 g/l for industrial maintenance

Metallic pigmented coatings 500 g/l for metallic pigmented

coatings

Pretreatment wash primers 780 g/l for pretreatment wash

primers

Quick-dry primers 450 g/l for quick-dry primers

Rust preventative coatings 400 g/l for rust preventative*

coatings

Any category other than those listed The lowest VOC content limit for all

above categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Undercoaters Industrial maintenance 450 g/l for industrial maintenance

Quick-dry undercoaters 450 g/l for quick-dry undercoaters

Rust preventative coatings 400 g/l for rust preventative*

coatings

Any category other than industrial The lowest VOC content limit for all

maintenance or quick-dry categories for which the coating

undercoaters meets the definition

Quick-dry primers Primers 450 g/l for quick-dry primers

Any category other than primers The lowest VOC content limit for all

categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Quick-dry sealers Sanding sealers 550 g/l for sanding sealers

Sealers 450 g/l for quick-dry sealers

Waterproofing sealers and 600 g/l for waterproofing sealers

treatments and treatments

Any category other than those listed The lowest VOC content limit for all

above categories for which the coating

meets the definition
SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE

COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT (CONTINUED)

Appendix C

If your coating meets the then your coating is subject to

definition of... and also meets the definition of... the following VOC content limit...

*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest information. 

The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent overlap between the

definitions for rust preventative coatings and primers and undercoaters.

C-5

Quick-dry undercoaters Undercoaters 450 g/l for quick-dry undercoaters

Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit for all

undercoaters categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Repair and maintenance Industrial maintenance 650 g/l for repair and maintenance

thermoplastic coatings thermoplastic coatings

Any category other than industrial The lowest VOC content limit for all

maintenance categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Roof coatings Metallic pigmented coatings 500 g/l for metallic pigmented

coatings

Any category other than metallic The lowest VOC content limit for all

pigmented coatings categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Rust preventative coatings Primers 400 g/l for rust preventative

coatings.*

Undercoaters 400 g/l for rust preventative

coatings.*

Any category other than primers or The lowest VOC content limit for all

undercoaters categories for which the coating

meets the definition.

Sanding sealers Quick-dry sealers 550 g/l for sanding sealers

Any category other than sanding The lowest VOC content limit for all

sealers categories for which the coating

meets the definition
SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE

COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT (CONTINUED)

Appendix C

If your coating meets the then your coating is subject to

definition of... and also meets the definition of... the following VOC content limit...

*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(c), see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent

omission of the word "sealers."

**Regulation change [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent

overlap between the definitions for traffic marking coatings and zone marking coatings.

C-6

Sealers Industrial maintenance 450 g/l for industrial maintenance

Quick-dry sealers 450 g/l for quick-dry sealers*

Any category other than industrial The lowest VOC content limit for all

maintenance and quick-dry sealers categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Shellac - Clear Any other category 730 g/l for shellac - clear

Shellac - Opaque Any other category 550 g/l for shellac - opaque

Thermoplastic rubber Industrial maintenance 550 g/l for thermoplastic rubber

coatings and mastics coatings and mastics

Any category other than industrial The lowest VOC content limit for all

maintenance categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Traffic marking coatings Zone marking coatings 450 g/l zone marking coatings**

Any category other than zone The lowest VOC content limit for all

marking coatings categories for which the coating

meets the definition.

Varnishes Floor coatings 450 g/l for varnish

Any category other than floor The lowest VOC content limit for all

coatings categories for which the coating

meets the definition

Waterproofing sealers and Quick-dry sealers 600 g/l for waterproofing sealers

treatments and treatments

Any category other than quick-dry The lowest VOC content limit for all

sealers categories for which the coating

meets the definition
SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE

COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT (CONTINUED)

Appendix C

If your coating meets the then your coating is subject to

definition of... and also meets the definition of... the following VOC content limit...

*Regulation change [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest

information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent

overlap between the definitions for traffic marking coatings and zone marking coatings.

C-7

Zone marking coatings Traffic marking coatings 450 g/l for zone marking coatings*

Any category other than traffic The lowest VOC content for all

marking coatings categories for which the coating

meets the definition
Appendix D

APPENDIX D

Organic compounds that have been exempted from EPA’s 

definition of a Volatile Organic Compound in 40 CFR 51.100
Appendix D

D-1

Organic compounds that have been exempted from EPA’s 

definition of a Volatile Organic Compound in 40 CFR 51.100.

