Lyondell Chemical 

3801 West Chester Pike 

Newtown Square, PA 19073 

USA 

dan.pourreau@lyondellbasell.com 

Tel +1 610-359-2411 

Cell +1 610-212-9592 

Fax +1-610-359-2328 

lyondellbasell.com 

August 31, 2010 

David Yang 

Air Quality Engineer 

Rule Development 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916) 874-4847 

Re: Comments on Proposed Amended Rules 451, 459 and Staff Report. 

Dear Mr. Yang, 

As the developer and producer of tertiary-butyl acetate (TBAC), Lyondell Chemical is 

pleased to provide the following comments on Proposed Amended Rules (PAR) 451, 

459 and the staff report for these rules. 

We support the exemption of TBAC in rule 459 for automotive coatings, including 

thinners and reducers. Exempt TBAC safely is used in low-VOC automotive coatings 

and cleaners in 49 states and over 20 California counties, including adjoining Placer, 

Yolo, Solano, and San Joaquin Counties. We also request that TBAC be exempted for 

automotive cleaning applications and for coatings in rule 451. As we noted in our 

comments for rule 101, TBAC is negligibly photochemically reactive, with an MIR of 

0.17 grams ozone/gram (Dr. W. Carter SAPRC-07 mechanism).1

 

It is an excellent solvent for industrial coatings including those listed in several 

categories in rule 451. Your risk analysis for rule 459 has determined that TBAC use in 

automotive coatings will not pose a risk to human health. This is especially true since 

the cancer risk calculation was based on a rodent tumor endpoint that is no relevance to 

human health since humans do not produce the protein responsible for tumor formation. 

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that TBAC use in 451 rule coatings will pose 

any chronic risk to humans and we request that TBAC be exempted in that rule as well. 

In summary, Lyondell requests that the AQMD extend the exemption of TBAC for 

automotive cleaners in rule 459 and propose it in rule 451. This will greatly reduce the 

flammability risks and emissions association with cleaning and gun-flushing with 

acetone-based cleaners and coatings. We will provide additional comments on these 

two rules once we have the opportunity to carefully review the staff report which was 

 

1 http://www.engr.ucr.edu/%7Ecarter/SAPRC/ 
Page 2 of 2 

released only five days ago. We look forward to working with you on this important 

rulemaking. Please call me with any questions, comments, or if you need additional 

information. 

 

 Sincerely, 

 

 

 Daniel B. Pourreau, Ph.D. 

cc: Kevin Williams 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

P. O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, California 95812 

September 13, 2010 

ARB Staff Rule Review Results 

To: Kevin J. Williams, Program Coordinator 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

Telephone Number: (916) 874-4851 

e-mail: kjwilliams@airquality.org 

From: Alex Krichevsky, (916) 324-6222 

e-mail: akrichev@arb.ca.gov 

The following draft rules, which are scheduled for a workshop to be held by your District 

staff on September 16, 2010, were received by us on August 18, 2010, for our review: 

Rule 101 General Provisions and Definitions 

Rule 451 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 

Rule 459 Automotive, Mobile Equipment, and Associated Parts and 

Components Coating Operations 

The Air Resources Board staff has reviewed the rules and, based on the information 

available to us at this time, we have no comments. 

The rules were examined by the Stationary Source Division, the Enforcement Division, 

and by the Monitoring and Laboratory Division. 

We received the rule after the ARB/CAPCOA protocol date. When we receive draft 

rules at least 30 days before a workshop, our staff is afforded sufficient time to conduct 

a thorough, comprehensive review and you will likely receive our comments well before 

the workshop. 

If you have any questions, please contact me by e-mail or at the telephone number 

above. 
PPG INDUSTRIES

Automotive and Fleet Finishes

3800 West 143 rd Street, Cleveland, OH 44111

216 671-7152 Fax 216 671-7691 

E-Mail: mkoss@ppg.com

MIKE KOSS

MANAGER, REGULATORY AFFAIRS

AUTOMOTIVE,FLEET, & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FINISHES

September 16, 2010

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Attention: David Yang

Phone: (916) 874-4847

Subject: Proposed revisions of Rule 451 - SURFACE COATING OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL 

PARTS AND PRODUCTS & Rule 459 - AUTOMOTIVE, MOBILE EQUIPMENT, AND ASSOCIATED 

PARTS AND COMPONENTS COATING OPERATIONS

Mr. Yang:

We recognize the district’s motivations to refine & revise regulations to improve the quality of life of its 

citizens. We want to state our appreciation to the district for allowing us this opportunity to comment on 

the proposed draft versions. We would like to state the following:

In Rule 451 - SURFACE COATING OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS we find

the following definition under section 238:

PRETREATMENT WASH PRIMER: A coating which contains at least 1⁄2 percent acid by

weight, as determined by the method specified in Section 502.2, and no more than 12

percent solids by weight, and is applied directly to metal surfaces to provide surface etching

and corrosion resistance or adhesion of subsequent coatings...

We suspect this coating type definition is patterned after South Coast AQMD’s Rule 1107 (45) 

PRETREATMENT COATING. We ask that if the district chooses to follow the precedent set by the 

South Coast AQMD Rule 1107 that they also include a related coating type definition for a similar 

product that meets the same customer performance requirements:

Rule 1107 (16) ETCHING FILLER is a coating that contains less than 23 percent solids by weight and 

at least 1/2-percent acid by weight, and is used instead of applying a pretreatment coating followed by 

a primer.

Both of these products typically use the same resin chemistries and are intended to be applied direct to 

metal for corrosion resistance. We find that coatings manufacturers may not have the capability to offer 

a product to meet PRETREATMENT WASH PRIMER 12% solids maximum requirement, but may offer

one that meets the definition of ETCHING FILLER. We propose that the district allows both options for 

application facilities and coatings manufacturers. We should note that the VOC limit in Rule 1107 for 

both coating types is 3.5 lbs/gal.

We propose that either the 12% solids maximum limit be withdrawn from the definition of 

PRETREAMENT COATING or the ETCHING FILLER coating type be added to Rule 451.
page 2

In Rule 459 - AUTOMOTIVE, MOBILE EQUIPMENT, AND ASSOCIATED PARTS AND 

COMPONENTS COATING OPERATIONS we find a separate definition and limit for TRUNK 

INTERIOR COATING.

We are not aware of any other auto refinish rule that carries this definition. Typically, we might expect 

this coating to fall within the UNDERBODY COATING definition. In fact, the (264) UNDERBODY 

COATING definition already includes “the underside of a trunk”. The VOC limit for TRUNK INTERIOR 

COATING is set at 3.5 lbs/gal, for UNDERBODY COATING it is 3.6 lbs/gal. We would hope that new 

district regulations across the state maintain as much uniformity as possible.

We propose eliminating the TRUNK INTERIOR COATING definition & VOC limit in Rule 459 and 

merging its requirements into the UNDERBODY COATING definition & VOC limit.

In Rule 459-AUTOMOTIVE, MOBILE EQUIPMENT, AND ASSOCIATED PARTS AND COMPONENTS 

COATING OPERATIONS we find a several references to the use of tertiary butyl acetate (TBAC).

We appreciate the opportunity to use a new formulating tool as the district allows TBAC as an exempt 

solvent. However, 402.1f and 402.2f call for listing TBAC content in product data sheets, 403 calls for 

listing TBAC content again on the product label.

As we have recently gone to great lengths to accommodate CARB SCM label requirements we would 

be hesitant to again change labels to meet a new, unique requirement set out only in Sacramento’s 

Rule 459. We feel asking coatings manufacturer to show TBAC content in both Product Data Sheets 

and labels is an unneeded, redundant requirement .

We propose that the section 403 label requirement to show TBAC content be withdrawn as the same 

requirement for product data sheets is sufficient.

In Rule 459 - AUTOMOTIVE, MOBILE EQUIPMENT, AND ASSOCIATED PARTS AND 

COMPONENTS COATING OPERATIONS (section 310) we find a VOC limit for cleaning application 

equipment of 25 g/L.

We do see this limit in a number of CARB SCM based air district rules recently implemented. We find 

setting the limit at this low level forces formulators to use high exempt content products. Acetone & 

ParChloroBenzoTriFluoride (PCBTF) are typically selected for these types of products, there are only a 

few formulator options. Acetone cuts well but has a very high evaporation rate. PCBTF does not cut 

as well. We could design a better product by not setting a limit for this category, these solvents are not 

intended to be emitted but should be captured in a well designed gun cleaning device.

Of the districts that have recently implemented new CARB SCM based rules, Bay Area AQMD Rule 45

has no limit stated, under 308.3 - “Shall not use organic compounds for the cleanup of spray 

equipment, including paint lines, unless equipment for collecting the organic compounds and 

minimizing their evaporation to the atmosphere is used.”

We propose that the district considers following Bay Area AQMD’s practical approach to applicator 

cleaners, setting no limit but requiring efficient devices that minimize vapors released.

If you have any questions about these requests, feel free to contact me.
1 of 3 

 

Performance Coatings 

September 17, 2010 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Attention: David Yang (916) 874-4847. 

RE: Proposed Revised Rules 101, 451, and 459 

Dear Mr. Yang, 

DuPont Performance Coatings submits the following comments to the District for 

consideration in the revision of the rules referenced above. 

Proposed Revised Rule 101: General Provisions and Definitions

DuPont Performance Coatings appreciates the District’s commitment to protection of 

human health and the environment, and recognize this commitment internally to be a 

Core Value. 

In support of this Core Value, we provide recommendations on product MSDS, labels 

and other product literature, for the use of PPE that provides adequate protection from 

the potential hazards associated with ingredients in our products. The use of 

engineering controls, respiratory protection, and other forms of PPE are commonplace 

in the application of industrial coatings by professional, trained painters. 