Compound Exemption FR

1 methane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 8, 1977 42 FR 35314

2 ethane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 8, 1977 42 FR 35314

3 1,1,1 trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 8, 1977 42 FR 35314

4 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 8, 1977 42 FR 35314

5 dichloromethane (methylene chloride) ...................... June 4, 1979 

May 16, 1980 

44 FR 32042

45 FR 32424

6 trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 22, 1980 45 FR 48941

7 dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 22, 1980 45 FR 48941

8 chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 22, 1980 45 FR 48941

9 trifluoromethane (HFC-23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 22, 1980 45 FR 48941

10 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC-114) . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 22, 1980 45 FR 48941

11 chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 22, 1980 45 FR 48941

12 1,1,1-trifluoro-2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123) ................ January 18, 1989 54 FR 1988

13 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a) ...................... January 18, 1989 54 FR 1988

14 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b) ................... January 18, 1989 54 FR 1988

15 1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b) ................... January 18, 1989 54 FR 1988

16 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March 18, 1991 56 FR 11418

17 pentafluoroethane (HFC-125) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March 18, 1991 56 FR 11418

18 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March 18, 1991 56 FR 11418

19 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March 18, 1991 56 FR 11418

20 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March 18, 1991 56 FR 11418

Perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:

21 cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes; . . . . . March 18, 1991 56 FR 11418

22 cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated ethers with no

unsaturations; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March 18, 1991 56 FR 11418

23 cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary amines

with no unsaturations; and, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March 18, 1991 56 FR 11418

24 sulfur containing perfluorocarbons with no unsaturations and with

sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March 18, 1991 56 FR 11418

EPA adopted a definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s) ....... February 3, 1992 57 FR 3941

25 parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCPTF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . October 5, 1994 59 FR 50693

26 cyclic, branched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes . . . . . October 5, 1994 59 FR 50693
Appendix D

Compound Exemption FR

D-2

27 acetone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 16, 1995 60 FR 31633

28 tetrachloroethane (perchloroethylene) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 7, 1996 61 FR 4588

29 3,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca) . . . . . . . October 8, 1996 61 FR 52848

30 1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cb) . . . . . . . October 8, 1996 61 FR 52848

31 1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-decafluoropentane (HFC-43-10mee) . . . . . . . . October 8, 1996 61 FR 52848

32 difluoromethane (HFC-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

33 ethylfluoride (HFC-161) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

34 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236fa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

35 1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoroproane (HFC-245ca) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

36 1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ea) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

37 1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

38 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245fa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

39 1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236ea) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

40 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

41 chlorofluoromethane (HCFC-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

42 1-chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-151a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

43 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

44 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxy-butane (C F OCH ) ..... 49 3 August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

45 2-(difluoromethoxymethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane

((CF ) CFCF OCH ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2 3 August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

46 1-ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane (C F OCH H ) ..... 49 2 5 August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

47 2-(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane

((CF ) CFCF OC H ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2 2 5 August 25, 1997 62 FR 44900

48 methyl acetate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 9, 1998 63 FR 17331

a

Date shown is publication date of the Notice in the Federal Register. Actual exemption date is generally

30 to 60 days after this publication date.
Appendix E

APPENDIX E

EPA's Test Method 24: Determination of volatile matter content, water content, 

density volume solids, and weight solids of surface coatings
Appendix E

E-1

 

EMISSION MEASUREMENT TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

NSPS TEST METHOD



(EMTIC M-24, 7/10/92)

 

Method 24 - Determination of Volatile Matter Content,

Water Content, Density, Volume Solids, and

Weight Solids of Surface Coatings

1. APPLICABILITY AND PRINCIPLE

1.1 Applicability. This method applies to the determination of volatile matter content, water

content, density, volume solids, and weight solids of paint, varnish, lacquer, or related surface

coatings.

1.2 Principle. Standard methods are used to determine the volatile matter content, water

content, density, volume solids, and weight solids of the paint, varnish, lacquer, or related

surface coatings.

2. APPLICABLE STANDARD METHODS

Use the apparatus, reagents, and procedures specified in the standard methods below:

2.1 ASTM D 1475-60 (Reapproved 1980), Standard Test Method for Density of Paint,

Varnish, Lacquer, and Related Products.

2.2 ASTM D 2369-81, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings.

2.3 ASTM D 3792-79, Standard Test Method for Water Content of Water Reducible Paints

by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph.

2.4 ASTM D 4017-81, Standard Test Method for Water in Paints and Paint Materials by the

Karl Fischer Titration Method.

2.5 ASTM 4457-85 Standard Test Method for Determination of Dichloromethane and 1,1,1-

Trichloroethane in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph

(incorporated by reference--see §60.17).

3. PROCEDURE

3.1 Multicomponent Coatings. Multicomponent coatings are coatings that are packaged in two

or more parts, which are combined before application. Upon combination a coreactant from one

part of the coating chemically reacts, at ambient conditions, with a coreactant from another part

of the coating. To determine the total volatile content, water content, and density of
Appendix E

E-2

multicomponent coatings, follow the procedures in section 3.7. For all other coatings analyze as

follows: 

3.2 Volatile Matter Content. Use the procedure in ASTM D 2369-81 to determine the

volatile matter content (may include water) of the coating. 

3.2.1 Record the following information:

W = Weight of dish and sample before heating, g. 1

W = Weight of dish and sample after heating, g. 2

W = Sample weight, g. 3

3.2.2 Run analyses in pairs (duplicate sets) for each coating until the criterion in

Section 4.3 is met. Calculate the weight fraction of the volatile matter (W ) for each v

analysis as follows:

W = (W - W )/W Eq. 24-1 v 1 2 3

 

Record the arithmetic average (W ). v

3.3 Water Content. For waterborne (water reducible) coatings only, determine the

weight fraction of water (W ) using either ASTM D 3792-79 or ASTM D 4017—81. A w

waterborne coating is any coating which contains more than 5 percent water by weight

in its volatile fraction. Run duplicate sets of determinations until the criterion in

Section 4.3 is met. Record the arithmetic average (W ). w

3.4 Coating Density. Determine the density (D , kg/liter) of the surface coating using c

the procedure in ASTM D 1475-60. Run duplicate sets of determinations for each

coating until the criterion in Section 4.3 is met. Record the arithmetic average (D ). c

3.5 Solids Content. Determine the volume fraction (V ) solids of the coating by s

calculation using the manufacturer's formulation.

3.6 Exempt Solvent Content. Determine the weight fraction of exempt solvents (W )E

by using ASTM Method D4457-85 (incorporated by reference--see §60.17). Run a

duplicate set of determinations and record the arithmetic average (W ). E

3.7 To determine the total volatile content, water content, and density of

multicomponent coatings, use the following procedures:
Appendix E

E-3

3.7.1 Prepare about 100 ml of sample by mixing the components in a storage container,

such as a glass jar with a screw top or a metal can with a cap. The storage container

should be just large enough to hold the mixture. Combine the components (by weight

or volume) in the ratio recommended by the manufacturer. Tightly close the container

between additions and during mixing to prevent loss of volatile materials. However,

most manufacturers mixing instructions are by volume. Because of possible error

caused by expansion of the liquid when measuring the volume, it is recommended that

the components be combined by weight. When weight is used to combine the

components and the manufacturer’s recommended ratio is by volume, the density must

be determined by section 3.4.

3.7.2 Immediately after mixing, take aliquots from this 100 ml sample for determination

of the total volatile content, water content, and density. To determine water content

follow section 3.3. To determine density, follow section 3.4. To determine total volatile

content, use the apparatus and reagents described in ASTM D2369-81, sections 3 and

4, respectively (incorporated by reference, and see §60.17) the following procedures:

3.7.2.1 Weigh and record the weight of an aluminum foil weighing dish. Add 3+1 ml of

suitable solvent as specified in ASTM D2369-81 to the weighing dish. Using a syringe

as specified in ASTM D2369-81, weigh to 1 mg, by difference, a sample of coating into

the weighing dish. For coatings believed to have a volatile content less than 40 weight

percent, a suitable size is 0.3 + 0.10 g, but for coatings believed to have a volatile

content greater than 40 weight percent, a suitable size is 0.5 + 0.1 g.

NOTE: If the volatile content determined pursuant to section 5 is not in the range

corresponding to the sample size chosen repeat the test with the appropriate sample

size. Add the specimen dropwise, shaking (swirling) the dish to disperse the specimen

completely in the solvent. If the material forms a lump that cannot be dispersed,

discard the specimen and prepare a new one. Similarly, prepare a duplicate. The

sample shall stand for a minimum of 1 hour, but no more than 24 hours prior to being

oven fried at 110 + 5(C, for 1 hour. 

3.7.2.2 Heat the aluminum foil dishes containing the dispersed specimens in the forced

draft oven for 60 min at 110+5(C. Caution -- provide adequate ventilation, consistent

with accepted laboratory practice, to prevent solvent vapors from accumulating to a

dangerous level.

3.7.2.3 Remove the dishes from the oven, place immediately in a desiccator, cool to

ambient temperature, and weigh to within 1 mg. 

3.7.2.4 Run analyses in pairs (duplicate sets) for each coating mixture until the criterion

in section 4.3 is met. Calculate W following Equation 24-1 and record the arithmetic v

average.
Appendix E

E-4

4. DATA VALIDATION PROCEDURE

4.1 Summary. The variety of coatings that may be subject to analysis makes it

necessary to verify the ability of the analyst and the analytical procedures to obtain

reproducible results for the coatings tested. This is done by running duplicate analyses

on each sample tested and comparing results with the within-laboratory precision

statements for each parameter. Because of the inherent increased imprecision in the

determination of the VOC content of water-borne coatings as the weight percent water

increases, measured parameters for water-borne coatings are modified by the

appropriate confidence limits based on between-laboratory precision statements.