We struggle to understand the conditional exemption of Dimethyl Carbonate and Methyl 

Formate, and the absence of an exemption for TBAc. Like many of the other solvents 

exempted from consideration as a VOC, DMC and Methyl Formate would be 

incorporated into finished products. End-users may not have the capacity to track this 

required information, and we believe the provision is unnecessarily burdensome. 

Further, manufacturers need every available tool to formulate coatings that meet everlowering VOC standards. TBAC is VOC-exempt in most States and some California Air 

Districts. This solvent is effective for a wide range of coatings types, and formulations 

for surface preparation. There is a critical and urgent need for safe, effective and 

affordable exempt solvents for use in the industry. 

Because of their broad usefulness in formulation, and demonstrated safety we request 

that the District fully exempt all solvents currently exempted by USEPA. 

Barley Mill Plaza 21 

P O Box 80021 

Wilmington, DE 19880-0021 
2 of 3 

Proposed Revised Rule 451: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 

Products

There is inconsistency between the definitions of Pretreatment Wash Primer in 

Proposed Revised Rule 451 and Pretreatment Coating in Proposed Revised Rule 459. 

For all intents and purposes, the coating types are synonymous. We would request that 

the current definition of Pretreatment Coating be retained as expressed in Rule 459, 

that is, 0.5% acid by weight and no more than 16% solids by weight. The proposed 

decreased solids content is not technically feasible, while still delivering the desired 

product attributes. 

Proposed Revised Rule 459: Automotive, Mobile Equipment, and Associated 

parts and Components Coating Operations

• The proposed revised definition of Aerosol Coating (Paint) Product does not 

appear to be specifically applicable to the operations within scope of this 

proposed revised rule. The reason for inclusion of the qualifying statement “...or 

for use in specialized equipment for ground traffic/marking applications” is 

unclear. We would request that the proposed revised definition be modified to 

read: “a pressurized coating product containing pigments or resins that 

dispenses product ingredients by means of a propellant, and is packaged 

in a disposable can for hand-held application.” 

• The newly included definition of spot repair is not descriptive of the process 

actually completed during Refinish operations. The size of a spot repair can vary 

with the size of the vehicle being repaired. We request that the definition be 

modified to be more reflective of the process, and propose the following, taken 

from BAAQMD Rule 8-45-236: Spot Repair: Repair of an area on a motor 

vehicle, piece or mobile equipment, or associated parts or components of 

less than an entire panel. 

• The newly included definition of trunk interior coating is unnecessary. Coatings 

used to complete this task are typically single-stage coatings or color coatings, 

where there is a need for color match. We would suggest that this definition be 

removed from the Proposed Revised Rule, and that the associated addition of a 

new Coating Category and limit also be removed. The additional Coating 

Category only serves to complicate labeling requirements for manufacturers.

• The language found is section 309 (Prohibition of Possession) to be applicable 

six months after rule adoption should be revised to be specific to product endusers, and not applicable to product distributors that may service customers 

outside of the District. 

• The proposed 25 g/L VOC content limit proposed for Solvent Cleaning 

Operations, while currently in commerce, has proven to be ineffective for the task 

at hand. Surface prep is a critical step in the Refinishing process, and must be 

completed with solvent blends effective enough to remove surface dirt, oil and 

grease, without depositing residue. Acetone does not meet the requirement. 

Solvent blends of higher VOC content can be used, and used far more efficiently 

to get the job done. For routine cleaning between process steps, we propose a 

VOC content limit of 160 g/L. 
3 of 3 

• For difficult cleaning tasks, such as the removal of bugs and road tar, we propose 

an allowance for the use of higher VOC material with a volume limitation. We 

propose inclusion of provision in line with BAAQMD Rule 8-45-308.5. 

We appreciate this opportunity to submit comment on the proposed revisions to Rules 

101, 451, and 459; and respectfully request that consideration be given to our 

suggestions. 

Sincerely, 

Emily L Taylor 

Product Stewardship Consultant 

DuPont Performance Coatings 


STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

P. O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, California 95812 

October 18, 2010 

ARB Staff Rule Review Results 

To: Kevin Williams, Program Coordinator 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

Telephone Number: (916) 874-4851 

e-mail: kjwilliams@airquality.org 

From: Alex Krichevsky, (916) 324-6222 

e-mail: akrichev@arb.ca.gov 

The following rule, which is scheduled for a hearing to be held by your District Board 

on October 28, 2010, was received by us on August 24, 2010, for our review: 

Rule 451 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 

The Air Resources Board staff has reviewed the rule and, based on the information 

available to us at this time, we have no comments. 

The rule was reviewed by the Monitoring and Laboratory Division, and the Stationary 

Source Division. 

If you have any questions, please contact me by e-mail or at the telephone number 

above.