4.2 Analytical Precision Statements. The within-laboratory and between-laboratory

precision statements are given below:

Within-laboratory Between-laboratory 

Laboratory

 

Volatile matter content, W 1.5% W v v 4.7% W v

Water content, W 2.9% W 7.5% W w w w

Density, D 001 kg/liter 0.002 kg/liter c

4.3 Sample Analysis Criteria. For W and W , run duplicate analyses until the v w

difference between the two values in a set is less than or equal to the within-laboratory

precision statement for that parameter. For D run duplicate analyses until each value c

in a set deviates from the mean of the set by no more than the within-laboratory

precision statement. If after several attempts it is concluded that the ASTM procedures

cannot be used for the specific coating with the established within-laboratory precision,

the Administrator will assume responsibility for providing the necessary procedures for

revising the method or precision statements upon written request to: Director, Emission

Standards and Engineering Division, MD-13, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

4.4 Confidence Limit Calculations for Waterborne Coatings. Based on the

between-laboratory precision statements, calculate the confidence limits for waterborne

coatings as follows: To calculate the lower confidence limit, subtract the appropriate

between-laboratory precision value from the measured mean value for that parameter. 

To calculate the upper confidence limit, add the appropriate between-laboratory

precision value to the measured mean value for that parameter. For W and D , use v c

the lower confidence limits, and for W , use the upper confidence limit. Because V is w s

calculated, there is no adjustment for this parameter.
Appendix E

E-5

5. CALCULATIONS

5.1 Nonaqueous Volatile Matter.

5.1.1 Solvent-borne Coatings.

 W = W Eq. 24-2 o v

where: W = Weight fraction nonaqueous volatile matter, g/g. o

5.1.2 Waterborne Coatings.

 W = W - W Eq. 24-3 o v w

5.2 Weight Fraction Solids.

 W = 1 - W . Eq. 24-4 s v

where: W = Weight solids, g/g. s
Appendix F

APPENDIX F

When do I include or exclude water, exempt compounds, and colorant 

from my coating VOC and volume calculations?
Appendix F

F-1

When do I include or exclude water, exempt compounds, and colorant

from my coating VOC and volume calculations?

For VOC Calculations:

When determining... compounds is... compounds is... added to tint bases are...

the weight of water and volume of and the weight and

and exempt water and exempt volume of colorants

The "VOC content" of coatings excluded excluded excluded

(except for low solids stains and

wood preservatives)

The "VOC content" of low solids excluded included excluded

stains and wood preservatives

The "VOC amount" for the tonnage excluded included excluded

exemption (regardless of the type

of coating)

For Volume Calculations:

When determining... compounds is... added to tint bases is...

the volume of water and exempt and the volume of colorants

The "volume manufactured or included excluded

imported" for the tonnage

exemption 

The "volume manufactured or included excluded

imported" for the exceedance fee

Colorants added to tint bases at the retail store or site of

coating application are excluded from all VOC and

volume calculations.
Appendix G

APPENDIX G

EPA Regional Office addresses for information and 

sending notifications and reports 
Appendix G

G-1

EPA REGIONAL OFFICES

EPA Region I Director, Office of Mailcode: S.A.A. J.F.K. 

Connecticut, Maine, Environmental Stewardship One Congress Street, 

Massachusetts, New Boston, MA 02203-2211

Hampshire, Rhode Island,

Vermont

EPA Region II Director, Division of 290 Broadway 

New Jersey, New York, Puerto Enforcement and New York, NY 10007-1866

Rico, Virgin Islands Compliance Assistance 

EPA Region III Director, Air Protection 1650 Arch Street

Delaware, District of Columbia, Division Philadelphia, PA 19103

Maryland, Pennsylvania,

Virginia, West Virginia

EPA Region IV Director, Air Pesticides, 61 Forsyth Street

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Toxics Management Atlanta, GA 30303

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Division

Carolina, South Carolina,

Tennessee

EPA Region V Director, Air and Radiation 77 West Jackson Boulevard

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Division Chicago, IL 60604-3507

Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin

EPA Region VI Director, Multimedia 1445 Ross Avenue

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Planning and Permitting Dallas TX 75202-2733

Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas Division

EPA Region VII Director, Air, RCRA, and 901 N. 5th Street 

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Toxics Division Kansas City, KS 66101

Nebraska

EPA Region VIII Director, Office of 999 18th Street, Suite 500,

Colorado, Montana, North Partnerships and Denver, Colorado 80202-

Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Regulatory Assistance, 2466

Wyoming

EPA Region IX Director, Air Division 75 Hawthorne Street

American Samoa, Arizona, San Francisco, CA 94105

California, Guam, Hawaii,

Nevada

EPA Region X Director, Office of Air 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Quality WA 98101

Washington
Appendix H

APPENDIX H

Worksheets for estimating and computing total mass of VOC for the tonnage exemption and

calculating exceedance fees

1. How to estimate the total megagrams of VOC for a coating

2. Figure H1. Tonnage exemption: Total mass of VOC for various volumes of coatings

(megagrams)

3. Worksheet for computing total VOC mass for the tonnage exemption compliance option

4. How to estimate the exceedance fee for a coating.

5. Figure H2. Exceedance fee for selected volumes of coatings (dollars)

6. Worksheet for computing exceedance fees
Appendix H

H-1

APPENDIX H

1. How to estimate the total megagrams of VOC for a coating

You should use the attached worksheet while following the example calculation in

Section 3.8 of this guide to determine the exact total mass (in megagrams) of VOC for a coating. 

Use Figure H1 in this appendix to estimate the total mass of VOC for your coatings. 

Figure H1 can be used to quickly estimate the total mass of VOC (in megagrams) for

each of your coatings. This figure can be used to estimate the total mass of VOC for a coating

to determine the volume of each coating (or two or more coatings) you can exempt. The volume

of any individual coating in the shaded area does not qualify for the initial exemption of

23 megagrams because it exceeds the limit of 23 megagrams for the period from September 13,

1999 through December 31, 1999. Similarly, you can use Figure H1 to determine the volume of

a coating that would qualify for the subsequent 18 megagram and 9 megagram exemptions for

the year 2001 and the year 2002, etc.

Let’s say you manufacture 40,000 liters of a coating with a VOC content of 450 grams

per liter of coating (including volume of water and exempt compounds). First locate the row in

the first column that represents the volume of your coating. Move across that row until you come

to the column that represents the number of grams of VOC contained in 1 liter of the coating. 

The "18" in this cell represents the total megagrams of VOC for that coating. If you choose to

exempt from the regulation 18 megagrams of VOC for this coating, you may exempt up to

5 megagrams of VOC for another coating(s) before reaching the maximum exemption of

23 megagrams for the initial exemption time period. 
H-2

2. Figure H1. Tonnage exemption: Total mass of VOC for various volumes of coatings (meg

Volume Manufactured

or Imported Grams VOC Per Liter of Coating (Including volume of water and exempt compou

(gallons) (liters) 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 

1,321 5,000 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2,642 10,000 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 3,963 15,000 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 11 12 5,284 20,000 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 6,605 25,000 5 6 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 7,926 30,000 6 8 9 11 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 23 24 9,247 35,000 7 9 11 12 14 16 18 19 21 23 25 26 28 

10,568 40,000 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 11,889 45,000 9 11 14 16 18 20 23 25 27 29 32 34 36 13,210 50,000 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33 35 38 40 14,531 55,000 11 14 17 19 22 25 28 30 33 36 39 41 44 15,852 60,000 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 17,173 65,000 13 16 20 23 26 29 33 36 39 42 46 49 52 18,494 70,000 14 18 21 25 28 32 35 39 42 46 49 53 56 19,815 75,000 15 19 23 26 30 34 38 41 45 49 53 56 60 21,136 80,000 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 22,457 85,000 17 21 26 30 34 38 43 47 51 55 60 64 68 23,778 90,000 18 23 27 32 36 41 45 50 54 59 63 68 72 25,099 95,000 19 24 29 33 38 43 48 52 57 62 67 71 76 26,420 100,000 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 27,741 105,000 21 26 32 37 42 47 53 58 63 68 74 79 84 29,062 110,000 22 28 33 39 44 50 55 61 66 72 77 83 88 30,383 115,000 23 29 35 40 46 52 58 63 69 75 81 86 92 

This figure can be used to compute the total mass of VOC for a coating to determine if the total mass of VOC for all exempt coatings is 

The shaded areas indicate levels that exceed the maximum allowable tonnage exemption (i.e., 23 megagrams) for the period from Sept

December 31, 2000.
Appendix H

H-3

3. Worksheet for computing total VOC mass for the tonnage exemption

compliance option

A BC D

Coating or Imported coating ** VOC Total Mg VOC 

Name (Liters*) [grams/liter]) (C = A X B) (D = C ÷ 1 X 10 )

Annual Volume Manufactured per liter of Total grams

VOC Amount

(Grams VOC

6

TOTAL

*Multiply gallons x 3.785412 to obtain liters.

**Include volume of water and exempt compounds. (See Appendix F.)
Appendix H

H-4

4. How to estimate the exceedance fee for a coating

You should use the attached worksheet while following the example calculation

in Section 3.9 of this guide to determine the exact exceedance fee for selected

coatings. Use the worksheet in this appendix to estimate the exceedance fee for a

selected coating.

Figure H2 can be used to quickly determine the approximate fee for each of your

coatings. For example, let’s say you manufacture 200,000 liters of a coating that has a

VOC content of 300 grams per liter and the VOC content limit for your coating is

350 grams per liter. Choose the appropriate number of liters in the first column. In this

case you would use the row at 208,198 liters. Move across that row until you come to

the column that represents the difference between the VOC content of the coating and

the applicable VOC content limit. For your coating, this would be the column labeled 50

grams per liter. The $29,333 in this column represents the fee for that coating. 
H-5

5. FIGURE H2. Exceedance fee for selected volumes of coatings (dollars)

Volume of Coating

Manufactured or

Imported VOC Content of the Coating in Excess of the VOC Level in the Rule (grams per liter)*

(gallons) (liters) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 55

5,000 18,927 2,667 5,333 8,000 10,667 13,333 16,000 18,667 21,333 24,000 26,667 29

10,000 37,854 5,333 10,667 16,000 21,333 26,667 32,000 37,333 42,667 48,000 53,333 5815,000 56,781 8,000 16,000 24,000 32,000 40,000 48,000 56,000 64,000 72,000 80,000 8820,000 75,708 10,667 21,333 32,000 42,667 53,333 64,000 74,667 85,333 96,000 106,667 11725,000 94,635 13,333 26,667 40,000 53,333 66,667 80,000 93,333 106,667 120,000 133,333 14630,000 113,562 16,000 32,000 48,000 64,000 80,000 96,000 112,000 128,000 144,000 160,000 17635,000 132,489 18,667 37,333 56,000 74,667 93,333 112,000 130,667 149,333 168,000 186,667 20540,000 151,416 21,333 42,667 64,000 85,333 106,667 128,000 149,333 170,667 192,000 213,333 23445,000 170,344 24,000 48,000 72,000 96,000 120,000 144,000 168,000 192,000 216,000 240,000 26450,000 189,271 26,667 53,333 80,000 106,667 133,333 160,000 186,667 213,333 240,000 266,667 29355,000 208,198 29,333 58,667 88,000 117,333 146,667 176,000 205,333 234,667 264,000 293,333 32260,000 227,125 32,000 64,000 96,000 128,000 160,000 192,000 224,000 256,000 288,000 320,000 35265,000 246,052 34,667 69,333 104,000 138,667 173,333 208,000 242,667 277,333 312,000 346,667 38170,000 264,979 37,333 74,667 112,000 149,333 186,667 224,000 261,333 298,667 336,000 373,333 41075,000 283,906 40,000 80,000 120,000 160,000 200,000 240,000 280,000 320,000 360,000 400,000 44080,000 302,833 42,667 85,333 128,000 170,667 213,333 256,000 298,667 341,333 384,000 426,667 46985,000 321,760 45,333 90,667 136,000 181,333 226,667 272,000 317,333 362,667 408,000 453,333 49890,000 340,687 48,000 96,000 144,000 192,000 240,000 288,000 336,000 384,000 432,000 480,000 52895,000 359,614 50,667 101,333 152,000 202,667 253,333 304,000 354,667 405,333 456,000 506,667 557

100,000 378,541 53,333 106,667 160,000 213,333 266,667 320,000 373,333 426,667 480,000 533,333 586150,000 567,812 80,000 160,000 240,000 320,000 400,000 480,000 560,000 640,000 720,000 800,000 880200,000 757,082 106,667 213,333 320,000 426,667 533,333 640,000 746,667 853,333 960,000 1,066,667 1,173250,000 946,353 133,333 266,667 400,000 533,333 666,667 800,000 933,333 1,066,667 1,200,000 1,333,333 1,466300,000 1,135,624 160,000 320,000 480,000 640,000 800,000 960,000 1,120,000 1,280,000 1,440,000 1,600,000 1,760350,000 1,324,894 186,667 373,333 560,000 746,667 933,333 1,120,000 1,306,667 1,493,333 1,680,000 1,866,667 2,053400,000 1,514,165 213,333 426,667 640,000 853,333 1,066,667 1,280,000 1,493,333 1,706,667 1,920,000 2,133,333 2,346500,000 1,892,706 266,667 533,333 800,000 1,066,667 1,333,333 1,600,000 1,866,667 2,133,333 2,400,000 2,666,667 2,933

*grams of VOC per liter of coating, excluding the volume of water and exempt compounds, except for low-solids stains and low-solids wood preservatives (exempt compounds is included).
H-6

6. Worksheet for computing exceedance fees

Coating (Liters*) liter) Regulation liter) liter) the Limit V

A B CD E F

Annual Volume Content Category in Limit Limit Grams of g

Manufactured or Imported (grams per the (grams per (grams per VOC Above e

VOC Applicable Content Above the (F = A X E) (do

Applicable VOC 

VOC Content Fe

(E = B - D)

0000000000000

TOTAL FEE

*Multiply gallons x 3.785412 to obtain liters.
Appendix I

APPENDIX I

Initial notification report example template

EPA National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for

Architectural Coatings [40 CFR part 59, subpart D]
Appendix I

*The description of the date code should be adequate to enable EPA to use it to

determine the date of manufacture of a coating from the date code on the container.

I-1

Initial Notification Report

EPA National Volatile Organic Compound

Emission Standards for 

Architectural Coatings 

[40 CFR Part 59, Subpart D]

You may complete this form as your initial notification report. You may choose any format, as long as you

submit the information required by 40 CFR 59.408(b), subpart D. Submit this information to the

appropriate Regional Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by September 13, 1999

(March 13, 2000 if your only coatings are FIFRA-registered) or within 180 days of becoming a regulated

entity under the regulation. See end of this form for relevant regulation sections and 40 CFR 59.409,

subpart D for addresses of EPA Regional Offices.

Company Name 

Company Official Submission Date ____________________, 19___

Name 

Title 

Signature 

Mailing Address 

 

Phone Number / / 

Fax Number / / 

E-Mail Address (optional) @ 

Description of Date-Coding System

Code Explanation* 

 

Placement on Containers 

Other Information 

Note: You must notify EPA within 30 days of changes to the date coding system. 
Appendix I

I-2

Company Name: 

Product categories subject to 40 CFR part 59, subpart D that the company currently manufactures or

imports (See definitions at CFR 59.401.) Check all that apply

Check Check

Here Here Coating Category Coating Category

Antenna coating Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and

surface protectant

Anti-fouling coating – Nonflat coating

Anti-graffiti coating exterior

Below-ground wood preservative interior

Bituminous coating and mastic Nuclear coating

Bond breaker Pretreatment wash primer

Calcimine recoater Primer

Chalkboard resurfacer Quick-dry enamel

Concrete curing compound Quick-dry primer, sealer, and undercoater

Concrete curing and sealing compound Repair and maintenance thermoplastic coating

Concrete surface retarder Roof coating

Concrete protective coating Rust preventative coating

Conversion varnish Sanding sealer

Dry fog coating Sealer (including interior clear wood sealer)

Extreme high durability coating – Shellac

Faux-finishing/glazing clear

– Fire-retardant/resistive coating opaque

clear – Stain

opaque clear and semitransparent

– Flat coating opaque

exterior low solids 

interior Stain controller

Floor coating Swimming pool coating

Flow coating Thermoplastic rubber coating and mastic

Form release compound Traffic marking coating

Graphic arts coating or sign paint Undercoater

Heat reactive coating Varnish

High temperature coating Waterproofing sealer and treatment

Impacted immersion coating – Wood preservative 

Industrial maintenance coating below ground wood preservatives

Lacquer clear and semitransparent

Magnesite cement coating opaque

Mastic texture coating low solids 

Metallic pigmented coating Zone marking coating

Multi-colored coating
Appendix I

I-3

Company Name: 

Name and Street Address of U.S. Manufacturing Facilities (see 40 CFR 59.408)

__________________________________________________________________________________ 

Name of facility Name of facility 

 

Street Address Street Address 

 

Name of facility Name of facility 

 

Street Address Street Address 

 

Name of facility Name of facility 

 

Street Address Street Address 

 

Name of facility Name of facility 

 

Street Address Street Address 

 

Name of facility Name of facility 

 

Street Address Street Address 

 
Appendix I

I-4

Initial Notification Report Form for Architectural Coatings

Relevant Rule Sections and Addresses of EPA Regional Offices

§ 59.408 Reporting requirements.

(b) Each manufacturer and importer of any architectural coating subject to the provisions of this subpart shall submit

an initial notification report no later than September 13, 1999 or within 180 days after the date that the first

architectural coating is manufactured or imported, whichever is later. The initial report must include the information

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section. 

(1) The name and mailing address of the manufacturer or importer.

(2) The street address of each one of the manufacturer’s or importer’s facilities in the United States that is

producing, packaging, or repackaging any architectural coating subject to the provisions of this subpart.

(3) A list of the categories from table 1 of this subpart for which the manufacturer’s or importer’s coatings

meet the definitions in § 59.401 of this subpart. 

(4) If a date code is used on a coating container to represent the date a coating was manufactured, as

allowed in § 59.405(a)(1) of this subpart, the manufacturer or importer of the coating shall include an explanation of

each date code in the initial notification report and shall submit an explanation of any new date code no later than

30 days after the new date code is first used on the container for a coating.

§ 59.409 Address of EPA Regional Offices.

Each manufacturer and importer of any architectural coating subject to the provisions of this subpart shall submit all

requests, reports, submittals, exceedance fee payments, and other communications to the Administrator pursuant to

this regulation to the Regional Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that serves the State or Territory

in which the corporate headquarters of the manufacturer or importer resides. 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., One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02203-2211.

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), Director,

Air 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, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303.

EPA Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin), Director, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507.

EPA Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), Director, Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.

EPA Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska), Director, Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division, 901 N. 5th

Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.

EPA Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming), Director, Office of

Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.

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, Office of Air Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, WA 98101.
Appendix J

APPENDIX J

Contacts and Resources
Appendix J

J-1

CONTACTS AND RESOURCES

Contact Address Description

Unified Air Toxics Website: Rule http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/ Regulation information

and Implementation Information 183e/aim/aimpg.html Technical information

for Architectural Coatings Implementation information

EPA Office of Federal Register http://www.access.gpo/nara/lsa/ List of CFR sections that have

Browse the list of CFR sections browslsa.html been updated.

affected.

EPA Clean Air Technology (919) 541-0800 Resources on emerging and

Center existing air pollution prevention

and control technologies.

Federal Register Online via http://www.access.gpo.gov/ Federal Register documents,

Government Printing Office su_docs/aces/aces140.html including the published

Access architectural coatings regulation

EPA Small Business Assistance http://www.epa.gov/ttn/sbap State & local SBAP contacts

Program (SBAP) SBAP materials

Related web sites

Meetings & conferences

EPA Office of Enforcement and http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ Applicability of EPA’s policy to

Compliance Assurance: Policy smbusi.html promote environmental

on Compliance Incentives For compliance among small

Small Businesses businesses.

Criteria for civil penalty

mitigation.

EPA Office of Enforcement and http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ Applicability of EPA’s policy to

Compliance Assurance: Audit auditpol.html enhance protection of human

Policy: Incentives for health and the environment by

Self-Policing encouraging regulated entities

to voluntarily discover, and

disclose and correct violations of

environmental requirements.

EPA Office of Enforcement and http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ Questions and answers on selfCompliance Assurance: Audit apolguid.html disclosure

Policy Interpretive Guidance

EPA Air Enforcement Division http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ore/ Clean Air Act Stationary Source

General Clean Air Act Stationary aed/comp/bcomp Civil Penalty Policy

Source Policies and Guidance
Appendix K

APPENDIX K

Glossary
Appendix K

K-1

The glossary tells you where architectural coating terms are defined. Each term is defined in

either the regulation (Appendix A of this guide) or the category fact sheets (Appendix B of this

guide). 

Categories Defined in the Regulation

(See the regulation, Appendix A of this guide and category fact sheets, Appendix B of this guide)

Antenna Coating Flow Coating Quick-dry Enamel

Anti-fouling Coating Form Release Compound Quick-dry primer, sealer, and

undercoaters

Anti-graffiti Coating Graphics Art Coating Repair and Maintenance

Thermoplastic Coating

Below-Ground Wood Heat Reactive Coating Roof Coating

Preservative

Bituminous Coating and Mastic High Temperature Coating Rust Preventative Coating

Bond Breaker Impacted Immersion Coating Sanding Sealer

Calcimine Recoater Industrial Maintenance Coating Sealer

Chalkboard Resurfacer Interior Clear Wood Sealer Shellac (clear, opaque, and

clear and semitransparent)

Concrete Curing Compound Lacquer Stain (opaque and low solids)

Concrete Curing and Sealing Magnesite Cement Coating Stain Controller

Concrete Protective Coating Mastic Texture Coating Swimming Pool Coating

Concrete Surface Retarder Metallic Pigmented Coating Thermoplastic Rubber Coating

and Mastic

Conversion Varnish Multi-Colored Coating Traffic Marking Coating

Dry Fog Nonferrous Ornamental Metal Undercoater

Lacquers and Surface

Protectant

Extreme High Durability Coating Nonflat Coating Varnish

Faux-Finishing/Glazing Nuclear Coating Waterproofing Sealer and

Treatment

Fire-retardant/Resistive Coating Pretreatment Wash Primer Wood Preservative (below

(clear and opaque) ground, clear and semitransparent, opaque, and low

solids)

Flat Coating (interior and Primers (and Undercoaters) Zone Marking Coating

exterior)

Floor Coating
Appendix K

K-2

Other terms defined in the regulation

(See the regulation, Appendix A of this guide.)

Act Importer Pigmented

Adhesive Importer Post-consumer Coating

Administrator Interior Coating Recycled Coating

Appurtenance Label Repackage

Architectural Coating Low Solids Semitransparent

Clear Manufactured Shop Application

Coating Manufacturer Tint Base

Colorant Opaque United States

Container Paint Exchange Volatile Organic Compound or

VOC

Exempt Compounds Person VOC Content

Exterior Coating
Appendix L

APPENDIX L

Questionnaire: How useful was this guide?
Appendix L

L-1

Questionnaire

The EPA is including this brief questionnaire to solicit feedback from users as to the

usefulness, readability, and improvements needed for this guide. Please complete this

information and return it to the EPA at the following address:

U.S. EPA 

Office of Policy 

Regulatory Management Division

Mail Code 2136

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

Date:

Title of Regulation or Program: Small Entity Compliance Guide: 

National Volatile Organic Compound 

Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings 

EPA 453/R-99-003 

Name of Commenter (optional):

Please take a moment to let us know if you found this guide useful by answering the

following questions. Thank you, your feedback is important to us.

1. I could easily understand what requirements I must meet.

2. The guide is written in understandable language.

3. The guide helped me understand the steps I must take to comply with the

regulation.

4. If you have suggestions to improve the guide, please indicate below:
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA

(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)

1. REPORT NO. 2. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.

 EPA-453/R-99-003

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE

Small Entity Compliance Guide; National Volatile Organic

Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings

 

July 1999 

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.

 

 

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

 Office of Air and Radiation

 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

 68-D6-0011 

12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED

 Director Final

 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

 Office of Air and Radiation

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

 EPA/200/04

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT

On September 11, 1998, under authority of section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency published national volatile organic compound emission standards for architectural

coatings. The Small Entity Compliance Guide is intended to help architectural coating manufacturers and

importers, particularly those who are small entities, understand and comply with the standards. The guide is

required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

 

17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

a. DESCRIPTORS b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group

Air pollution, Pollution control, Volatile Organic Air pollution control

compounds, Architectural coatings

18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES

 Release Unlimited

 Unclassified 220

20. SECURITY CLASS (Page) 22. PRICE

 Unclassified

EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE