Response to Comments

On Section 183(e) Study

And Report to Congress

E P A

Air

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards

Research Triangle Park NC 27711

EPA-453/R-98-007

August 1998
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON SECTION 183(e) 

STUDY AND REPORT TO CONGRESS 

Emission Standards Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

August 1998
ii

DISCLAIMER

This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division

of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and

approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial

products is not intended to constitute endorsement or

recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available from

National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1.1 Ranking Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.1.1.1 Adequacy of the Section 183(e) Study and

Report to Congress . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2.1.1.3 Subgroups Addressed by the Study and

Ranking Process. ........... 2-22

2.1.1.4 Consideration of the Impacts of

Regulatory Alternatives ........ 2-25

2.1.1.5 Consideration of Cost-Effectiveness

................... 2-29

2.1.1.6. Category Scoring Process and Public

Meeting ................ 2-33

2.1.1.7 Ranking of Architectural Coatings . 2-42

2.1.2 Volatile Organic Compound Inventory . . . 2-52

2.1.2.1 Reportable Volatile Organic Compound

Concerns ............... 2-52

2.1.2.2 Consideration of Biogenic Sources of

Volatile Organic Compounds ...... 2-58

2.1.2.3 Accuracy of Inventory .... 2-63

2.2 REACTIVITY ................... 2-69

2.2.1 Ranking Of Categories On Reactivity Basis For

Study ................... 2-69

2.2.1.1 Reactivity Study Requirements . . . 2-69

2.2.1.2 Determination of Reactivity .... 2-80

2.2.1.3 Use of Relative Reactivity in Regulations

2-87

2.2.2 Potential Of Consumer And Commercial Product VOC

To Contribute To Ozone Nonattainment . 2-90

2.3 EPA's REGULATORY STRATEGY ............ 2-103

2.3.1 National Rule Versus Other Strategies . . 2-103

2.3.1.1 Necessity of Additional National

VOC Rules ............... 2-104

2.3.1.2 Appropriateness of Additional

National Volatile Organic Compound Rules ................... 2-106

2.3.1.3 Use of Control Techniques Guidelines

2-108

2.3.1.4 Most of the Nation is Already in

Attainment .............. 2-116

2.3.1.5 Authority to Regulate Attainment

Areas ................. 2-122

2.3.1.6 Role of National Rules in Achieving

Uniform Regulation .......... 2-129

2.3.2 Nitrogen Oxides Versus Volatile Organic

Compounds Emissions Control Strategies . . . 2-132
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Page

iv

2.3.2.1 Control Strategy is Flawed: Nitrogen

Oxide Control is Needed to Reduce Ozone ................... 2-133

2.3.2.2 Contribution of Biogenic VOC Sources

versus Anthropogenic Sources to Ozone

Nonattainment ............. 2-144

2.3.2.3 Role of Combustion Sources in Ozone

Nonattainment ............. 2-150

2.3.2.4 The Role of Long-Range Transport of

Nitrogen Oxides in Ozone Nonattainment ................... 2-155

2.3.2.5 A VOC Regulatory Approach Has Been

Based on Flawed Data ......... 2-158

2.3.2.6 The EPA’s Air Quality Models . 2-163

2.3.2.7 The EPA Study Incorrectly Evaluated the

Cost Effectiveness Ranking Criterion . 2-167

2.3.2.8 Effect of VOC Controls on Peak Ozone

Concentrations ............ 2-171

2.3.3 Miscellaneous Regulatory Issues ..... 2-172

2.3.4 Economic And Social Impacts Of National VOC

Rules ................... 2-175

2.4 CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL ISSUES ........................ 2-177

2.4.1 Clean Air Act Issues ........... 2-177

2.4.1.1 Ultra Vires Consideration of

Regulatory Criteria .......... 2-177

2.4.1.2 No Legal Justification for

Regulation of Area Sources. ...... 2-178

2.4.2 Procedural Issues ............ 2-179

2.4.2.1 Regulations Void Ab Initio . . 2-179

2.4.2.2 Conflict of Interest

................... 2-181

2.4.2.3 Information Disclosure ...... 2-182

2.4.3 Constitutional Issues .......... 2-185

2.4.3.1 Regulation of Consumer and

Commercial Products is an Unconstitutional

Restraint on Trade .......... 2-185

2.4.3.2 Violations of Due Process . . 2-187
v

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO

CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT 

CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

TABLE 1-2. LIST OF UNSUMMARIZED ITEMS RECEIVED BEFORE

PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS RULE

........................... 1-13

TABLE 1-2. LIST OF UNSUMMARIZED ITEMS RECEIVED BEFORE

PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS RULE

........................... 1-13

TABLE 2-1. VOC EMISSIONS IN 1990 (NATIONWIDE) ...... 2-60
vi

ACRONYM LIST

Act Clean Air Act

BAC best available control

CARB California Air Resources Board

CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of the Science

Advisory Board

CCP Composite Correction Plan

CSMA Chemical Specialities Manufacturers Association

CTG Control Technique Guidelines

EIA Economic Impacts Analysis

EO executive order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

IR Incremental Reactivity

MIR Maximum Incremental Reactivity

MOIR Maximum Ozone Incremental Reactivity

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAPCTAC National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory

Committee

NARSTO North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NO nitric oxide

NO nitrogen dioxide 2

NO nitrogen oxides x

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OH hydroxyl radicals

O oxygen 2

O ozone 3

ORD Office of Research and Development

OTA Office to Technology Assessment

OTAG Ozone Transport Assessment Group

PAMS photochemical assessment monitoring stations

ppbv parts per billion, by volume 

ppmC parts per million as Carbon

ppm min 1per part per million per minute -1 -

RACT reasonably available control technology

Reg-Neg Architectural Coatings Regulatory Negotiations (1992 to

1994) 

Report Section 183(e) report to Congress

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RIR relative incremental reactivity

ROMNET Regional Ozone Modeling for Northeast Transport 

RVOC Reportable VOC

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 

SIP State Implementation Plan

tpy tons per year

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

UAM Urban Airshed Model

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

VOC volatile organic compounds
1-1

1.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS

A list of the commenters, their affiliations, and EPA docket

number assigned to their correspondence is given in table 1-1. 

Comments on the section 183(e) report to Congress (Report) and

the list and schedule of consumer product categories to be

regulated were received in four different dockets: (1) the

consumer and commercial product Report docket (A-94-65); (2) the

architectural coatings rulemaking docket (A-92-18); (3) the

consumer products rulemaking docket (A-95-40); and (4) the

automobile refinish coatings rulemaking docket (A-95-18). Each

docket number listed in the table and referenced in this document

is preceded by a two or three letter code indicating the docket

in which the item may be found: AIM signifies the architectural

coatings docket, CCP signifies the docket for the consumer and

commercial product Report, CP signifies the consumer products

docket, and AR signifies the automobile refinish coatings docket. 

Some letters were submitted to more than one docket or were

submitted multiple times to the same docket. Any duplicated

letter is listed once with alternate docket numbers listed in

parentheses underneath. Attachments are indented and designated

by a lower case letter following the docket number. When more

than 26 documents were attached, the additional documents are

designated by duplicate lower case letters following the docket

number i.e., aa, bb, etc. Some attachments included their own

attachments, which are numbered following the letter.

Table 1-2 lists an additional 17 docket items containing

comments on the Report that were received in the architectural

coatings docket before publication of the proposed architectural
1-2

coatings rule. These items were reviewed but were not summarized

in this document because they contained no issues that were not

raised in subsequent letters listed in table 1-1.
1-3

TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO

CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT 

CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED

Docket numbera

Attachments Commenter and affiliation

AIM-IV-D-02 N.B. Kisner

President

Triangle Coatings, Inc.

San Leandro, California

AIM-IV-D-05 W.A. Rostine

President

Cast-O-Magic

Springfield, Missouri

AIM-IV-D-08 Richard Hardy

President

XIM Products, Incorporated

Westlake, Ohio

AIM-IV-D-16 James S. Jennison

President

Jennison Industries

Burlington, Iowa

AIM-IV-D-26 Alaistair MacDonald

Chief Executive Officer

Specialty Coatings & Chemicals, Inc.

North Hollywood, California

AIM-IV-D-28 K.R. Schultz

Environmental Consultant

DuPont Automotive Products

Wilmington, Delaware 

AIM-IV-D-30 James G. Stilling

Vice-President and General Manager

W.R. Meadows, Incorporated

Elgin, Illinois

AIM-IV-D-32 G.A. Green

Administrator

Air Quality Division

Oregon Department of Environmental

 Quality

Portland, Oregon

AIM-IV-D-33 B.A. Kwetz

Director

Division of Air Quality Control

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Executive Office of Environmental

 Affairs

Department of Environmental

 Protection

Boston, Massachusetts 
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO

CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT

CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)

Docket numbera

Attachments Commenter and affiliation

1-4

AIM-IV-D-49 E.D. Edwards

Owner 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-IV-D-49b Howard Berman, Esq.

Director of Regulatory Affairs

Representing the Dunn-Edwards

 Corporation

Los Angeles, California

AIM-IV-D-50 R.E. Mitchell

Chairman of the Board 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California

AIM-IV-D-55 R.E. Mitchell 

Chairman of the Board

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-IV-D-82 L.A. Spurlock, Ph.D, CAE

Chemical Manufacturers Association

Arlington, Virginia 

AIM-IV-D-93 David Altena

President

Repcolite Paints, Inc.

Holland, Michigan

AIM-IV-D-96 Arthur J. Fossa, P.E.

Director Division of Air Resources

New York State Department of 

 Environmental Conservation 

Albany, New York

AIM-IV-D-115 L.R. Rogers

Director

Regulatory Compliance

Anchor Paint Manufacturing Company

Tulsa, Oklahoma

AIM-IV-D-117 Susan S.G. Wierman

Executive Director

Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management

 Association

Baltimore, Maryland

AIM-IV-D-155 R.E. Mitchell

Chairman of the Board 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO

CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT

CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)

Docket numbera

Attachments Commenter and affiliation

1-5

AIM-IV-D-161 Madelyn K. Harding

Administrator, Product Compliance &

 Registrations

Sherwin-Williams Company

Cleveland, Ohio

AIM-IV-D-162 B.R. Appleman

Executive Director

M.J. Masciale

President

Steel Structures Painting Council

 (SSPC)

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

AIM-IV-D-165 R. Hardy

President

XIM Products, Incorporated

Westlake, Ohio

AIM-IV-D-166 J.J. Jennison

President

Jennison Industries

Burlington, Iowa

AIM-IV-D-170 M.P. Stock

Vice President

TK Products

Minnetonka, Minnesota

AIM-IV-D-175 M. Uglem

Executive Vice President

Hirchfields Paint Manufacturing,

 Incorporated

Minneapolis, Minnesota

AIM-IV-D-177 E.D. Edwards 

Futurist

Greenwood, Minnesota 

AIM-IV-D-177a Attached document entitled “Cause of

Ozone and Peak Ozone Exceedance”

AIM-IV-D-178 N.B. Kisner

President

Triangle Coatings, Incorporated

San Leandro, California

AIM-IV-D-185 N.S. Bryson

Crowell & Moring, LLP

for the Thompson-Minwax Company

Washington, District of Columbia
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO

CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT

CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)

Docket numbera

Attachments Commenter and affiliation

1-6

AIM-IV-D-189 R.J. Nelson

Director

Environmental Affairs

J. Sell

Senior Counsel

National Paint and Coatings

 Association

Washington, District of Columbia

AIM-IV-D-212 Dunn-Edwards Corp. 

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-IV-D-212d Attached article from Environmental Week

entitled "Ozone Control Strategies

Flawed, Says EPA Scientist"

AIM-IV-D-212k R.E. Mitchell

(AIM-IV-D-212p6h) Chairman of the Board 

(AIM-IV-D-212mm) Dunn-Edwards Corporation

(CCP-IV-D-06) Los Angeles, California 

(CP-IV-D-35h)

(CP-IV-D-35k3)

AIM-IV-D-212p R.E. Mitchell

(CCP-IV-D-04) Chairman of the Board 

(CP-IV-D-35n) Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-IV-D-212p2 R.E. Mitchell 

(CCP-I-D-13) Chairman of the Board

(CP IV-D-35e) Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-IV-D-212p3 R.E. Mitchell

(CCP-I-D-14) Chairman of the Board 

(CP-IV-D-35f) Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-IV-D-212p4 R.E. Mitchell

(CCP-I-D-18) Chairman of the Board

(CP-IV-D-35g) Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-IV-D-212p5 R.E. Mitchell

(CCP-IV-D-05) Chairman of the Board

(CP-IV-D-35v) Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-IV-D-212p6 R.E. Mitchell

(CCP-I-D-18) Chairman of the Board

(CCP-IV-D-02) Dunn-Edwards Corporation

(CP-IV-D-35t) Los Angeles, California 
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO

CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT

CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)

Docket numbera

Attachments Commenter and affiliation

1-7

AIM-IV-D-212p6i R.E. Mitchell

(CP-IV-D-35j) Chairman of the Board

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-IV-D-212p6q Attached letter from C.C. Cowan

(CP-IV-D-35s4) Director

The National Values Center,

 Incorporated

Denton, Texas

AIM-IV-D-212p6r Attached document entitled, 

(CP-IV-D-35s5) “Stepping Stones” - a section of the

 Values Center, Inc.

AIM-IV-D-214 Smiland and Khachigian 

Los Angeles, California

AIM-IV-D-214b W.M. Smiland 

(CP-IV-D-07b) Smiland and Khachigian 

Los Angeles, California

AIM-IV-D-214c C.G. Foster 

Smiland and Khachigian 

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-IV-F-1c R.E. Mitchell 

Chairman of the Board

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-IV-F-1d H. Berman

Wellborn Paints

AIM-IV-F-1k D. Collier

Courtauld Coatings

AIM-IV-F-1l R. Wendoll

for Ned Kisner

Triangle Coatings

AIM-IV-F-1o J. Sell

National Paint and Coatings

 Association

CCP-I-D-17 S.J.H. Manekshaw

(CCP-IV-D-03) Director

Environmental, Safety and Health

 Affairs

Pennzoil Company

Houston, Texas
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO

CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT

CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)

Docket numbera

Attachments Commenter and affiliation

1-8

CCP-IV-D-01 R.E. Mitchell

(CP-IV-D-35k) Chairman of the Board

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

CP-IV-D-01 J. Janeczek Jr., P.E.

Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.

New York, New York

CP-IV-D-02 R.D. Elliott

Executive Director

Southwest Air Pollution 

 Control Authority

Vancouver, Washington

CP-IV-D-04 G.F. Tappan

Section Chief

Regulatory Affairs

Block Drug Company, Inc.

Jersey City, New Jersey

CP-IV-D-06 A.W. Effinger, Esq.

General Counsel

American Pet Products 

 Manufacturers Association, Inc.

Greenwich, Connecticut

CP-IV-D-07 W.M. Smiland

Smiland and Khachigian 

Los Angeles, California 

CP-IV-D-07a W.M. Smiland

Smiland and Khachigian 

Los Angeles, California

CP-IV-D-10 W.K. Lim

President

Aerosol Services Company, Inc.

City of Industry, California

CP-IV-D-11 B. Mathur

Chief

Bureau of Air

State of Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

Springfield, Illinois
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO

CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT

CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)

Docket numbera

Attachments Commenter and affiliation

1-9

CP-IV-D-13 B.A. Kwetz

Director

Division of Air Quality Control

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Department of Environmental

 Protection

Boston, Massachusetts

CP-IV-D-33 R. Engel, President

Chemical Specialties 

 Manufacturers Association

Washington, DC

CP-IV-D-34 L.A. Spurlock, Ph.D, CAE

Chemical Manufacturers Association

Arlington, Virginia

CP-IV-D-35 Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

CP-IV-D-35k R.E. Mitchell

(CCP-IV-D-01) Chairman of the Board

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

CP-IV-D-35m Attached document entitled, “Economic

Analysis” by Dunn-Edwards

 Corp.

CP-IV-D-40 F.N. Romano

Chairman of the Board

Chief Executive Officer

Key West Fragrance & 

 Cosmetic Factory, Inc.

Key West, Florida

CP-IV-D-42 I.S. Combe

Chairman

Combe Incorporated

White Plains, New York

CP-IV-D-44 M.A. Dirzis

Director

Government Affairs

Avon Products, Inc.

New York, New York

CP-IV-D-45 E.O. Sullivan

State of Maine

Department of Environmental

 Protection

Augusta, Maine
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO

CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT

CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)

Docket numbera

Attachments Commenter and affiliation

1-10

CP-IV-D-46 T.J. Donegan, Jr.

Vice President-Legal and General

 Counsel

The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and 

 Fragrance Association

Washington, DC

CP-IV-D-48 R.N. Hiatt

Chairman

Maybelline, Inc.

Memphis, Tennessee

CP-IV-D-49 G.T. Blair

Haarmann & Reimer Corporation

Springfield, New Jersey

CP-IV-D-50 S.I. Sadove

President

Clairol

Stamford, Connecticut

CP-IV-D-51 E. Zeffren, Ph.D.

President

Helene Curtis, Inc.

Chicago, Illinois

CP-IV-D-52 D.L. Stein

Senior Specialist

3M Corporate Product Responsibility

St. Paul, Minnesota

CP-IV-D-53 R.N. Sturm

Director

Professional & Regulatory Services

The Procter & Gamble Company

Cincinnati, Ohio

CP-IV-D-54 J.B. Hallagan

Law Offices

Daniel R. Thompson, P.C.

Washington, DC

CP-IV-D-56 S.P. Risotto

Director of Regulatory Affairs

Halogenated Solvents Industry 

 Alliance, Inc.

Washington, DC

CP-IV-F-1a R.E. Mitchell

Chairman of the Board

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO

CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT

CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)

Docket numbera

Attachments Commenter and affiliation

1-11

CP-IV-F-1b M. Thompson

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers

 Association

CP-IV-F-1d T. Wernick

Gillette

CP-IV-F-1g B. Mercer

Prestone

CP-IV-F-1j B. Sabo

Apollo Industries

CP-IV-F-1k G. Brown

National Aerosol Association

AR-IV-F-1 H. Berman

Vice President

Jefferson Environment, Health, and

Safety Group

Denver, Colorado 

a AIM = Docket A-92-18

 CCP = Docket A-94-65

 CP = Docket A-95-40

 AR = Docket A-95-18
1-12

TABLE 1-2. LIST OF UNSUMMARIZED ITEMS RECEIVED BEFORE

PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS RULEa

Docket number Commenter and affiliation b

AIM-II-D-146 R.E. Mitchell

Chairman of the Board 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-149 R.E. Mitchell

Chairman of the Board 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-152 R.E. Mitchell

Chairman of the Board 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-155 R.E. Mitchell

Chairman of the Board 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-160 and R.E. Mitchell

AIM-II-D-169 Chairman of the Board 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-161 E.D. Edwards 

Owner

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-169 and R.E. Mitchell

AIM-II-D-160 Chairman of the Board 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-177 R.E. Mitchell 

Chairman of the Board

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-184 R.E. Mitchell 

Chairman of the Board

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-186 and Dunn-Edwards Corporation

AIM-II-D-203 Los Angeles, California 
TABLE 1-2. LIST OF UNSUMMARIZED ITEMS RECEIVED BEFORE

PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS

RULE (CONTINUED) a

Docket number Commenter and affiliation b

1-13

AIM-II-D-231 R.E. Mitchell

Chairman of the Board 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-235 R.E. Mitchell 

Chairman of the Board

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-255 R.E. Mitchell

Chairman of the Board 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-256 R.E. Mitchell

Chairman of the Board 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-258 R.E. Mitchell 

Chairman of the Board

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-291 R.E. Mitchell

Chairman of the Board

Dunn-Edwards Corporation

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-20 W.M. Smiland

Smiland Paint Company

AIM-II-D-203 and W.M. Smiland

AIM-II-D-186 Smiland and Khachigian 

Los Angeles, California 

AIM-II-D-332 C.G. Foster

Smiland and Khachigian 

Los Angeles, California

aThese items were reviewed for section 183(e) issues. These

letters contained no new issues so they were not summarized and

will not be referenced in the comment response document.

bAIM = Docket A-92-18
2-1

2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

A total of 85 letters and 12 public hearing comments were

received on the section 183(e) study and report to Congress. 

For purpose of orderly presentation, the comments have been

categorized under the following topics:

& Consumer and Commercial Products Study & Reactivity & EPA's Regulatory Strategy & Legal Issues

2.1 CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS STUDY

Section 183(e) of the Act mandates a new regulatory program

for controlling VOC emissions. Through this provision, Congress

required EPA to conduct a study of emissions of VOC into the

ambient air from consumer and commercial products and to list for

regulation, based on the study, certain categories of products

that have the potential to contribute to ozone nonattainment.

The term “consumer and commercial products” is defined in

section 183(e) of the Act to mean:

...any substance, product (including paints, coatings, and

solvents), or article (including any containers or

packaging) held by any person, the use, consumption,

storage, disposal, destruction, or decomposition of which

may result in the release of volatile organic compounds.

The statutory definition of consumer and commercial products thus

includes a much broader array of products than those usually

considered to be consumer products (e.g., personal care products,

household cleaning products, or household pesticides) because it

encompasses all VOC-emitting products used in the home, by

businesses, by institutions, and in a wide range of industrial

manufacturing operations.
2-2

The stated objectives of the consumer and commercial

products study mandated in section 183(e) of the Act were: (1) to

determine the potential of VOC emissions from consumer and

commercial products to contribute to ozone levels which violate

the ozone NAAQS; and (2) to establish criteria for regulating

consumer and commercial products. In establishing criteria for

regulating products, the Administrator was directed to consider

the following five factors: (1) the uses, benefits, and

commercial demand of products; (2) the health or safety functions

served by such products; (3) whether products emit highly

reactive VOC into the ambient air; (4) the relative

cost-effectiveness of controls for products; and (5) the

availability of alternative products which are of comparable

costs, considering health, safety, and environmental impacts.

Upon completion of the study, section 183(e) required EPA to

submit a report to Congress documenting the results of the study. 

The statutory provision further required EPA to list those

categories of products that it determined, based on the study,

account for at least 80 percent of the total VOC emissions, on a

reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial products

in areas that violate the ozone NAAQS. In addition,

section 183(e) required EPA to divide the list of products into

four groups establishing priority for regulation. Every 2 years

following publication of the list, EPA is required to regulate

one group of categories until all four groups are regulated.

Regulatory criteria and ranking of product categories.

As directed in section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act, EPA

developed the following eight criteria for use in establishing

the list of consumer and commercial product categories to be

regulated:

(1) Utility,

(2) commercial demand,

(3) health and safety functions,

(4) emissions of highly reactive VOC,

(5) availability of alternatives,
2-3

(6) cost-effectiveness of controls,

(7) magnitude of annual VOC emissions, and

(8) regulatory efficiency and program considerations.

The first factor stipulated by section 183(e) is reflected

in two criteria developed by EPA. Criterion 1 (utility)

considers uses and benefits and Criterion 2 addresses commercial

demand. The remaining four factors stipulated in section 183(e)

are addressed individually by Criteria 3 through 6.

Criteria 7 and 8 (magnitude of emissions and regulatory

efficiency) reflect additional considerations not specifically

prescribed in the Act. The EPA has exercised its discretion to

include these criteria, because EPA concluded that they are

important in prioritizing product categories for regulation in a

manner that best effectuates Congress’s intent under Section

183(e). The EPA's interpretation of each of the five factors and

the rationale and intent of each of the eight criteria are

discussed in detail in the Report.

The EPA developed Criteria 1 through 7 to allow each product

category to be ranked numerically. The numerical ranking process

involved objective and subjective considerations. Criteria 2, 4,

6, and 7 are objective in nature and could be scored

quantitatively based on annual sales, VOC emissions, and cost of

control. Application of Criteria 1, 3, and 5 included some

subjective considerations. Scoring of these criteria could be

affected by the scorer’s background, knowledge of the category,

or other considerations. In order to ensure consistency and

fairness, EPA convened the National Air Pollution Control

Techniques Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC) to assist the Agency in

application of these criteria. Because of the balance afforded

by the diversity of the NAPCTAC membership, EPA concluded that it

was an appropriate and convenient choice for the panel. The

panel met in July 1994 in Durham, North Carolina, to assign

preliminary scores for Criteria 1 through 7 to each of the

product categories. Results of the preliminary scoring exercise

are available in the docket (A-94-65; item I-B-2). The EPA used
2-4

NAPCTAC to provide expert advice on the question of product

ranking, but excercised its own independent judgment to assign

the final ranking of products for regulation.

Once the initial ranking of products based on exercise of

Criteria 1 through 7 was completed, EPA applied Criterion 8,

regulatory efficiency and program considerations, to prioritize

the products in the schedule for regulation, and thereby identify

which product categories comprised at least 80 percent of VOC

emissions in nonattainment areas. As required by section 183(e)

of the Act, EPA grouped the listed categories of consumer and

commercial products into four groups for regulation in 2-year

intervals. Although the statute does not require that the

80 percent be divided into four equal groups, EPA placed product

categories into the four groups as equally as possible with the

goal of achieving VOC emission reductions as early as possible,

given available EPA resources. Thus, nearly two-thirds of the

cumulative emissions from consumer and commercial products result

from products in the first two groups of categories.

The EPA submitted the Report, including the required

criteria for regulation, on March 23, 1995. A summary of the

6-volume report (EPA-453/R-94-066-a through f) was published at

60 FR 15264. In the same notice, the list of products and the

schedule for regulation was published. The Act requires that the

Group I rules be promulgated within 2 years of the publication

date of the Report.

Regulations under section 183(e) of the Act. Regulations

under section 183(e) of the Act must reflect EPA’s consideration

of best available controls (BAC) for the category of product. As

defined in section 183(e)(1) of the Act, BAC is

...the degree of emission reduction that 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.
2-5

For any regulations under section 183(e) of the Act, the

regulated entities are defined as follows:

(i) manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or

importers of consumer or commercial products for sale or

distribution in interstate commerce in the United States; or

(ii) manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or

importers that supply the entities listed under clause

(i)with such products for sale or distribution in interstate

commerce in the United States.

Section 183(e) grants the Agency discretion to issue control

technique guidelines (CTGs) in lieu of regulations if the Agency

determines that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a

regulation in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment

areas. A CTG is a guidance document issued by the EPA. Whenever

a CTG is published, section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires that

States adopt (as part of their State implementation plans)

reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules for

stationary sources of VOC that are covered by a CTG. A CTG

includes a presumptive norm for RACT that EPA believes satisfies

the definition of RACT. By submitting a RACT rule that is

consistent with a CTG, a State does not need to provide

additional support to demonstrate that the rule meets the Act’s

RACT requirement.

Since publication of the list and schedule for regulation,

the EPA has proposed regulations for three product categories

pursuant to section 183(e): architectural coatings

(61 FR 32729), automobile refinish coatings (61 FR 19005), and

consumer products (61 FR 4531). In addition, EPA has proposed

determinations that CTGs are substantially as effective as

regulations for three product categories: wood furniture

manufacturing coatings, aerospace coatings, and shipbuilding and

ship repair coatings (62 FR 44672).

2.1.1 Ranking Process
2-6

2.1.1.1 Adequacy of the Section 183(e) Study and Report to

Congress.

Comment: Six commenters in nine documents (AIM-IV-D-212,

CP-IV-D-07a, CP-IV-D-35, CP-IV-F-1a, AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b,

AIM-IV-D-178, AIM-IV-F-1[l], AIM-IV-D-170, AIM-IV-F-1d) claimed

that EPA failed to perform the study necessary to establish

criteria for regulating categories of consumer and commercial

products as mandated by section 183(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. One

commenter (CP-IV-F-1a) claimed that instead of developing the

in-depth study requested by Congress, EPA conducted an inventory

of mass emissions from particular products. The commenter

contended that a “study” involves investigation, analysis, and

comparison, whereas an inventory involves counting and

identifying items.

One of the commenters (CP-IV-D-07a) stated that a complying

study is an essential precondition to preparing the Consumer and

Commercial Products list and schedule. Two commenters

(CP-IV-D-07a, CP-IV-D-35) concluded that until EPA completes the

required study, EPA is without authority to propose any

regulations under section 183(e) of the Act. 

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) contended that,

under section 304, a district court could enter a mandatory

injunction ordering EPA to perform its study and listing duties,

and also a prohibitory injunction ordering EPA not to propose any

rule until it performed those duties. The commenter cited

various court decisions regarding the performance of mandatory

and nondiscretionary duties in various contexts. The commenter 

also listed remedies available under section 304 of the Act for

failure to perform a mandatory duty. In addition, the commenter

cited decisions in which courts prohibited actions until the

mandatory duties were performed.

One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

AIM-IV-D-212p4/CP-IV-D-35g) contended that EPA failed to

implement the clear mandate of section 183(e) of the Act. The

commenter examined various parts of the business, the science,
2-7

and the psychology that affected human health and contended that

the Report had not analyzed the health effects of regulation. 

The commenter insisted that EPA adopt a broader sense of the

“health...function served by such...products” to include an

understanding that certain regulations would result in the loss

of jobs and that poverty, hunger, and stress would occur.

The commenter cited the articles "Risky Business" (Marshall

[AIM-IV-D-212p4b/CPIV-D-35g4]), “Effects of Diminished Economic

Opportunities on Social Stress: Heart Attacks, Strokes and Crime”

(Merva and Fowles [AIM-IV-D-212p4a/CP-IV-D-35g3]), and “Human

Mortality, Air Pollution and Unemployment in Southern California”

(Haring and Vatarues [AIM-IV-D-212p4c]). The commenter used

these articles to argue that unnecessary regulations create costs

to business, thereby creating unemployment which has adverse

health effects. The commenter also noted that one study also

showed a strong correlation between adverse health effects and

unemployment and also showed a strong correlation between adverse

health effects and ozone concentrations. In addition to these

articles, the commenter also attached other documents which they

claimed support their contention that the Report ignores the

effects of VOC regulations on the sociological/psychological

health of the general population (loss of jobs due to VOC

regulations). The commenter recommended that section 4.3.1 of

the Report include a definition of “health” that considered both

the physical and mental well-being of a person. According to the

commenter, section 4.3.2 of the Report focuses on regulation, not

health or safety analyses. The commenter requested that the

Report be redone. 

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) maintained that EPA’s failure

to list statutory priorities for regulation based on the criteria

established under sections 183(e)(2)(A)(ii) and (B) of the Act

had stark consequences for disfavored industries or industry

segments, such as the one to which local and regional

manufacturers belong, which have been targeted for immediate

regulation. The commenter contended that Congress intended that
2-8

EPA would list certain categories for regulation in “the most

effective, least disruptive way.” 

One commenter (CCP-IV-D-03) supported EPA’s findings stated

in the Report which promote several options for reducing VOC

emissions from consumer and commercial products. The commenter

asserted that allowing flexibility in the methods used to reduce

emissions will promote technological innovation and minimize

control and implementation costs. The commenter agreed that

emission reductions must be balanced with product efficacy,

consumer acceptance, and economic impacts, and that reducing

emissions from different categories of products may require

different regulatory strategies. The commenter also urged EPA to

consider safety and health effects issues when formulating

regulations for consumer and commercial products. The commenter

supported limiting the use of certain substitutes in products

sold to the general public because of their toxicity and

encouraged EPA to consider the toxicological data in determining

safe substitutes in consumer and commercial products.

Three additional commenters (CP-IV-D-46, CP-IV-F-1b,

CP-IV-F-1d) stated that EPA had fulfilled all necessary

requirements of section 183(e) of the Act. One commenter

(CP-IV-D-46) stated that based on the record established by EPA

in the preamble to the consumer products rule and the extensive

survey of consumer products in the Report, EPA acted entirely in

accordance with the requirements of section 183(e) of the Act and

within its authority as delegated by Congress through the

1990 Amendments to the Act. The commenter stated that EPA met

the requirements to perform a study and write a report of the

emissions of volatile organic compounds into the ambient air from

consumer and commercial products. This report was to determine

the potential of VOC emitted from consumer and commercial

products to contribute to ozone levels which violate the ozone

NAAQS and establish criteria for regulation under

section 183(e)(2)(A) of the Act. The commenter asserted that EPA

did this by undertaking the largest survey at the time of all
2-9

consumer product manufacturers that sell products in the

United States, compiling the data, and reporting the results in

the Report submitted in March 1995. The commenter stated that

EPA met the requirement under section 183(e)(2)(ii) of the Act to

establish criteria for regulating consumer and commercial

products based on factors outlined in section 183(e)(2)(B) of the

Act by convening the NAPCTAC to apply the suggested criteria for

regulation. The commenter argued that 24 products chosen for

inclusion in the proposed consumer products regulation are

supported by the results of the NAPCTAC evaluation. The

commenter stated that EPA's Report was good because it included: 

(1) a detailed section on why reactivity can be a relevant

consideration (2) how products were scored for reactivity and

(3) the NAPCTAC ranking sheets for each personal care product

which included a reactivity ranking as required under the

statute.

Response: The EPA believes that it has satisfied the

requirements of section 183(e) of the Act as they relate to the

Consumer and Commercial Products Study, the report to Congress,

and the listing of consumer and commercial products for

regulation. Therefore, EPA has authority to propose and

promulgate regulations under section 183(e) of the Act. 

Contrary to the commenters’ assertions, EPA conducted a

comprehensive 4-year study of consumer and commercial products. 

The study involved identification of all consumer and commercial

products; development of VOC emission inventory; consideration of

photochemical reactivity of these VOC emissions; study of the

fate of products in wastewater and landfills; analysis of systems

of regulation; development of criteria for ranking products for

regulation; and listing of product categories responsible for 80%

of the VOC emissions and development of schedule for regulation. 

The objectives of the study were to: (1) determine the potential

of emissions from consumer and commercial products to contribute

to the ozone nonattainment problem; and (2) establish criteria

for regulating consumer and commercial products as stipulated by
2-10

the statute. One of the things EPA considered is that consumer

and commercial products account for 28 percent of the

anthropogenic VOC emissions and these emissions are largely

uncontrolled nationwide. In light of this, EPA examined in the

study the potential for emissions from these products to

contribute to ozone nonattainment. 

A major element of the study was a comprehensive accounting

of VOC emissions from the full range of consumer and commercial

products subject to section 183(e) of the Act. To develop this

comprehensive emissions inventory, EPA used information from

existing regulatory efforts, conducted literature searches to

obtain emission information for certain products and conducted a

survey of consumer product manufacturers. The survey of consumer

product manufacturers obtained information on the total VOC

content (and the individual VOC ingredients) of products. 

Another key element of the study was an analysis of

photochemical reactivity as it relates to VOC emissions from

consumer and commercial products. This effort investigated the

validity, uncertainties, and overall utility of available

reactivity data and evaluated methodologies by which relative

reactivity could be employed in implementation of section 183(e)

of the Act.

In another part of the study, EPA investigated the fate of

consumer and commercial product-related VOC in wastewater and in

landfills. The purpose of this effort was to determine whether

adjustments to VOC inventory data should be made to account for

the portion of the VOC content of consumer products that enter

landfills or wastewater and, due to physical or chemical

mechanisms, do not enter the ambient air.

Also as part of the comprehensive study, EPA analyzed

various systems of regulation, including product registration and

labeling, self-monitoring and reporting, prohibitions,

limitations, and economic incentives, that could be used to

achieve reductions in VOC emissions and resultant ozone

formation. Various measures such as reformulation, product
2-11

substitution, repackaging, and consumer education were

investigated as possible methods of achieving VOC reductions. In

addition, the study included an in-depth analysis of aerosol

products and packaging systems.

One of the major objectives of the study was to establish

criteria for regulating consumer and commercial products under

section 183(e) of the Act. Pursuant to the statute, EPA

developed eight criteria based closely upon five factors that

Congress instructed EPA to take into consideration in

section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act. These criteria and the process

of applying them are discussed in more detail in section 2.1.1.6.

The five statutory factors for consideration by EPA in

establishing criteria are:

1. Uses, benefits, and commercial demand;

2. health and safety functions;

3. products which emit highly reactive VOC;

4. cost-effectiveness of control; and

5. availability of alternatives.

Utilizing the discretion allocated to the Agency in

section 183(e) of the Act, EPA established eight criteria based

upon its consideration of the statutory factors:

1. Product utility;

2. commercial demand;

3. health and safety functions;

4. emissions of highly reactive VOC;

5. availability of alternatives;

6. cost-effectiveness of controls;

7. magnitude of annual VOC emissions; and 

8. regulatory efficiency and program considerations.

In March 1995, following completion of the 4-year

comprehensive study, EPA published and submitted to Congress a

report entitled “Study of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions

from Consumer and Commercial Products - Report to Congress”

(EPA-453/R-94-066-A) and published five supporting documents as

follows:

1. “Comprehensive Emissions Inventory”

(EPA-453/R-94-066-B);

2. “Fate of Consumer Product VOC in Landfills”

(EPA-453/R-94-066-C);
2-12

3. “Fate of Consumer Product VOC in Wastewater”

(EPA-453/R-94-066-D);

4. “Economic Incentives to Reduce VOC Emissions from

Consumer and Commercial Products” (EPA-453/R-94-066-E);

and

5. “Aerosol Products and Packaging Systems”

(EPA-453/R-94-066-F).

On March 23, 1995, EPA published a notice in the Federal

Register [60 FR 15264] entitled “Consumer and Commercial

Products: Schedule for Regulation.” This notice contained a list

of consumer and commercial products identified for possible

regulation and a schedule for promulgation of such regulations. 

In accordance with section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act, EPA listed

those categories of consumer and commercial products, based on

the study, which account for at least 80 percent of the VOC

emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and

commercial products in ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA

divided the list into four groups, by priority, based on

application of the eight criteria established in the study. In

accordance with the statute, EPA scheduled a group to be

regulated every 2 years beginning in March 1997.

Having conducted the comprehensive 4-year study, established

criteria for regulating products, submitted the required report

to Congress, and published the consumer and commercial product

category list and schedule for regulation, EPA believes it has

satisfied the preconditions to regulation under section 183(e) of

the Act. With regard to the commenter’s claims that EPA has

failed to complete the study and listing, EPA notes that a

U.S. District Court has recently rejected the commenter’s claim

that the Agency failed to comply with a mandatory duty for lack

of jurisdiction under section 304 of the Act and the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has recently upheld that

decision. See Dunn-Edwards v. EPA, 1997 U.S. App.LEXIS 22891

(8/5/97). In addition, EPA notes that a number of courts have

held that the contents of reports to Congress, and the adequacy

of those contents, are not subject to judicial review. See,

e.g., NRDC v. Hodel, 865 F.2d288 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
2-13

Concerning the allegation that EPA failed to analyze the

health effects of regulations as required by section 183(e), EPA

believes that the commenter misconstrued the

section 183(e)(2)(B)(ii) directive to consider health and safety

functions. The EPA considers the reference to health and safety

function in section 183 (e)(2)(B)(ii) to provide direction to the

Agency to take into consideration the health benefits of

products, such as asthmatic inhalers, when listing consumer and

commercial products for regulation. This provision does not

instruct the EPA to look at secondary health effects such as

those suggested by the commenter. Nevertheless, EPA does in fact

take into account factors such as economic impacts and potential

for closures and unemployment in consideration of the economic

impact associated with a rulemaking.

In establishing the ranking criteria, EPA did consider the

health and safety function in the application of Criterion 3.

Criterion 3 was designed to lower the priority for regulation of

products that contribute to the protection of health or safety. 

A product with no health or safety function was assigned a

maximum score, under this criterion (higher priority for

regulation). A product marketed primarily for its health or

safety functions received a minimum score (lower priority for

regulation). A product whose health or safety functions are

secondary was assigned a mid-range score. By this process, EPA

recognized the health and safety benefits derived from the use of

consumer and commercial products and sought to ensure that these

benefits were not unduly or unnecessarily compromised. 

With respect to the articles and other documents submitted

by the commenter, EPA disagrees that these items raise issues for

consideration at the time of the Study. The EPA examines the

economic impacts of regulations at the time of rulemaking because

it is only at that point that it is possible to evaluate such

impacts. In this case, the commenter presupposed that there are

significant adverse employment impacts of any rule and indicated

that there are secondary impacts associated with unemployment
2-14

that are not accounted for by EPA’s analysis. The EPA does not

agree that it is possible to anticipate the economic impacts and

benefits of any rules issued under section 183 (e) of the Act in

advance of development of the rules. The EPA has considered the

economic impact of the proposed standards for the automobile

refinish coatings rule, the consumer products rule, and the

architectural coatings rule in the rulemakings on these standards

rather than in the study.

Finally, EPA agrees that allowing flexibility in the methods

used to reduce emissions will promote technological innovation

and minimize control and implementation costs. The EPA also

agrees that its approach balances emission reductions with

product efficacy, consumer acceptance, and economic impacts and

recognizes that reducing emissions from different categories of

products may require different regulatory strategies. The EPA

also agrees that health and safety effects should be considered

when issuing regulations for consumer and commercial products. 

In consideration of substitutes for products, EPA would of course

consider whether or not the reformulated product presented other

concerns, such as emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or

other health hazards. The EPA’s consideration of health effects

would be in the decision on whether or not there are acceptable

substitutes. 

Comment: One commenter claimed that EPA did not conduct the

proper required peer review of the section 183(e) study and the

report to Congress because the Agency wrongly concluded that peer

review was unnecessary.

Response: The EPA believes that the degree of peer review

conducted for the section 183(e) study and report to Congress was

within the discretion of EPA. The EPA’s January 1993 Peer Review

Policy states that: "(A)gency managers within Headquarters,

Regions, laboratories and field components determine and are

accountable for the decision whether to employ peer review in

particular instances and, if so, its character, scope, and

timing. These decisions are made in conformance with program
2-15

goals and priorities, resource constraints, and statutory or

court-ordered deadlines."

Although EPA conducted no formal peer review process for the

report to Congress, there was extensive peer involvement at

various stages of the section 183(e) study. For example, the

basis for chapter 3, Photochemical Reactivity, was a scientific

paper entitled, “Scientific Basis of the VOC Reactivity Issues

Raised by Section 183(e) of The Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990.” (A-94-65, item IV-J-8) This paper was reviewed by 1

members of the National Academy of Sciences prior to publication

of the report to Congress. In addition, in October of 1996, this

approach was published as a technical paper in the Journal of Air

and Waste Management Association. As a published paper, it was

subjected to the same peer review policy as all other papers

submitted to this journal. The fact that, after meeting the peer

review requirements of the journal, it was published without

changes confirms its technical merit. In addition, in

September 1992 as part of the architectural coatings regulatory

negotiation process, EPA convened a meeting of photochemical

reactivity and modeling experts to obtain their input on the

state of the science of reactivity and the suitability of

reactivity to regulatory programs.

Other elements of the study and Report were developed with a

high degree of peer involvement by representatives of various

sectors of the consumer and commercial products industry.

Elements of the study that involved input from industry or were

reviewed by industry prior to publication of the report to

Congress included: draft and revised documents entitled,

“Criteria for Regulation of Consumer and Commercial Products

under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act”; the consumer products

survey questionnaire and results; and the report on aerosol

products and packaging systems (A-94-65, item I-A-6). 2,3

Industry groups and regulatory agencies who provided input on

various topics included the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers

Association; the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association;
2-16

the Soap and Detergent Association; the National Paint and

Coatings Association; the Automotive Chemical Manufacturers

Council; the Adhesive and Sealant Council; California Air

Resources Board; New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection; New York Department of Environmental Conservation;

and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

With regard to the listing and scheduling of categories for

regulation, NAPCTAC, as well as members of the public, were

consulted and were provided an opportunity to participate in the

criteria ranking process in an open public meeting.

The EPA believes that peer involvement in the most

controversial and technical element of the study (reactivity),

the high degree of industry and State regulatory agency

involvement, and participation of the public and the NAPCTAC in

the ranking process all work together to satisfy the goal of

involving experts in the field, obtaining input from outside of

the Agency and ensuring policy decisions rest on sound, credible

science and data.

2.1.1.2 Addition of Two Criteria (Emission Magnitude, and

Regulatory Efficiency and Program Considerations).

Comment: Two commenters in seven documents (AIM-IV-D-55,

AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, AIM-IV-D-214c, CP-IV-D-35, CP-IV-F-1a,

AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t, AR-IV-F-1) stated that the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) did not have

the authority to add the "emission magnitude" and the "regulatory

efficiency and program considerations" criteria to the five

factors listed in section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act

(Act). The commenters claim that any Agency action relying on

these factors is illegal and invalid.

One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-214c,

AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) cited the following three court cases

to support its position: (1) Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assn.

v. State Farm Mutual, 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983); (2) Hazardous Waste

Treatment Council v. U.S.E.P.A., 861 F.2d 270, 274-277

(D.C. Cir. 1988); and (3) Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics
2-17

Unit, 113 S. Ct. 1160, 1163 (1993). The commenter stated that

these cases demonstrate that: (1) Agency action was invalid where

the Agency relied on factors which Congress did not intend it to

consider; (2) decisions based on a criterion not authorized by

the Act are not in accordance with law; and (3) where Congress

enumerates specific factors for consideration, it is beyond an

agency's authorized discretion to consider additional factors not

specifically enumerated.

Another commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35)

supported this position by stating that the Act's use of the term

"shall" meant that EPA had no discretion to alter, ignore, or add

to these factors.

According to one commenter (AIM-IV-D-212,

AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t), EPA unfairly altered the ranking

process by using the magnitude of volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions as an additional factor. The commenter alleged that

use of emissions magnitude effectively substituted a volume

factor for the relative reactivity determination of each VOC as

required by Congress.

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) stated that the regulatory

efficiency and program considerations criterion severely

prejudices the ranking process against those products that have

current State and/or Federal regulations, such as architectural

coatings.

One of the commenters (CP-IV-F-1a) asserted that the

efficiency factor was subjective and could be abused by EPA

because there is no standard definition of "efficiency."

Response: The EPA agrees that the Act requires EPA to

establish criteria for regulating consumer and commercial

products, taking into consideration certain listed factors. The

statute does not require, however, that EPA establish criteria

that precisely mirror the factors listed in section 183(e)(2)(B)

of the Act, nor does it require that EPA consider the list of

factors to be exclusive. Section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act only

requires that the criteria reflect consideration of the listed
2-18

factors. Accordingly, the statute provides EPA discretion to

identify the relevant and necessary criteria for regulation. The

EPA fulfilled its duty to establish criteria and to consider each

of the five listed factors in developing its criteria. The

statutory factors and the criteria established by EPA are

discussed in more detail in sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.6. 

The EPA exercised its discretion by establishing two

criteria that did not specifically mirror the five listed

factors, but which EPA believed were important for the purposes

of establishing priorities for regulation, as instructed by

Congress, and in keeping with the objectives reflected by

Congress in the factors listed for EPA consideration in devising

criteria. Because Congress gave EPA discretion to devise

appropriate criteria, taking into consideration certain factors

enumerated in section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act, EPA believes that

the commenter's reference to the decisions in Motor Vehicle

Manufacturers Assn., Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, and

Leatherman are inapposite. Those decisions are distinguishable

because the courts addressed instances in which entities relied

on factors not permitted by the applicable statutes. In this

instance, EPA's establishment of criteria was explicitly directed

by statute and the scope of EPA's authority to do so was not

limited to the factors or in other ways analogous to the cases

cited by the commenter.

Criterion 7, Magnitude of Annual VOC Emissions, provided for

ranking of products based on their annual mass emissions of VOC

expressed in tons. As required by section 183(e) of the Act,

these mass emission estimates were adjusted on the basis of

relative reactivity. The procedure for this adjustment is

explained in detail in chapter 3 of the report to Congress. 

Following the adjustment for relative reactivity, products with

higher annual reactivity-adjusted emissions received higher

scores, indicating a higher priority for regulation. The

criteria and scoring process are discussed in detail in

section 2.1.1.6 of this document and in chapter 4 of the report
2-19

to Congress. Thus, EPA considered both volume and reactivity; it

did not substitute a volume basis for reactivity adjustment. The

EPA believes that it is preferable to regulate products taking

into consideration how much VOC they emit relative to other

products. The Agency’s position of focusing on larger emission

sources is reasonable because the larger sources generally

provide a greater opportunity for emission reductions. 

Criterion 8, Regulatory Efficiency and Program

Considerations, was established solely to assure that EPA

continues to use resources in the most effective manner to meet

the mandate of section 183(e) of the Act. It is reasonable for

EPA to consider whether a given consumer and commercial product

category has already been the subject of State or Federal

regulatory programs. Such categories typically would have been

fairly well-characterized, alternatives of control would have

been explored, and cost and economic impacts of regulation would

have been investigated. The EPA believes it is also reasonable

to consider the existence of this information in prioritizing

product categories for regulation because EPA must regulate the

first group of products in a relatively short period of time

(i.e., 2 years after the listing of products for regulation). 

Giving these well-characterized categories higher priority allows

EPA more time to evaluate potential rules for categories that may

be less well understood at this time.

The architectural coatings industry was not adversely

affected by EPA’s application of Criterion 8, Regulatory

Efficiency and Program Considerations. Comparison of the tabular

results of the product category ranking exercise (before

application of Criterion 8) and the resulting March 1995 schedule

for regulations (following application of Criterion 8) shows that

in only two cases were categories listed for regulation that fell

outside the categories accounting for at least 80 percent of the

emissions based on numerical score alone. These categories were:

(1) shipbuilding and repair coatings; and (2) a collection of

24 household consumer products which were currently regulated by
2-20

California and several other States. Therefore, contrary to the

commenter’s suggestion, the ranking of architectural coatings in

the top 80 percent was not a result of EPA’s use of Criterion 8.

The EPA intends to exercise discretion in adjusting the

product category rankings, as necessary, to achieve an effective

and practical regulatory program. As a result, EPA may amend the

list and schedule for regulations as regulatory development

proceeds or as new information becomes available. For example,

while developing regulations for aerosol spray paints (listed for

regulation in 1997), EPA added acetone to the list of compounds

considered negligibly reactive and exempt from EPA's definition

of VOC. Acetone is a solvent used in the formulation of many

aerosol paint products. Consequently, EPA's analysis of best

available controls (BAC) conducted during the regulatory

development process for aerosol spray paints was no longer

accurate, and would have to be revisited. The EPA has determined

that additional time is required to consider the aerosol spray

paint category, and intends to exercise its discretion to amend

the schedule for regulations to move aerosol spray paints from

Group 1. 

With regard to the commenter’s assertion that Criterion 8 is

subjective and that there is no standard definition of

“efficiency,” EPA believes that the existence of data, rules, and

studies on consumer and commercial products was a valid basis for

evaluating Criterion 8 and listing categories for regulation. As

explained in section 2.1.1.6, most of the criteria have elements

of subjectivity, and EPA believes this criterion is no less valid

than the other criteria. Therefore, EPA believes there is no

need for a definition for “efficiency.”

Comment: Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-214c,

AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) referred to EPA's acknowledgment in

the Report that products used in larger quantities may be given

“undue emphasis” to support the commenters’ contention that EPA’s

allegedly wrongful consideration of emission magnitude grossly

skewed subsequent regulatory decisions.
2-21

Response: The phrase "undue emphasis" is not used with

regard to emissions magnitude. It is used at the top of page 4-4

of the Report in the discussion of Criterion 2 - Commercial

Demand. In explaining why total volume or weight sold was not

selected as an indicator of commercial demand, the Report states: 

"Other indicators of commercial demand that were considered

include the total volume or weight sold, the number of units

sold, and price per unit. A measure of total volume or weight

sold may indicate the relative importance of the product to

consumers, as does the total annual sales. However, products

that are used in larger quantities may be given undue emphasis." 

The phrase "undue emphasis" in this case refers to the fact that

although evaluating commercial demand based solely on total

volume or weight sold may have been used to indicate the relative

importance of the product to consumers, that approach could also

have biased the ranking toward products that take up large

volumes or are very heavy. For example, commercial demand for

underarm deodorant and hair spray may be equal but because

underarm deodorant has a different density than hair spray, using

the total volume or weight sold may not provide an equivalent

indication of commercial demand.

This issue of biasing the ranking toward products that take

up large volumes or are very heavy was discussed at the July 1994

National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee

(NAPCTAC) meeting (see section 2.1.1.6). Based on input from

members of the public and the Committee, EPA revised Criterion 2

to mitigate any bias this might have introduced. Criterion 2 was

redefined to be annual dollar sales divided by tons VOC emitted. 

This approach tends to minimize any bias for or against high

sales volume products such as coatings. The EPA believes that

this modification in response to the NAPCTAC committee comments

addressed the commenter’s concerns.
2-22

2.1.1.3 Subgroups Addressed by the Study and Ranking

Process.

Comment: One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

CP-IV-D-35) contended that EPA misinterpreted the regulatory

approach of section 183(e)by regulating on an

industry-by-industry basis rather than on a product-by-product

basis. The commenter stated that section 183(e) of the Act

clearly made reference to regulation of products rather than of

industries and asserted that EPA was trying to rewrite the law. 

Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) stated

that EPA improperly listed all categories of architectural

coatings in the first phase of regulations in Group I as though

they were one omnibus category. The commenters argued that EPA

should have listed products on a category-by-category basis and

that the list should have separated out each type of

architectural coating for separate listing.

The commenters cited EPA's section 183(e) study and report

to Congress which identified 46 categories of architectural

coatings and asserted that the Report failed to provide any

information about the VOC emissions from any one of the

46 architectural coating categories identified in the report to

Congress.

Response: In studying and listing product categories, EPA

selected categories based upon reasonable distinctions. 

Architectural coatings have been defined by States and EPA

regulators as coatings applied to stationary structures in the

“field.” Since architectural coatings are used for similar

purposes, i.e., to coat stationary substrates outside of a

manufacturing or shop application, EPA placed them in one group

for purposes of determining regulatory priority. The EPA

recognizes there is a continuum of possibilities for grouping

architectural coating products into product categories. However,

creation of architectural coating categories is intertwined with

the specifics of the regulatory option chosen. For example, one

approach pursued by EPA during regulatory development would have
2-23

eliminated the need for category distinctions since the

requirements would have focused on a company average VOC content

for all “field applied” coatings manufactured by each company. 

Conversely, more categories may be created as lower VOC content

levels are contemplated for a given category. During regulatory

development, decisions to subdivide a given category into more

specific subcategories is often a direct consequence of the VOC

content levels under consideration. Separating out a specific

“niche” product from a broader classification creates more

opportunities for emission reductions and avoids application of

emission limits that could not be achieved or would create an

unreasonable cost impact on the niche market. For example, in

the process of developing the proposed architectural coating

rule, EPA established over 50 categories with varying VOC content

requirements. This is significantly more categories than have

appeared in previous State rules affecting architectural coatings

and could not have been predicted prior to completion of EPA’s

regulatory development efforts. Therefore, performance

requirements and other specific characteristics of individual

coating categories were taken into account during regulatory

development, even though EPA chose to consider all of these types

of products together for purposes of listing and prioritizing the

products for regulation. 

The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s differentiation

between “product” and “industry” with regard to listing consumer

and commercial products for regulation. When a product (or

product category) is regulated under section 183(e) of the Act,

the regulated entity is the manufacturer, importer, processor, or

wholesale distributor of the product. Consequently, the listing

of a product or product category for regulation ultimately

affects the industry associated with that product or product

category.

With regard to the commenter’s assertion that EPA improperly

listed all categories of architectural coatings in Group I as one

"omnibus" category, EPA was within the discretion accorded to it
2-24

by section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act to list for regulation "those

categories of consumer or commercial products that the

Administrator determines, based on the study, account for at

least 80 percent of the VOC emissions" in areas that violate the

ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The EPA

believes that section 183(e) explicitly accords the Agency broad

discretion to determine the best form of controls to achieve the

necessary VOC reductions and that it is reasonable to regulate

all similar products together as a single category of product for

purposes of regulation.

The commenter remarked that EPA presented 46 categories of

architectural products in the report to Congress, but failed to

present emission estimates for each of the 46 categories. 

Section 5.4 of the Report contains brief descriptions of each

category of products in order to help the reader understand the

range of VOC-emitting products used in the various categories. 

Accordingly, there is a one-page description of architectural

coatings presented on page 5-31 of the Report, that includes a

list of 46 types of architectural coatings. The page on

architectural coatings was merely descriptive, and was not meant

to imply that each product should be inventoried and ranked

separately.

For household consumer products, EPA selected 61 relatively

broad categories to include in the listing and prioritization

exercise. Similar to the architectural coatings rule, further

refinement of these categories was also possible, but EPA grouped

household consumer product categories according to similar uses. 

For example, EPA grouped all general purpose cleaners in one

category and all hair sprays in another.

Since EPA imposed consistent considerations in selecting the

category of products as well as categories of household consumer

products for listing and ranking purposes, no bias against

particular architectural coating products was introduced into the

process that would have caused specific architectural coating

products to be regulated without cause.
2-25

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) stated that

California considered architectural and industrial maintenance

coatings separately from consumer and commercial products. The

commenter pointed out that California published its data and

table of product categories approximately 4 months before EPA

completed its Report in March of 1995. Based on this and other

information, the commenter concluded that the report is based

substantially on biased and predetermined conclusions on the part

of EPA. 

Response: The Act's definition of consumer and commercial

products is much broader than California's definition.

Section 183(e)(1)(B) of the Act specifically defines a "consumer

or commercial product" as "any substance, product (including

paints, coatings, and solvents), or article (including any

container or packaging) held by any person, the use, consumption,

storage, disposal, destruction, or decomposition of which may

result in the release of volatile organic compounds." Since the

statutory definition of consumer and commercial products

specifically includes paints and coatings, EPA considers

architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to be within

the scope of authority of section 183(e) of the Act. 

2.1.1.4 Consideration of the Impacts of Regulatory

Alternatives

Comment: Two commenters in three documents

(AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, CP-IV-F-1a, CP-IV-D-07) asserted that

an analysis of the economic and environmental effects of each

alternative method of regulation (exemption, substitution, etc.)

for each category was needed in order to rank and list categories

for regulation.

One of the commenters (CP-IV-D-07) asserted that the

decision to regulate a category should include consideration of

any environmental impacts associated with exempting categories as

well as the economic costs of regulating the category with

different methods and regulating the category in each of the four

possible phases for regulation.
2-26

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) claimed that EPA’s study of

VOC from consumer and commercial products did not identify the

availability of alternatives to such products which were of

“comparable costs” as required by section 183(e)(2)(B)(v) of the

Act. The commenter referred to EPA’s statements in the Report

that it did not have information on the cost of alternative

products and promised that it would do so in developing

regulations. The commenter stated that if EPA had considered

economic costs in developing regulatory criteria, as mandated, it

would have been in a position to decide which forms of regulation

were appropriate, how much time to give manufacturers to meet any

reformulation limits, and whether substitution limits were

warranted at all. The commenter referred to less stringent

measures authorized by Congress such as: labeling regulations

containing directions for use or other disclosures; economic

incentives, such as marketable permits; and control technique

guidelines for State regulation in nonattainment areas.

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-55) stated that establishment of the

four-part list of categories for regulation must be based on a

comparative analysis of both the environmental and economic

impacts of each VOC. The commenter asserted that EPA could not

regulate any category until it completed this comparative

analysis and determined the merits of other possible regulatory

options.

Response: Factors relating to economic and environmental

impacts are included under section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act for

the establishment of criteria to be used in prioritizing

categories of consumer and commercial products for regulation. 

Here, EPA is required to consider two factors: (1) those

consumer and commercial products which are subject to the most

cost-effective controls (section 183(e)(2)(B)(iv)); and (2) the

availability of alternatives (if any) to such consumer and

commercial products which are of comparable costs, considering

health, safety, and environmental impacts

(section 183(e)(2)(B)(v)).
2-27

The EPA disagrees with the commenters’ interpretation that

this language mandates an in-depth analysis of impacts of all

regulatory alternatives for every product category at the time of

listing. The section 183(e) list and schedule for regulations is

a prioritization exercise to be completed upon submission of the

Report. It would have been impossible for EPA to conduct the

in-depth analysis suggested by the commenters for every category

of consumer and commercial products in the 3 years Congress

provided for the study in addition to completing the other

studies and determinations necessary to complete the Report (see

section 2.1.1.1 for a more detailed discussion of the study). 

The EPA therefore believes that Congress could not have intended

the Agency to perform the actions advocated by the commenters

prior to the listing and scheduling of products for regulation.

To fulfill the requirements of section 183(e)(2)(B) of the

Act, EPA developed a practical approach based on using available

information. The EPA established Criterion 5, Availability of

Alternatives and Criterion 6, Cost-Effectiveness of Controls, to

provide consideration of these two factors. Criterion 5 provides

a higher score, meaning a higher priority for regulation, to

product categories for which alternatives were available at a

comparable cost, with acceptance by consumers (as indicated by

market share), and with comparable efficacy, health effects, and

environmental impacts. Criterion 5 provided a lower score,

meaning a lower priority for regulation, to product categories

for which no alternatives were available, or for which

alternatives were available but not at a comparable cost. 

Criterion 6 is discussed in section 2.1.1.5. The EPA believes

this was a reasonable approach for purposes of scoring the

categories for regulatory priority.

As mentioned above, the EPA believes that a more

comprehensive analysis of alternatives and impacts is more

consistent with and appropriate for data collection and analysis

for the BAC determination required at the time of regulation

development, not at the time of listing. For the BAC
2-28

determination, EPA would prefer to use the most current

information possible, rather than relying on information

developed at the time of the study. The EPA does not believe it

is reasonable to do such a resource-intensive analysis twice

(i.e., for listing and for regulation), especially in light of

the fact, as discussed below, that the list and schedule are not

final rulemaking actions. Accordingly, EPA has and will continue

to evaluate the effects of alternative methods of regulation when

each category is regulated. In addition, it should be noted that

EPA will also consider "economic feasibility" and "environmental

impacts" at the time of regulation as required under

section 183(e)(1)(A) of the Act. 

Furthermore, in the Federal Register notice of the schedule

for regulation [60 FR 15264, March 23, 1995], EPA noted that the

list and schedule may be amended if further information becomes

available [60 FR 15264, 15265, 15268]. Thus, as individual

products and categories are further assessed and if relevant

information becomes available, EPA will consider changing the

prioritization for regulation under section 183(e) of the Act or

even removing a category from the listing if appropriate. For

example, as explained in section 2.1.1.1, EPA initially listed

aerosol spray paint in the first group for regulation. Following

an initial regulatory assessment, EPA intends to move the aerosol

spray paints category from Group I.

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that EPA

failed to demonstrate economic and technological feasibility of

BAC for each of the consumer and commercial product categories. 

As a result, the commenter concluded that it was difficult to

compare the technological feasibility among consumer and

commercial products.

Response: As mentioned previously, the consumer and

commercial product list and schedule required by

section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act is a prioritization exercise, not

an analysis of the technology that should be selected as the

basis for the standards themselves. Determination of BAC is not
2-29

required at the time of listing. The only reference to BAC in

section 183(e) of the Act relates exclusively to the regulations

established under the section. Section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act

states: "The regulations shall require best available controls

as defined in this section." Therefore, EPA concludes that a BAC

analysis is not required at the time of listing categories for

regulation. The EPA has and will continue to determine BAC when

each category is regulated.

2.1.1.5 Consideration of Cost-Effectiveness

Comment: One commenter in two letters 

(AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, CP-IV-D-07a) stated that EPA's

consideration of cost-effectiveness was inadequate for

establishing regulatory priorities. The commenter

(AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) asserted that EPA failed to perform

the clear non-discretionary duty to list categories based upon

cost-effectiveness. 

The commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) claimed that EPA failed to

consider those products which were subject to the most

cost-effective controls in establishing criteria for regulating

consumer and commercial products as mandated under

section 183(e)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. The commenter considered

this factor particularly crucial as a preparatory step to

subsequent rulemaking under section 183(e)(1)(A) and (3)(A) of

the Act. The commenter referred to a previous court ruling in

Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991),

for the proposition that EPA is required by statute to regulate

to the extent necessary to protect the public using the least

burdensome measures. The commenter also referred to the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which the commenter contends

requires EPA to study, develop, and describe appropriate

alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal to

the fullest extent possible. Moreover, the commenter questioned

EPA's statement in the Report that it would evaluate information

on cost-effectiveness in developing specific regulations because
2-30

"cost-effectiveness data are unavailable" for certain categories

at the time of listing.

Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-214c) questioned EPA’s

assertion that "insufficient data exists" to conduct a

comparative study of the costs and cost-effectiveness of

regulating products under section 183(e) of the Act. One

commenter (AIM-IV-D-55) stated that cost-effectiveness data were

available for architectural coatings based on a formal study done

in Southern California by an economic consultant who found and

disclosed the economic impacts of VOC regulation for

architectural coatings.

Response: In-depth discussion of the consideration of the

impacts of regulatory alternatives is presented in

section 2.1.1.4. In establishing the criteria to prioritize

consumer and commercial products for regulation,

section 183(e)(B)(iv) of the Act requires EPA to consider

"[t]hose consumer and commercial products which are subject to

the most cost-effective controls." The EPA established

Criterion 6, Cost-Effectiveness of Controls, to implement

consideration of this factor. For this criterion, EPA used two

methods to evaluate cost-effectiveness of control measures which

varied depending on the availability of cost-effectiveness data. 

First, for products with a known cost-effectiveness value, EPA

assigned a higher relative priority for regulation to products

for which controls are very cost-effective. Second, for products

for which cost-effectiveness data were unavailable, EPA developed

a matrix based on scores determined by application of

Criterion 5, Availability of Alternatives, and Criterion 7,

Magnitude of Annual VOC Emissions, in order to evaluate

cost-effectiveness. The highest score, which corresponded to the

highest priority for regulation, was assigned to a product with

high emissions and for which reformulation was available at a

comparable cost to the current formulation. The lowest score,

which corresponded to the lowest priority for regulation, was

assigned to a product with low emissions and for which no
2-31

alternative was available at any cost. This matrix is presented

and discussed more fully in section 4.6 of the Report. For

architectural coatings the cost-effectiveness estimate of

$260 per ton of VOC emissions reduction developed for the

architectural coatings rule was used to apply Criterion 6 to

architectural coatings. The EPA believes that it has considered

cost effectiveness as contemplated by section 183(e) of the Act. 

As stated by the commenter, some study of the cost-effectiveness

of VOC regulation for architectural coatings has been done in

California. However, some of the data is not applicable for

extrapolation to a national level because of the assumptions used

in generating the data. Some of the proposed and promulgated VOC

content limits in California are significantly lower than limits

considered by EPA. These lower limits have significantly greater

costs and impacts than any limits considered by EPA. Thus, EPA

does not believe this data is applicable.

The March 23, 1995, notice did not represent a final agency

action on the listing determination. The notice announced that

the EPA would take comment on the listing in connection with its

rulemakings on emission standards for the categories on the

initial list, and that final agency action on the listing for

each product category would occur upon publication of a final

regulation for that category. At the time of each rulemaking,

EPA will conduct an in-depth analysis of costs and emissions

reduction. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA did

conduct an economic impacts analysis (EIA) to determine the cost

effectiveness of the controls required by the proposed

architectural coatings rule. The proposed architectural coating

VOC rule has an estimated cost of $260 per ton of VOC emissions

reduction. Based on information contained in the associated

EIAs, the proposed automobile refinish VOC rule has an estimated

cost of $136 per ton of VOC emissions reduction, and the proposed

consumer products VOC rule has an estimated cost of $289 per ton

of VOC emissions reduction. These EIAs were placed in the

dockets for the respective proposed rules, and the
2-32

cost-effectiveness of each proposed rule is discussed in the

rule’s preamble which was published in the Federal Register. See

the dockets for the architectural coatings rule, the automobile

refinish rule, and the consumer products rule (A-92-18, A-95-18,

and A-95-40, respectively).

The EPA believes that the commenters are mistaken as to

several legal conclusions they seek to assert. First, EPA

disagrees that the report to Congress required separate cost

effectiveness analyses under section 183(e), section 309 of the

Act, and Executive Order (EO) 12866. As discussed more fully in

section 2.3.2.7 of this document, EPA need only comply with the

language of section 183(e) of the Act at the time of the report

to Congress, and the Agency believes that it has performed an

appropriate analysis under this section.

Second, the commenters cite Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA,

947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991), for the proposition that the

Agency may only regulate to the extent necessary and using the

least burdensome means. The Agency notes that the case in

question dealt not with the Clean Air Act, but with the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA), and that the case turned upon an

express statutory provision of TSCA that does not appear in the

Clean Air Act. See ID., 947 F.2d at 1215. Reference to this

precedent is thus inappropriate. Section 183(e) of the Act

explicitly requires EPA to issue regulations based upon "best

available controls" as that term is defined in the statute. The

definition of best available controls empowers EPA to exercise

discretion to determine what method and degree of emission

control is appropriate, without reference either explicit or

implicit to choosing the means that is "least burdensome." In

fact, EPA believes that it has properly considered and mitigated

the burdens imposed by the regulations, but disagrees with the

commenters' allegation that it must choose the alternative that a

commenter considers least burdensome.
2-33

Third, the Agency notes that, contrary to the assertion of

some of the commenters, NEPA does not apply to regulatory actions

of EPA under the Act. See 15 U.S.C. section 793(c)(1).

2.1.1.6. Category Scoring Process and Public Meeting

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that the

NAPCTAC meeting and its findings were groundless and without

merit and could not be the foundation for EPA's VOC study for the

following reasons: (1) EPA had no authority to add the two

factors to the ranking process; (2) the two additional factors

were not fair and equitable towards the paint and coatings

industry; (3) NAPCTAC had no expertise to assist EPA in the

ranking, as shown by EPA's own treatment of the group; and

(4) EPA acted in a biased fashion because it ignored reactivity. 

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) claimed that at a

public hearing before the NAPCTAC on July 18-19, 1994, one EPA

official responded to charges that EPA failed to consider

reactivity as required by section 183(e) of the Act, by claiming

that there was no appropriate scientific reactivity basis upon

which to determine reactivity at the present time. The commenter

stated that the EPA official did not intend to conduct reactivity

tests on solvent-borne products because he summarily concluded

that they were all reactive, and that highly reactive VOC

constituted a substantial portion of VOC contained in paint

products. The commenter stated further that in contrast to the

EPA official’s statements, solvent-borne VOC are less reactive

than waterborne VOC, and on this basis, the EPA official

prejudged the issue without providing due scientific deference

and supporting analysis.

Response: The EPA's response to the comment concerning the

addition of two factors not listed in the Act is presented in

section 2.1.1.2. The EPA’s response to the comment concerning

how addition of the two factors affected the paint and coatings

industry is presented in section 2.1.1.7. The EPA’s response to

the comments concerning reactivity is presented in section 2.2.1.
2-34

Contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA believes that

NAPCTAC had sufficient expertise to assist in the ranking, and

that the findings of the committee were valid and had merit. The

committee, as a standing advisory group, provides independent

views based upon the specialized knowledge and skills of its

members. The Committee advises the Director, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), on the latest available

technology and economic feasibility of alternative methods to

prevent and control air contamination to be published in air

quality control techniques guideline documents. It also advises

on air pollution control techniques and testing and monitoring

methodology for categories of sources subject to the provisions

of sections 111, 112, and 183 of the Act. In addition, the

Committee, through a subcommittee, periodically reviews Air

Quality Planning and Standards program accomplishment plans and

the associated contracts and grants awarded to carry out these

plans.

The committee consists of the Director of OAQPS, or his

designee, as Chairperson and 11 members appointed by the EPA

Deputy Administrator. Members serve overlapping terms of from

1 to 4 years. Members are selected from the chemical,

engineering, biomedical, and socioeconomic disciplines resident

in universities, State and local governments, research

institutions, and industry. Members are also selected for their

technical expertise and/or interest in the development of air

pollution control techniques. Because these members are

experienced environmental professionals, EPA believes NAPCTAC had

sufficient expertise to assist in ranking the categories of

consumer and commercial products. 

To obtain balanced and unbiased input in the evaluation of

some relatively subjective criteria, EPA determined that an

independent panel should be involved in the ranking process. The

EPA considered NAPCTAC a logical choice for an independent and

technically qualified panel because of the balance afforded by

the diversity and expertise of such a group. Accordingly, the
2-35

Committee was convened on July 18-19, 1994, in Durham,

North Carolina, for the purpose of assigning scores for

Criteria 1 through 7 to each of the consumer and commercial

product categories. The scoring process was conducted in an open

public forum. A discussion of the criteria is presented later in

this section. 

Finally, EPA notes that nothing in section 183(e) of the Act

obligated EPA to utilize NAPCTAC or any other group to assist the

Agency in its application of the criteria in the listing process.

The EPA instituted this procedure to insure a fuller evaluation

of the criteria by qualified experts aided by public input in the

ranking procedure. The EPA utilized this procedure in accordance

with the discretion granted to the Agency in ranking the products

for regulation and used the conclusions of NAPCTAC only as a

guideline for the ultimate decision to rank products in a

particular fashion.

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that a

conflict of interest existed because the same EPA official who

chaired the architectural coatings regulatory negotiation process

also chaired the July 1994 NAPCTAC meeting. The commenter

(AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) demanded that the rankings be

reviewed, and that hearings be conducted by a non-biased official

so that additional public input could be used to develop more

accurate and complete information pertaining to regulated

products.

Response: As discussed above, the NAPCTAC charter

establishes that the Director of OAQPS, or his designee, serves

as Chairperson of the Committee. It is, therefore, always the

case that the Chairperson of the Committee is responsible for the

regulations discussed at each NAPCTAC meeting. In addition,

Mr. Bruce Jordan, the NAPCTAC Chairperson at the July 1994

hearing, served solely as a facilitator for the meeting and did

not participate in the scoring of any product category, including

architectural and industrial maintenance coatings. For this
2-36

reason, EPA believes that Mr. Jordan's chairing of the meeting

did not constitute a conflict of interest.

Comment: A commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that members

of the architectural coatings industry were not properly notified

of EPA's regulatory intent, and were not provided with an

opportunity to participate in the July 1994 public NAPCTAC

meeting.

Response: The EPA disagrees that members of the industry

had inadequate notice of the NAPCTAC meeting, or an inadequate

opportunity to submit information to NAPCTAC. As explained

above, EPA convened NAPCTAC for the purpose of having an

independent panel assign scores to Criteria 1 through 7 for each

consumer and commercial product category. The meeting provided

the public, including industry representatives, an opportunity to

make statements regarding the products being scored and to

provide clarifying information to the panel. The EPA published

an announcement of the NAPCTAC meeting in the Federal Register on

July 5, 1994 [59 FR 34436] (docket A-94-65, item IV-F-2). In

addition to the time and place for the meeting, the notice

included a summary of the purpose of the meeting, a tentative

agenda, a statement that the meeting would be open to the public,

an explanation of the purpose and composition of the Committee,

and how members of the public could arrange to make presentations

at the meeting.

Throughout the meeting, and before scoring of each category

by the panel, the audience, including members of the

architectural coatings industry, was given an opportunity to ask

questions of EPA and the NAPCTAC panel and to provide information

on the categories being scored. Furthermore, several industry

representatives, including the commenter, were on the agenda and

made formal presentations. These presentations were placed in

Docket A-94-65 as part of the meeting minutes (item I-B-1).

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that NAPCTAC

was not independent because EPA prejudged the application of
2-37

certain criteria and refused to allow the panel to make changes

to these scores, thereby lessening the role of the panel.

Response: As explained above, EPA convened NAPCTAC to

assist EPA in assigning criteria scores to each product category

because the Committee is an independent panel of environmental

experts. The overall scoring process involved assigning a value

from 1 to 5 for Criteria 1 through 7 for each of 105 consumer and

commercial product categories. These criteria are: Criterion 1,

Product Utility; Criterion 2, Commercial Demand (as indicated by

annual dollar sales in 1990); Criterion 3, Health or Safety

Functions; Criterion 4, Emissions of Highly-Reactive Compounds;

Criterion 5, Availability of Alternatives; Criterion 6,

Cost-Effectiveness of Controls; and Criterion 7, Magnitude of

Annual VOC Emissions. Criterion 8, Regulatory Efficiency and

Program Considerations, was applied by EPA subsequent to the

NAPCTAC meeting, and is discussed further in section 2.1.1.2.

The primary objective of the NAPCTAC meeting was for the

panel to assign a score to each criterion for each of the

105 product categories. Three of the seven scored criteria

(Criteria 2, 4, and 7) were objective criteria that could be

evaluated quantitatively, and four of the criteria were

subjective criteria requiring judgement. Preliminary scores for

the three objective criteria had been entered by EPA prior to the

NAPCTAC meeting. The EPA conducted research to develop the

quantitative information, and used that information to assign

tentative scores for the three objective criteria. These

tentative scores could have been revised by the NAPCTAC panelists

if they so desired.

The four subjective criteria (Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 6) were

scored by the NAPCTAC panel. The EPA prepared a score sheet for

each category which provided information to help the panel

understand the products in the category and the subjective

criteria being scored. Nevertheless, EPA made no recommendations

to the panel on what scores to assign to any particular category
2-38

and made no changes to the individual scores assigned by the panel.

The score sheets also displayed the scores previously

entered by EPA for the objective criteria and presented the data

that were the basis for the assigned scores. This provided an

opportunity for the NAPCTAC panel and members of the public

attending the open meeting to review and comment on the

preassigned scores for Criteria 2, 4, and 7.

The scoring process was conducted as follows for each of the

105 categories of products. First, EPA presented the information

entered on the score sheet to the NAPCTAC panel and to the

audience. The audience was allowed time to offer comments or

provide clarification. The panel was then given an opportunity

to discuss the category being scored. Each NAPCTAC panelist then

assigned a score for each of the four subjective criteria, and

was free to make corrections to preassigned scores. The EPA

collected the score sheets and averaged the panelists' scores for

each criterion. A composite score was compiled for the category

by adding the average scores for all seven criteria. This

process was repeated for each category.

In response to this comment, EPA has again reviewed all of

the original score sheets used by the panelists. There was no

indication on any score sheet that EPA had ignored a

recommendation from any panelist regarding scores of either

objective (EPA-scored) or subjective (panel-scored) criteria. In

fact, in two product categories - Other Metal Product Coatings

(later referred to as “Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings”)

and Auto and Light Truck Assembly Coatings - EPA used scores that

several panelists had entered in place of the preassigned scores

for Criterion 4, Emissions of Highly Reactive Compounds. This

demonstrates that EPA did not refuse to change the preassigned

scores as the commenter asserts.

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that NAPCTAC

was not provided with all of the information that it needed to

make valid rankings.
2-39

Response: As discussed above, score sheets were prepared

for each product category being scored. To the extent possible,

EPA provided information on the score sheets to facilitate the

committee in making informed decisions. In cases where EPA had

little or no data on specific criteria, EPA relied on the

expertise of the panel as well as input from members of the

public attending the meeting.

Prior to the July 1994 meeting, EPA mailed NAPCTAC members

packages of information containing background on section 183(e)

of the Act, documents discussing the criteria, and advance copies

of product category score sheets. Two teleconferences were

conducted in order to brief NAPCTAC on section 183(e) of the Act

and to prepare them for the July meeting. The EPA thus believes

that NAPCTAC had the necessary information to perform the scoring

exercise.

Comment: The commenter (AIM IV-D-212) further stated that

the committee was hindered in making valid decisions because it

was unclear to NAPCTAC whether the inventories excluded or

included compounds not classified as “reportable VOC” (RVOC). 

The commenter further stated that the committee ranked the

products without considering the RVOC factor because they had no

knowledge that such a factor existed.

One commenter (CP-IV-D-35) stated that EPA considered

volatility of VOC instead of reactivity, which was not consistent

with the requirements of the Act.

Response: The EPA employed a volatility cutoff for purposes

of collecting information in the consumer product survey as

discussed in section 5.3 of the report to Congress. The term

“RVOC” was used exclusively in the household consumer products

survey. Respondents to the survey were instructed to report

those VOC's which had a vapor pressure of greater than

0.1 millimeter of mercury at 20 degrees Celsius ( C). This o

cutoff was selected because existing State consumer product

regulations, as well as State surveys, employed this threshold. 

As a result, EPA had emissions information in two forms. For all
2-40

categories except household consumer products, the VOC emissions

inventory included all VOC; the VOC inventory data for the

61 household consumer product categories included only the RVOC. 

The EPA agrees that no distinction was made on the score sheets

provided to the panel regarding this fact. To make a more direct

comparison with other categories, all VOC emissions should have

been included in the household consumer product VOC inventory,

not just the RVOC. This oversight, therefore, potentially

affects the scores for the 61 household consumer product

categories with respect to Criterion 7, Magnitude of Annual VOC

Emissions.

However, EPA believes that this did not affect the outcome

of the scoring exercise. After the commenter raised this issue,

EPA investigated to determine whether the scores for the

61 household consumer product categories would have been

significantly affected if all VOC emissions, not just RVOC, had

been counted in the inventory. To do this, EPA adjusted the

total VOC emission estimates to account for the missing VOC

content. Although detailed information concerning the magnitude

of RVOC found in consumer products as compared to total VOC

content is not available, EPA believes the portion of missing VOC

content to be no more than 10 percent. The EPA chose to evaluate

the impact of this oversight by using the very conservative

estimate that adding missing VOC back into the inventory could

potentially double the magnitude of annual emissions for each of

the 61 household consumer product categories scored. Based upon

this analysis, EPA determined that the outcome of the ranking

exercise would not have been significantly different. The result

of this exercise is discussed more fully in section 2.1.2.1.

The EPA disagrees that volatility was substituted for

consideration of photochemical reactivity in the ranking process. 

The EPA's consideration of highly reactive compounds is discussed

previously in this section.

Comment: One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) stated that the Committee did not
2-41

have adequate knowledge of the complete VOC inventory because the

presence of VOC in the ambient air due to emissions from these

products and thus availability for ozone formation of VOC from

consumer and commercial products was not substantiated by ambient

monitoring.

Response: The EPA believes that the VOC inventory

information provided to the NAPCTAC panel was adequate for

purposes of ranking categories for regulation. As explained in

section 2.1.2, because of the difficulty in tracking the fate of

individual compounds and their atmospheric transformations, and

in obtaining precise measurements of trace compounds involved in

ozone chemistry, EPA relies on the conservative assumption that

all VOC emitted by consumer and commercial products are available

in the atmosphere to react to form ozone.

Comment: Two commenters in three letters

(AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t, CP-IV-D-07, CP-IV-D-35) stated that

EPA exhibited prejudice in the listing of categories for

regulation. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) stated

that the rankings set forth by EPA were inaccurate, not based on

factual data, and possibly biased against certain industries and

products because of preconceptions and prejudgments by EPA

officials. The commenter (CP-IV-D-35) stated that a number of

consumer products were given high scores and yet did not appear

on EPA's list of products for regulation. The commenter cited

fragrances as an example. Another commenter (CP-IV-D-07)

asserted that numerous product categories with very high VOC

emissions escaped listing altogether which the commenter asserted

was highly prejudicial to all those categories which have been

listed.

Response: The ranking to which the commenter is referring

is the preliminary ranking that was based on Criterion 1

through 7 only. The scoring process and the input provided by

NAPCTAC is discussed in detail earlier in this section. The

result of the preliminary ranking is available in Docket A-94-65,

item I-B-2. 
2-42

Subsequent to the preliminary ranking by NAPCTAC, EPA

applied Criterion 8, Regulatory Efficiency and Program

Considerations, to identify which product categories should be

listed in the schedule for regulation (see section 2.1.1.2). 

Application of Criterion 8 did cause some categories in the

preliminary ranking to be displaced by other categories. For

example, the 24 categories of household consumer products, many

of which were not among the preliminary set of categories

accounting for at least 80 percent of emissions in the

preliminary ranking were listed as a group. As a result, 

personal fragrances, which was among those categories which

accounted for at least 80 percent of emissions in the preliminary

ranking table, were displaced in the final prioritized list. The

listing of the 24 categories of consumer products in Group I is

discussed in a Federal Register notice [60 FR 15264] which was

published on March 23, 1995 and is also discussed in the preamble

to the proposed household consumer products VOC rule

[61 FR 14531] published on April 2, 1996. The EPA notes that it

was within the Agency’s discretion under section 183(e) of the

Act to determine which products to regulate in which phase of

regulations, taking into consideration the criteria developed for

making such determinations.

2.1.1.7 Ranking of Architectural Coatings

Comment: One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) stated that Mr. Bruce Jordan's

demeanor, attitude, and public statements gave some members of

the paint industry the impression that the industry must resign

itself to be regulated. The commenter implied that EPA was

determined to regulate the paint industry not on the basis of

science, but on EPA's prejudgment. The commenter contended that

"Administrator Jordan was in a position to adopt procedures and

factors so as to ensure that the architectural coatings industry

would be ranked within the first group for regulation." The

commenter concluded that the findings of the section 183(e) study
2-43

were based substantially on biased and highly predetermined

conclusions on the part of EPA.

The commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that EPA utilized old

and unreliable information upon which to base its assumptions. 

The commenter noted that in July 1992 when regulatory negotiation

started, the architectural coatings industry had not completed

its inventory, the section 183(e) study had not been completed, a

listing had not been made, and the statutory requirement of

commencing regulation 2 years after submission of the report to

Congress had not occurred. The commenter asserted that EPA

“jumped the gun” in its haste to regulate architectural coatings

based on biased assumptions from the 1989 Office of Technology

Assessment (OTA) report. The commenter claimed the OTA report 4

was inaccurate, incomplete, and lacking in merit and credibility.

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) asserted that the

ranking of architectural coating products should not have

occurred until after all objective studies were conducted. The

fact that the architectural coatings regulatory negotiation

proceedings began before this point was allegedly demonstrable

evidence that EPA prejudged regulation of the architectural

coating industry before completion of all studies.

Response: The EPA did not prejudge the architectural

coatings category for regulation. The architectural coatings

category received a high priority for regulation through the

application of the criteria developed in accordance with

section 183(e). (See section 2.1.1.6). The architectural

coatings category received the highest score for Criterion 5,

Availability of Alternatives; Criterion 6, Cost-Effectiveness of

Controls; and Criterion 7, Magnitude of Annual VOC Emissions. 

The EPA did not use Criterion 8, Regulatory Efficiency and

Program Considerations, to adjust the ranking of architectural

coatings.

Prior to the ranking of architectural coating products, EPA

had initiated the regulatory negotiation process based on the

expectation that this relatively large source of VOC emissions
2-44

would likely be regulated within the first group of consumer and

commercial products. This expectation was based on information

on this industry derived from past EPA studies and State

regulatory efforts. Even though architectural coating products

were included in the first group of products to be regulated, the

listing and schedule for regulation under section 183(e) of the

Act are not final Agency actions. Accordingly, if during rule

development, it had been determined that emission estimates were

inaccurate, or that cost-effective controls were not available,

or if any other new information was received which affected the

ranking, EPA could alter the priority given to the product

category. However, to date, EPA has had no basis for making such

a finding for architectural coatings products. On the contrary,

the regulatory analysis for architectural coatings has confirmed

that architectural coatings are an emission source that warrants

early regulation under section 183(e) of the Act.

The EPA disagrees with the commenter's claims that EPA

decided to regulate architectural coatings because of preliminary

reports, such as the 1989 OTA report, alluding to the possibility

of establishing Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) for

architectural coatings. As stated earlier, EPA anticipated that

the relatively large source of VOC emissions from architectural

coatings would likely be one of the regulated categories of

consumer and commercial products. This expectation was

reasonable not only because of the large amount of emissions, but

also because the availability of alternatives based on the number

of State and local rules under development or already

promulgated.

Comment: Two commenters in three letters

(AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, AIM-IV-D-214c,

AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) stated that considering emission

magnitude and regulatory efficiency was extremely prejudicial to

architectural coating manufacturers. The commenters asserted

that architectural coatings did not warrant early or severe

regulation under the five statutory factors. One commenter in
2-45

two letters (AIM-IV-D-212p6i/CP-IV-D-35j,

AIM-IV-D-212p2/CP-IV-D-35e) stated that architectural coatings

should not have been included in the first category to be

regulated under section 183(e) of the Act because the amount of

emissions from these products was so insignificant that they did

not contribute significantly to ozone nonattainment. Another

commenter (AIM-IV-D-175) stated that architectural coatings

should not be regulated at all because there are much greater

sources of air pollution that EPA should be regulating instead. 

By contrast, two other commenters (AIM-IV-D-28, AIM-IV-D-32)

asserted that architectural coatings clearly belong in the first

group of consumer and commercial products for regulation under

section 183(e) of the Act. One of these commenters (AIM-IV-D-32)

noted that architectural coatings are the single largest area

source category in the Portland, Oregon, Ozone Nonattainment Area

where they are responsible for 23 percent of all “Area Source”

VOC emissions and 6 percent of the total VOC generated by human

activity. The other commenter (AIM-IV-D-28) stated that although

the industry has historically made substantial voluntary,

market-driven VOC reductions in the past, the emissions of VOC

still comprise a substantial fraction of the total VOC emissions

inventory. This commenter agreed with EPA’s justification for

placing architectural coatings in the first priority of

categories for regulation.

Response: The EPA believes that some commenters’ assertions

that architectural coatings were treated prejudicially and that

they should not have been included in the first priority of

categories for regulation are unfounded. The rationale for the

use of Criteria 7 and 8 is presented in section 2.1.1.2. The EPA

believes that the application of the criteria indicated that

architectural coatings should be listed and should be regulated

in the first phase of regulations. The EPA contends that it

applied the criteria in a reasonable fashion to determine the

proper sequence for product regulation, and that to do so was a
2-46

proper exercise of the discretion accorded to the Agency in the

statute itself.

Criterion 7, Magnitude of Annual VOC Emissions, provided for

products with higher annual reactivity-adjusted emissions to

receive higher scores, indicating a higher priority for

regulation. The architectural coatings category received a score

of 5 (the top score) based on a 1990 nonattainment area VOC

emissions estimate of 315,000 tons per year (tpy),

reactivity-adjusted to 398,000 tpy, which is not an insignificant

amount. After receiving this and other comments, EPA re-examined

the initial estimate of highly-reactive compounds emitted from

architectural coatings and revised that estimate, bringing the

reactivity-adjusted emission total down to approximately

323,000 tpy. However, the revised estimate still would have

resulted in a score of 5 for Criterion 7. The correction of the

estimate of highly reactive compounds in architectural coatings

is discussed later in this section.

Of the 105 product categories ranked, 8 were assigned a

score of 5 (the highest score) for Criterion 7, only 3 of which

were paints and coatings - aerospace coatings, architectural

coatings, and other metal product coatings (later referred to as

miscellaneous metal products coatings). The remaining five

categories that received the top score for Criterion 7 were hair

sprays, lithographic printing, industrial cleaning solvents,

cutback asphalt paving materials, and flexible package printing. 

There were 16 categories of paints and coatings that received a

score of 4 or less. Contrary to the commenters’ assertion, EPA

applied the methodology to all of the coating categories in the

same manner as it applied the methodology to all product

categories. Thus, EPA treated the paint and coatings industry

fairly with regard to Criterion 7.

Application of Criterion 8, Regulatory Efficiency and

Program Considerations, was used to change the ranking of only

one category of paints and coatings - shipbuilding and repair

coatings. This category was brought forward to Group I (for
2-47

regulation in 1997) from a later group because control techniques

guidelines for shipbuilding and repair were already under

development pursuant to section 183(a) of the Act, independent of

section 183(e). Criterion 8 is further discussed in

section 2.1.1.2.

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that EPA

manipulated the category rankings by double-counting reactive VOC

and other VOC using the added criterion of VOC volume. The

commenter asserted that EPA's interpretation of reactivity

considerations was faulty and incorrectly resulted in the

determination that architectural coating products emitted an

extremely high volume of reactive VOC.

Response: Contrary to the assertions of the commenter,

EPA's consideration of highly reactive compounds, as required in

the Act, was not substituted by addition of Criterion 7,

Magnitude of Annual VOC Emissions. Before scoring Criterion 7,

EPA made an adjustment to the VOC emission estimates of

categories which emitted highly reactive compounds. The portion

of a category's VOC emissions that EPA determined consisted of

highly reactive compounds was given additional weight according

to the compound's relative reactivity. This methodology is

explained at length in section 3.5 of the report to Congress

(EPA-453/R-94-066-a).

The EPA believes the intent of Congress was to give

additional regulatory emphasis to emissions of highly reactive

compounds. The EPA accomplished this by including Criterion 4,

Emissions of Highly Reactive Compounds, and Criterion 7,

Magnitude of Annual Emissions, and by scoring Criterion 7 on a

reactivity-adjusted basis as explained above. The EPA does not

agree with the commenter that consideration of both magnitude of

emissions and emissions of highly reactive compounds is

double-counting. Instead, EPA believes that giving greater

regulatory emphasis to products that emit highly-reactive

compounds and to products that have a high amount of annual VOC
2-48

emissions is consistent with the intent of section 183(e) of the

Act.

Comment: One commenter in three letters (AIM-IV-D-55,

AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) insisted that

architectural coatings should have received lower scores for:

(1) uses, benefits, and commercial demand; (2) health and safety

functions; (3) emissions of highly reactive VOC;

(4) cost-effectiveness of controls; and (5) availability of

alternatives. The commenter concluded that the ranking for

architectural coatings was, therefore, inaccurate, biased, and

wrong. The five factors referred to below and the eight criteria

that EPA established in consideration of them are discussed in

section 2.1.1.2 and in chapter 4 of the report to Congress. 

Uses, benefits, and commercial demand. The commenter

claimed that architectural coatings' scores for uses, benefits,

and commercial demand, should be adjusted downward. The

commenter stated that the score should reflect that the primary

purpose of paints is to preserve and protect, and is not

decorative as contended by EPA. The commenter further claimed

that the annual dollar sales for architectural coatings was

exaggerated by EPA.

Health and safety functions. With regard to this factor,

the commenter also asserted that paints have health and safety

benefits in that they preserve a clean and healthy environment in

schools, hospitals, and food processing facilities, and traffic

and signaling paints are used to ensure public safety. The

commenter stated that the score the architectural coatings

category received for this factor did not reflect the high level

of health and safety functions that architectural coatings

provide.

Emissions of highly reactive volatile organic compound. For

this factor, the commenter stated that EPA's information

regarding highly reactive VOC in paints is inaccurate. The EPA's

score sheet for architectural coatings showed xylene as the only

highly reactive VOC in coatings and estimated the xylene content
2-49

at 10 percent. The commenter contended that most architectural

coatings do not contain xylene. The commenter presented solvent

use data for 1994 and an article from “Environmental Science and

Technology”, both indicating a xylene content of 1 percent in

architectural coatings (AIM-IV-D-212). The commenter pointed out

that EPA provided no documentation to support the estimate of

10 percent xylene content.

Cost-effectiveness of controls. As to this factor, the

commenter stated that EPA manipulated the ranking process by

claiming that the cost of controls for the architectural coatings

industry is $500 to $1,000 per ton, while the South Coast Air

Quality Management District (SCAQMD) suggests the cost of

controls for architectural coatings is $16,400 per ton. (A

reference showing the SCAQMD control costs was attached to the

comment and is filed as CP-IV-D-35t6.) The commenter argued that

erroneous numbers for cost-effectiveness and emissions of highly

reactive compounds skewed the ranking results to the disadvantage

of the architectural coatings industry.

Availability of alternatives. The commenter insisted that

architectural coatings should have received lower scores for

availability of alternatives. The commenter did not explain the

basis for this opinion.

Responses: Uses, benefits, and commercial demand. Factor 1

(uses, benefits, and commercial demand of the product) was

accounted for by two criteria. The EPA established Criterion 1,

Product Utility, to represent "uses and benefits" of the product. 

The EPA established Criterion 2, Commercial Demand, to reflect

commercial demand expressed quantitatively as annual dollar sales

divided by annual VOC emissions in tons. As explained in

section 2.1.1.6, Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 6 were subjective, and

therefore were scored by the panel at the NAPCTAC meeting with

subsequent EPA review of the results. With this independent

advice from NAPCTAC, EPA made its own separate determination that

the scoring was appropriate. The panel apparently viewed

architectural coatings as quite utilitarian, as the score
2-50

assigned to Criterion 1 was only 1.9 out of 5, indicating a

relatively low priority for regulation with regard to uses and

benefits. The EPA considered the panel's recommendation and

agreed with it. Thus, EPA disagrees that paint received an

adverse ranking because of any alleged prejudice by EPA that it

is only "decorative."

For Criterion 2, Commercial Demand, EPA verified the annual

dollar sales estimate used in the ranking exercise. On the

criteria score sheet, EPA had indicated 1990 sales of

architectural coatings to be $6 billion. According to EPA's

reference for the figure, U.S. Department of Commerce's “Current

Industrial Reports: Paints and Allied Products, 1990,” the value

shipped of architectural coatings for 1990 was $5.8 billion.

Although this figure had been rounded to $6 billion for use in

the ranking exercise, the rounding had no effect on the score

assigned for Criterion 2.

Health and safety functions. Health and safety functions of

products were not only considered under Criterion 1, Utility, but

were considered specifically under Criterion 3, Health or Safety

Functions. Criterion 3 was designed to lower the priority for

regulation of products that contribute to the protection of

health or safety. A product with no health or safety function

was assigned a score closer to 5 (higher priority for

regulation); a product marketed primarily for its health or

safety functions received a score closer to 0. The EPA noted on

the score sheet for this category that "(t)raffic marking

coatings have a primary safety function; others may have primary

or secondary health or safety functions." The NAPCTAC panel

assigned a score of 3.9 out of 5 to this subjective criterion,

presumably indicating that the health or safety functions were

not considered to be such a primary function of architectural

coatings and that their priority for regulation should not be

greatly reduced. The EPA has no basis on which to question this

judgement. Thus, EPA disagrees that the ranking failed to take
2-51

into account any health and safety functions of architectural

coatings.

Emissions of highly reactive volatile organic compound. A

review of the data used to score Criterion 4, Emissions of Highly

Reactive VOC, performed in response to this comment, showed that

the tonnage of xylene emitted by architectural coating products

was overestimated. That figure has been adjusted based on

1990 data published in the National Paint and Coatings

Association's “1992 U.S. Paint Industry Database,” and has been

changed to reflect the xylene content of architectural coatings

(1,000 tons), maintenance coatings (16,200 tons), and traffic

marking paints (450 tons). Therefore, the nationwide 1990 total

for all architectural coatings is 17,650 tons, or approximately

10,600 tons in ozone nonattainment areas. The revised figure is

about one-third the original figure of 30,000 tons.

After receiving this comment, EPA reviewed the scoring for

architectural coatings and discovered that the score for

Criterion 4 was recorded in error as a 3. The original score

sheets used at the NAPCTAC meeting reflected a score of 5, which

was the score assigned to products emitting greater than

1,000 tons of highly reactive compounds. Consequently, the

revised figure of 10,600 tons does not change the score of 5 that

should be assigned to Criterion 4 for architectural coatings. 

Furthermore, the result of the mistake in recording is that the

corrected composite criteria score for architectural coatings

should be increased by two points, moving architectural coatings

from seventh-highest to third-highest ranked product category in

the preliminary ranking table.

Cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness for

architectural coatings at the time of ranking ($500 to $1,000 per

ton) was estimated from available data, and is of the same order

of magnitude as the cost-effectiveness calculated at proposal of

the architectural coatings rule ($260 per ton). This calculation

is documented in the EIA for the proposed architectural coatings

rule, and can be found in Docket A-92-18, item II-A-5.
2-52

The SCAQMD cost-effectiveness estimate cited by the

commenter ($16,400 per ton) was based on an assumption of a

75 percent VOC reduction from 1997 levels over 13 years. This

reduction is well beyond the reduction contemplated by EPA for

national implementation. As more and more VOC emission reduction

is required, the cost is expected to become higher and higher per

ton of VOC reduced. Therefore, the comparison used by the

commenter is not meaningful.

Availability of alternatives. As discussed in

section 2.1.1.6, Criterion 5, Availability of Alternatives, was

one of the subjective criteria scored by the NAPCTAC panel at its

July 1994 public meeting. Quantitative information on the

availability and cost of alternative, lower-VOC products was

generally unavailable for the vast array of consumer and

commercial products subject to section 183(e) of the Act. 

Consequently, EPA utilized the expertise of the NAPCTAC panel for

guidance, which assigned the score for Criterion 5 for each

category. In the case of architectural coatings, EPA believes

that the fact that several States had promulgated architectural

coating rules and that manufacturers were currently complying

with those rules may have been one valid factor justifying the

panel's collectively assigning a score of 4.4 out of 5 to this

criterion. In any case, EPA believes that the score was

reasonable compared to other product categories.

2.1.2 Volatile Organic Compound Inventory

2.1.2.1 Reportable Volatile Organic Compound Concerns

Comment: Two commenters in four documents

(AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-55,

CP-IV-F-1a) contended that EPA emission estimates were overstated

for architectural and industrial maintenance products in general, 

and for solvent-borne architectural coatings products in

particular. The commenter stated that the solvent contents of

many of the consumer and commercial products were based on two

surveys, the architectural coatings survey and the consumer

products survey. However, the commenter asserted that the two
2-53

surveys did not treat VOC content equally. The architectural

coatings survey reported all VOC as defined in EPA regulations

and the consumer products survey reported only a subset of VOC,

termed "RVOC" which excluded certain low-volatility VOC. 

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) asserted that the

difference in reporting of VOC by the two surveys overstated the

magnitude of VOC emissions attributed to architectural coatings

by 20 to 25 percent relative to other consumer and commercial

products. The two commenters (AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b,

AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-55, CP-IV-F-1a) stated that this

overstatement of VOC emissions caused EPA to put architectural

coatings within the first group of products scheduled for

regulation because EPA gave great weight to magnitude of annual

VOC emissions in setting priorities for regulation. The

commenter argued that as a result of this priority for regulation

of architectural coatings, manufacturers of solvent-borne paint

were at a disadvantage.

One commenter in two documents (AIM-IV-D-212,

AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) further stated that besides

prejudicing the ranking process, if EPA had considered RVOC when

regulating architectural coatings, the resulting regulations

would be biased against solvent-borne coatings. Because

waterborne coatings are composed of materials with low

volatility, considering RVOC would essentially exclude waterborne

coatings from regulation.

The commenter explained that if waterborne coatings were

excluded from regulation, there would not be any VOC from

architectural coatings products left to regulate because

waterborne coatings constituted 80 percent of architectural

coatings. The remaining 20 percent were solvent-borne coatings

which the commenter asserted either did not actually emit any VOC

or emitted VOC with a low reactivity rate.

The commenter charged that EPA knew that if an RVOC

exemption were included in the architectural coatings rule, most

waterborne paint products would be exempted from regulation. In
2-54

addition, the commenter stated that the RVOC concept was never

raised or discussed at the architectural coatings regulatory

negotiation meetings even though EPA was aware of the concept at

that time.

Response: The EPA agrees that the RVOC concept was used

solely for gathering VOC content information for the

61 categories of household consumer products and was not used in

gathering VOC content for any of the other 42 categories of

consumer and commercial products including architectural

coatings. The EPA disagrees that this methodology of gathering

RVOC data for a subset of consumer and commercial products

adversely affected the ranking and listing of architectural

coatings. Furthermore, EPA believes the use of RVOC for

gathering VOC emissions data and in the regulatory development

only for household consumer products was justifiable and

reasonable. The EPA included RVOC in the regulatory approach for

the category of household consumer products for reasons specific

to that category which are based on California’s regulatory

development efforts at the time. The RVOC distinction was not

included for purposes of gathering data for any of the coating

categories including architectural coatings because EPA has a

test method for paints and coatings which is the ultimate arbiter

of what is or is not a VOC for a particular paint process. No

such test method is available for products covered by the

consumer products rule.

In collecting survey information on the VOC content of

household consumer products, EPA included a vapor pressure

cut-off which excluded those compounds with a vapor pressure of

less than 0.1 millimeter (mm) of mercury at 20 C. The remainder o

of VOC which were then reported in the survey were designated

RVOC. This approach was developed after analyzing California’s

regulatory approach at that time which excluded compounds below

this vapor pressure cut-off from regulation. In addition,

manufacturers of household consumer products who participated in

development of the Consumer Products Survey argued that speciated
2-55

product composition information was readily available on the

basis of RVOC in response to California’s regulatory efforts

which focused solely on RVOC.

Reportable VOC was developed for categories of household

consumer products in California to better distinguish between

products to determine which emit less VOC. For example,

household consumer products often contain ingredients such as

heavy oils or waxes that have extremely low volatility (i.e., may

be a solid at room temperature). Since in some cases all similar

products may be of equal VOC content (100 percent), it makes

sense to compare the higher volatility VOC components to

distinguish the products that are lower emitting and can serve as

a basis for standard setting. This approach makes sense in light

of the fact that a test method, which is the recommended approach

for defining what is a VOC and for compliance determination, had

not yet been developed for most of the household consumer product

categories. The EPA followed California’s regulatory approach at

that time and requested information on RVOC contents only in the

Consumer Products Survey since it appeared that these were the

VOC of interest for regulatory purposes.

It is arguable that for consistency in comparisons between

product categories, EPA should have included all household

consumer product VOC in the emissions inventory rather than just

reportable VOC or RVOC. To account for any potential bias that

this procedure may have caused to the ranking process, EPA

performed a sensitivity analysis by adjusting the VOC estimates

for consumer products. Since the commenter asserted that the

magnitude of VOC emissions attributed to architectural coatings

was overstated by 20 to 25 percent relative to other consumer and

commercial products, EPA, for purposes of the analysis, adjusted

the VOC content estimates for the 61 household consumer products

by doubling the existing RVOC data (which would more than account

for the 20-25 percent error claimed by the commenter), then

reranking all the consumer and commercial products using the

adjusted estimates. The analysis indicated that the use of RVOC
2-56

for consumer products had no practical effect on the ranking. 

Specifically, the criteria scores for aerosol spray paints,

non-automotive paint thinners, and several categories of

household adhesives would have been increased as a result of

doubling the RVOC values, but none of these categories would have

displaced any categories originally listed in Groups I through IV

from being listed for regulation. Based on this conservative

analysis, EPA contends that if an error was made in establishing

the emissions inventory for household consumer products, it was a

harmless error which did not affect the ranking of products for

regulation, including architectural coatings.

For architectural coating products, the RVOC concept is not

meaningful or necessary since EPA has a test method which is

designed to calculate the VOC content of coatings. The EPA

accounts for volatility of solvents through this test method

(i.e., Method 24). Specifically, in this test method, a sample

of paint is weighed, heated and then reweighed; basically, the

difference in weight is calculated to be the VOC content of the

coating after the weight of water and any exempt compounds is

subtracted out. Solvents that do not volatilize under the

temperature and time frame of the test method are not measured as

VOC. Since RVOC was not used in gathering emissions information

for the architectural coatings industry, none of the effects

cited by the commenter as adversely affecting manufacturers of

solvent-borne paint occurred. Namely, waterborne coatings were

not excluded from the ranking and the solvent-borne paint

manufacturers were not placed at a disadvantage in the ranking,

as the commenter asserts. In addition, EPA's proposed regulation

for architectural coating categories did not employ the concept

of RVOC for the same reason it was not used for purposes of

gathering VOC emissions data. Therefore, since for the reasons

stated in the architectural coatings proposal (61 FR 32729) EPA

did not propose to exclude waterborne coatings from regulation,

EPA is not obliged to consider what the resulting impacts on

solvent-borne coatings would have been as a result of this
2-57

exclusion. The concept of RVOC was never brought up in the

architectural coatings regulatory negotiation process for the

reasons stated above.

The comments that solvent-borne coatings do not emit VOC or

that any VOC emitted has low reactivity are addressed in sections

2.1.2.3 and 2.2.1.1 of this BID. 

Comment: One commenter in two documents (AIM-IV-D-212,

CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) stated that the RVOC classification

used in the consumer and commercial product survey was

technically inaccurate because the vapor pressure of individual

product components and the ability of the product to enter the

air in any appreciable degree are not related. The commenter

contended that it is the actual vapor pressure of the product

that is important and not the vapor pressure of the individual

product components. The commenter used waterborne coatings as an

illustration. The commenter stated that as the paints dry, the

low vapor pressure solvents enter the air just like the high

vapor pressure solvents. That is, EPA’s argument that VOC which

are not RVOCs do not enter the air in any appreciable degree is

false.

Response: The EPA agrees that the partial pressures of a

product’s ingredients determine the total pressure of the

mixture, and consequently a compound may volatilize at a

different rate as a pure solvent as compared to when it is

present in a mixture of solvents. However, for purposes of

simplifying the survey effort, and taking advantage of available

data within the industry, EPA established the RVOC vapor pressure

cutoff on a compound-by-compound basis. The RVOC cutoff helped

EPA focus both the survey and the regulatory development effort

on those compounds most likely to volatilize. Ideally, a test

method is the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not a VOC. In

the absence of available test methods, EPA relied on a vapor

pressure cutoff as a more crude, but still useful, technique to

estimate and regulate emissions. As VOC content test methods are

developed for household consumer products, EPA may reevaluate the
2-58

use of a vapor pressure cutoff for any future regulatory

developments in this area.

Comment: In the definition of RVOC used in the Consumer

Products Survey for the purpose of establishing an inventory, the

commenter submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212p5/

CP-IV-D-35v) questioning why the vapor pressure for liquids was

required only at 20 C and not also required at the liquid's o

operating temperature (if the operating temperature was higher

than 20 C). The commenter explained that if the ability of a o

solid material to sublime must be measured at the use

temperature, the vapor pressure of liquids should also be

measured at the use temperature.

Response: The reference temperature of 20 C was chosen o

because it is a commonly used reference condition for measuring

and expressing vapor pressures, it is consistent with

California’s vapor pressure cutoff, and it is a temperature at

which these household consumer products are expected to be used

(i.e., 68 degrees Fahrenheit).

2.1.2.2 Consideration of Biogenic Sources of Volatile

Organic Compounds

Comment: One commenter submitted three documents

(AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) stating

that it was essential for EPA to list in the Report the specific

sources of all VOC, including those from global background,

biogenic, and anthropogenic sources, along with the role that

each source played in ozone formation. Because EPA listed only

anthropogenic sources, the commenter submitted three documents

(AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212p5/CP-IV-D-35v,

AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) suggesting that Congress was not

informed of the insignificance of anthropogenic emissions

compared to biogenic emissions and supported the claim by citing

statements from EPA’s Comprehensive Emissions Inventory,

Rethinking the Ozone Problem, and EPA’s section 185(b) report to

Congress. The commenter in three letters (AIM-IV-D-55, 5,6

AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) stated that excluding
2-59

the 60 percent of VOC emissions that originated from biogenic

sources was contrary to the intent of Congress and to the express

language of section 183(e) of the Act. Therefore, the commenter

in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5)

concluded that EPA should submit a new section 183(e) study that

includes VOC emissions originating from biogenic sources.

Response: One objective of the section 183(e) study was to

determine the potential of consumer and commercial products to

contribute to ozone levels which violate the ozone NAAQS. To

assess the role of consumer and commercial product VOC emissions

in the ozone nonattainment problem, EPA compared VOC emissions

from consumer and commercial products to total anthropogenic VOC

emissions on a nationwide basis. This comparison is presented in

table 2-2 of the Report. The table includes VOC emission

estimates from mobile sources, petroleum marketing, stationary

source fuel combustion, forest and agricultural burning,

petroleum refineries, organic chemical manufacturing, industrial

manufacturing, and consumer and commercial products. Of the

21 million tons per year total, consumer and commercial products

were shown to account for 6 million tons, or about 28 percent.

The EPA believes that the inclusion of biogenic emissions in

the inventory of VOC emission sources is one possible approach,

but does not believe that such inclusion changes the proper

analysis for controlling VOC from consumer and commercial

products. The Agency estimates biogenic emissions in 1990 to be

about 34 million tons per year. Addition of biogenic emissions

would change the inventory as shown below in table 2-1.

Addition of biogenic emissions to the inventory would

decrease the relative contribution of consumer and commercial

products from 28 to 11 percent of all VOC emissions. However,

these biogenic emissions are not amenable to control, because

they emanate from sources for which there is no practical control

option (i.e., forests, swamps, grasslands, etc.); therefore, the

proportion of controllable VOC has remained unchanged. 

Therefore, this 11 percent contribution from consumer and
2-60

commercial products is still significant and represents a

significant source of potentially controllable emissions. Of the

21 million tons of anthropogenic VOC emissions emitted nationwide

in 1990, consumer and commercial products account for 6 million

tons, or about 28 percent. Therefore, consumer and commercial

products are still among the most significant federally

unregulated VOC sources for which additional VOC reductions are

achievable. Section 2.2.2 provides a detailed discussion on the

potential of consumer and commercial products to contribute to

ozone nonattainment.

TABLE 2-1. VOC EMISSIONS IN 1990 (NATIONWIDE)

Emission Source Category (tons/yr) (percent)

Nationwide Emissions Share of Total

Biogenic Sources 34,000,000 61.3

Mobile Sources (automobiles, 7,920,000 14.3

etc.)

Consumer and Commercial 6,000,000 10.8

Products

Petroleum Marketing 2,460,000 4.4

Fuel Combustion (stationary 2,300,000 4.2

sources)

Forest, Agricultural, and Other 990,000 1.8

Burning

Petroleum Refineries 820,000 1.5

Organic Chemicals Manufacturing 550,000 1.0

Industrial Manufacturing 400,000 0.7

Total for All Sources 55,440,000 100.0

Comment: One commenter in five documents (CP-IV-D-35,

CP-IV-F-1a, AIM-IV-D-55, CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-d-212p5,

AIM-IV-D-212) contended that the EPA inventory should have

accounted for all consumer and commercial products, including the

following man-controlled biogenic sources: 

& All food and beverage products, including meats and

produce, as well as grocery items; 
2-61

& All nursery items, including plants, trees, flowers,

and seeds, in addition to landscaping materials and

other similar products used commercially;

& Fuel used in homes and businesses for heating and

cooking;

& All nursery items and wholesale nursery products used

outside of nonattainment areas that could be

transported into the nonattainment area; and

& All other human activities of the body involved in VOC

output from consumer and commercial products.

In two letters the commenter (CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-d-212p5,

AIM-IV-D-212) cited the broad definition of “consumer or

commercial product” supported by Congressional legislative

history, the requirements in section 183(e)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,

and EPA’s inventory results, as presented in chapter 5 of the

Report. The commenter (CP-IV-F-1a) asserted that omitting these

items from the Report was a gross discrepancy and not in

compliance with the Act. The commenter contended that the

existing inventory is incomplete without these biogenic sources. 

The commenter (CP-IV-D-35) contended that if EPA had included all

categories in the ranking, most product categories currently

slated for regulation would have been exempted.

Response: In addition to the contribution of biogenic VOC

to the overall inventory, the commenter raises the question as to

whether EPA should enumerate, rank, and possibly regulate plants,

shrubs, and other biogenic sources of VOC that could be

considered consumer and commercial products according to the

definition in section 183(e) of the Act. The EPA has generally

interpreted the statutory definition very broadly, and considers

products ranging from hair sprays to automotive coatings to

asphalt paving materials to fall within the definition of

consumer and commercial products. These products differ greatly

from the biogenic sources of VOC cited by the commenter.

In each of the categories enumerated by EPA to be consumer

and commercial products, the products share at least one

characteristic that sets them apart from biogenic sources. In
2-62

every case, the products EPA has included as consumer and

commercial products are formulated and manufactured using

combinations of ingredients. The manufacturers have control over

the VOC contents of these products, and, therefore, can

reformulate or modify the products to emit less VOC. Conversely,

plants, trees, and shrubs are not manufactured and, therefore,

have inherent VOC emission characteristics, both in volume and

speciation of emissions. These naturally occurring sources

cannot be reformulated or modified to reduce VOC emissions. 

Options to control VOC emissions from plants, trees, and shrubs

would be limited primarily to banning products from being sold or

distributed which EPA believes would not reflect Congress’s

intent in enacting Section 183(e).

Once products are ranked and listed for regulation, any

regulations must require BAC. Section 183(e) of the Act defines

BAC as "the degree of emissions reduction that 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" (emphasis added). Clearly, applying BAC to

plants, trees, and shrubs would be limited primarily to a ban on

the sale or distribution of these items. The EPA does not

believe that a ban on such products would be appropriate.

The overriding conclusion is that regardless of whether

ranking of these sources was possible, VOC emissions from such

sources could not be mitigated through regulation. Accordingly,

it is highly unlikely that these sources would ever be listed for

regulation. Consequently, EPA's decision not to identify these

sources as consumer and commercial products under section 183(e)

of the Act has not affected the selection of nor the priorities

for those categories EPA did list for regulation.
2-63

2.1.2.3 Accuracy of Inventory

Comment: A commenter (CP-IV-F-1a) asserted EPA’s ranking

was biased because the environmental fate of VOC were considered

for certain products (i.e., laundry detergents) and not for

others (i.e., paint products). The commenter asserted that just

as the VOC in laundry detergents ended up in wastewater and were

biodegraded rather than being emitted to the air and forming

ozone, the VOC in interior paint products were not necessarily

emitted to the air where they could react to form ozone.

Response: In developing a comprehensive VOC emissions

inventory for consumer and commercial products, EPA took into

account the ultimate fate of the VOC in products (i.e., what

portion of the VOC content typically enters the ambient air

during use, storage, and disposal and what portion is not emitted

due to biodegradation or other environmental fates). Typical use

and disposal practices associated with nearly 50 consumer product

categories (including paints, primers, and varnishes) were

studied to determine which of the categories were likely to enter

the wastewater stream. Several categories of household consumer

products (e.g., laundry detergents, mouthwashes, general-purpose

cleaners, tile and bathroom cleaners) were determined to have a

high potential for entering the wastewater stream and undergoing

biodegradation rather than being emitted to the air.

Conversely, paints, primers, and varnishes were determined

to have a low probability of entering the wastewater stream. The

EPA concluded that architectural coatings are not typically

disposed of by means of a sanitary sewer system. Consequently,

the portion of all architectural coatings that enter the

wastewater stream and are biodegraded was considered to be

insignificant.

Thus, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, no bias against

architectural coating products was introduced because all

consumer and commercial products used indoors (e.g., hair sprays,

furniture polishes, etc.) were treated the same with the

exception of a few products (e.g., laundry detergents, tub and
2-64

tile cleaners, etc.) that were expected to be largely washed down

the drain. Certainly, some waste from low-VOC water-based paints

is washed down drains, but it is not expected to be significant

enough to make a substantial difference in total emissions. 

Solvents used in oil-based paints, even in the event that they do

enter the wastewater stream, normally would not undergo

biodegradation or another fate and, therefore, eventually enter

the ambient air.

With regard to the commenter’s assertion that VOC emissions

from paints used indoors do not enter the ambient air, EPA

maintains that close to 100 percent of the VOC from paint is

eventually emitted to the ambient air and is available for ozone

formation. Recent EPA indoor air studies (A-94-65, items IV-J-12

and IV-J-13) have confirmed that all the VOC contained in paints

used indoors is eventually emitted, with long-term experimental

data indicating that it may take as long as 3.5 years for all the

VOC from waterborne paint applied to gypsum wallboard substrate

to be emitted. The same studies showed that greater than

90 percent of the VOC contained in solvent-borne paint is emitted

within the first 24 hours, regardless of the substrate. 

Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that all the VOC

emissions within the house eventually reach the ambient air,

since paint container labels routinely recommend that the painted

space be thoroughly ventilated during and after the painting

operation. Thus, EPA believes that it is valid to assume VOC

emissions from architectural coatings are 100 percent available

in the atmosphere to react to form ozone. 

Comment: A commenter in three documents (AIM-IV-D-212,

AIM-IV-D-212p5/CP-IV-D-35v, AIM-IV-F-1c) stated that because EPA

failed to perform ambient monitoring tests, EPA’s consumer and

commercial product inventory is unsubstantiated. The commenter

(AIM-IV-F-1c) stated that the section 183(e) study did not

address: how much VOC was emitted into an area from the use of a

consumer and commercial product, how the emitted VOC was

dispersed, nor the ultimate fate of any emitted VOC. The
2-65

commenter submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

AIM-IV-D-212p5/CP-IV-D-35v) stating that ambient monitoring is

the only basis for measuring the potential of emissions to be

part of reactions that form ozone. The commenter stated that

indoor emissions are very unlikely to ever form ozone. Since EPA

assumed 100 percent availability of VOC both indoors and outdoors

without a study, and therefore assumed 100 percent of the

reportable VOC for air emission, the commenter contended that the

inventory was false and contrary to the letter and intent of the

Act. The commenter (AIM-IV-F-1c) concluded that as a result, EPA

had no justification for the architectural VOC regulations.

Response: The EPA recognizes the commenter’s concern that

ambient monitoring is an important element in evaluating

contributions of sources to the ozone problem. The EPA initiated

a program in 1992 to phase in photochemical assessment monitoring

stations (PAMS) in serious, severe, and extreme ozone

nonattainment areas. These stations monitor VOC (56 hydrocarbons

and 3 carbonyls), oxides of nitrogen, and ozone as well as

surface and upper air meteorology. Use of these stations can

help nonattainment areas corroborate emission inventories,

evaluate what sources may be contributing to emissions, examine

the mechanisms of ozone formation within their area, and aid in

source receptor modeling. The data can be used to evaluate,

adjust, and provide input to the photochemical grid models

utilized by the States to develop ozone control strategies and

demonstrate their success. The PAMS provide information to

evaluate population exposure, expand the data base available to

confirm attainment/nonattainment decisions, and develop ambient

ozone and ozone precursor trends. The 1997 Federal operating

budget for this monitoring program is approximately $14.1 million

and all the monitors are expected to be in place by 1998.

These monitoring stations provide valuable feedback for

devising cost-effective ozone attainment strategies. However,

because of the difficulty in tracking the fate of individual

compounds and obtaining precise measurements of trace compounds
2-66

involved in ozone chemistry, EPA relies on the conservative

assumption that all VOC emitted by consumer and commercial

products are available in the atmosphere to react to form ozone.

The particular sources of compounds emitted by consumer and

commercial products are difficult to identify because they can be

widely dispersed, their emissions may react quickly in the

atmosphere, and the sources may be masked by other emitters of

similar compounds. When conducting ambient monitoring, it is

often difficult to establish conclusive relationships between

sources (e.g., architectural coatings) and receptors (e.g.,

ambient monitors). Thus, even if ambient monitoring were

performed as requested by the commenter, the particular

contribution of architectural coating VOC to the ambient air

would be difficult to quantify. In any case, the potential of

emissions to become part of the ozone reaction is identified by

an analysis of the photochemical properties of the compounds in

question, rather than the results of any ambient monitoring. 

Section 183(e) of the Act directed EPA to determine whether

product categories have the potential to contribute to ozone

nonattainment and the Agency believes that monitoring of the type

advocated by the commenters is not necessary to establish this

point.

The commenter’s claim regarding indoor emissions entering

the ambient air and becoming available for reaction is addressed

in a previous comment in this section.

Comment: One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) defined availability to form ozone as

the conversion from the gross volume of VOC in something

measurable (such as a coating) to VOC presence in air at a level

above tree height in parts per billion volume during emission and

transportation. The commenter explained that the distance above

the ground where VOC is measured is important because sunlight

and hydroxyl radicals (OH) are necessary ingredients to produce

ozone. The commenter claimed that many evaporative VOC are never

exposed to direct sunlight and, therefore, cannot produce ozone. 
2-67

They claimed that the potential for VOC forming ozone indoors is

very low because of the lack of direct sunlight; and even if the

VOC escape from indoors, they must mix with air and sunlight. 

The commenter also noted that many compounds with more than eight

carbons [e.g., 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)-ethanol, xylenes, etc.] tend to

adhere to the first surface they contact where they remain until

they are dusted and washed. The commenter argued that when these

compounds reach the ground, they are biodegraded.

Response: The EPA’s response to the issue of paints used

indoors is presented previously in this section.

The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s view that compounds

with more than eight carbons tend to adhere to the first surface

they contact. There are many factors in addition to the

molecular weight of the compound that affect the tendency for

deposition on environmental surfaces. Other factors, such as

water solubility, temperature, and Van der Waals forces affect

the ability of specific compounds to absorb and/or adsorb onto

surfaces.

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6i/CP-IV-D-35j) stated

their agreement with points made in a presentation by

Ralph Engel, President of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers

Association (CSMA), at a 1989 public meeting held by EPA to

discuss the prospective regulation of VOC emitted from consumer

and commercial products. Mr. Engel stated that the consumer and

commercial products category was unique and could not be

regulated by traditional approaches or emission control

strategies. Mr. Engel added that “Catching Our Breath: Next

Steps for Reducing Urban Ozone, ”a study by the

U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) found

that “any emission estimates [from consumer products] are subject

to potentially large uncertainties.” Also, the OTA study 4

excluded consumer and commercial products from its analysis of

emissions reduction potential and cost because of the lack of

control technology information.
2-68

With regard to regulation of the architectural coatings

industry, the commenter requested that verification be conducted

to support the regulation of the targeted architectural coating

products, that these products emitted the amount of VOC as

claimed, and to what extent such emitted VOC actually reacted to

form ozone. The commenter concluded that EPA lacks specific

objective scientific facts to establish that VOC emitted from

architectural coatings constitute a measurable and identifiable

factor in contributing to ozone exceedance in areas classified as

nonattainment.

Response: Based on the lack of existing, reliable inventory

data on consumer and commercial products, CSMA worked closely

with EPA to develop the most complete and accurate inventory of

VOC in household consumer products available to date. The EPA

also has data available for the architectural coatings industry

that was compiled by the National Paint and Coating Association.

As discussed earlier in this section, EPA also contends that all

VOC used in architectural coatings ultimately become available in

the environment to form ozone. As discussed in section 2.2 of

this BID, EPA believes that VOC in paint (and other consumer and

commercial products) are reactive and contribute to the ozone

pollution problem. Therefore, EPA has concluded that regulation

of architectural coatings VOC will contribute to attaining and

maintaining the ozone NAAQS in all areas of the country.

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) pointed

out that the Consumer Products Survey collected data on the

specific VOC contained in various product categories. The

commenter claimed that the Architectural Coatings Survey

collected no speciated data because EPA and the larger national

architectural coatings manufacturers claimed that collecting

specific VOC data would unnecessarily complicate the survey

process or violate company confidentiality. The commenter stated

that the lack of VOC speciation data for architectural coatings

made it impossible to account for VOC emissions on a

reactivity-adjusted basis. The commenter asserted that a
2-69

reactivity adjustment may have reduced the magnitude of emissions

from architectural coatings relative to other consumer and

commercial products.

Response: The EPA agrees that speciated data would have

enhanced the accuracy of the architectural coatings inventory for

purposes of applying the reactivity adjustment. However, based

on the concerns of participants in the regulatory negotiation

process that this type of survey would complicate and slow down

the data collection effort, the Regulatory Negotiation Committee

decided not to include a request for speciated data in the

survey. In addition, information on solvent consumption within

the architectural coatings industry is available in the

literature and was used to determine the magnitude of highly

reactive compounds found in architectural coatings. This issue

is discussed fully in section 2.1.1.7. Contrary to the

commenter’s assertion, EPA was able to make the reactivity

adjustment on the architectural coatings category based on the

information in the literature. The reactivity adjustment of the

inventory data is discussed in section 3.5 of the Report.

2.2 REACTIVITY

2.2.1 Ranking Of Categories On Reactivity Basis For Study

2.2.1.1 Reactivity Study Requirements

Comment: Seven commenters submitted nine documents

(AIM-IV-D-02, AIM-IV-D-05, AIM-IV-D-178, AIM-IV-F-1(l),

AIM-IV-D-50, AIM-IV-D-214c, CP-IV-F-1a, CP-IV-D-07a, AR-IV-F-1)

stating that section 183(e) of the Act requires EPA to perform a

specific reactivity study. Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-214c,

AR-IV-F-1) claimed that EPA failed to consider highly reactive

VOC when conducting the study of VOC emissions from consumer and

commercial products required by section 183(e). Several

commenters (CP-IV-F-1a, CP-IV-D-35, CP-IV-D-07a, AIM-IV-F-1d,

AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-177, AR-IV-F-1)

asserted that a particular type of reactivity ranking could and

should have been done as the commenters believe was mandated by

Congress.
2-70

Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-214c, AIM-IV-D-55) criticized EPA’s

Report for labeling only 10 of several hundred VOC species found

in certain products as “highly reactive,” and labeling all other

VOC species found in products as “reactive,” and contended that

EPA made this distinction with “considerable arbitrariness.” One

commenter (AIM-IV-D-55) further stated that the hundreds of VOC

species that EPA classified as reactive are in fact highly

disparate in their potential to contribute to ozone formation in

nonattainment areas. The other commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) cited

two court cases (Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011,

1045-46, 1048 [D.C. Cir. 1978], and BASF Wyandotte Corp. v.

Costle, 598 F. 2d 637, 659 [1st Cir. 1979]) to support the

contention that EPA must compare the reactivities of each of the

different VOC species to satisfy the requirements of

section 183(e) of the Act.

According to one commenter (AIM-IV-D-212), the Report

specifically failed to consider the reactivity of VOC emissions

from paints and coatings. The commenter contended that EPA

should have created a peer-reviewed reactivity adjusted scale. A

second commenter submitted two letters (CP-IV-D-07a,

AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) stating that Congress intended the

study it mandated in section 183(e) of the Act to entail studies

of the relative reactivities of all species of VOC. Two

commenters in three letters (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-214c,

CP-IV-D-35) questioned why EPA failed to conduct a speciated

relative reactivity study of all consumer and commercial product

VOC species. One commenter submitted three letters (CP-IV-D-07a,

AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, AIM-IV-D-214c) asserting that EPA had

failed to investigate the relative reactivities of VOC species in

consumer and commercial products. As an example, the commenter

(AIM-IV-D-214b/ CP-IV-D-07b, CP-IV-D-07a) stated that EPA had not

performed its duty to study and report on the relative

reactivities of architectural and industrial maintenance coating

categories containing mineral spirits (the use of which would be

discouraged by regulations targeting solvent-borne paint) versus
2-71

those containing glycol compounds (the use of which would be

promoted by regulations encouraging the use of latex paint). The

commenter continued that EPA was required to report all existing

data about the relative reactivity of the mineral spirits found

in alkyd coatings and the glycol and other compounds found in

latex and acrylic coatings. An additional commenter 

(AIM-IV-D-02/AIM-IV-F-1[l]) agreed that lower VOC coatings are

often formulated with more reactive solvents (i.e., xylene

instead of mineral spirits); however, the commenter provided no

supporting information.

Some commenters (AIM-IV-D-55, CP-IV-F-1a, CP-IV-D-35)

disagreed with EPA's claim that a rigorous analysis of relative

reactivities on a compound-by-compound basis was not possible.

The commenters stated that EPA must perform the necessary studies

to supply any missing data or to replace data that were uncertain

or lacking in detail. The commenters cited NRDC v Train, 411 F.

Supp. 864, 870 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), to support the position that a

lack of data was not an appropriate consideration justifying

EPA's failure to consider reactivity of each species of VOC. 

This commenter and another commenter (CP-IV-F-1a) stated that EPA

has a heavy burden to demonstrate that studying the relative

reactivities of VOC was impossible. The first commenter

(AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) cited two cases for this proposition: 

Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 551 F.Supp. 785, 789 (N.D. Cal. 1982) and

American Lung Assn. v. Browner, 884 F.Supp. 345, 347 (D. Ariz.

1994).

Response: At the outset, EPA notes that the Act does not

explicitly define the terms "reactivity adjusted" or "highly

reactive" VOC, or stipulate how the Agency should interpret these

terms. In addition, the legislative history for section 183(e)

does not provide clear guidance as to Congressional intent with

respect to how EPA should take relative reactivity into account. 

The EPA believes that the legislative history does not illuminate

precisely what Congress intended, in part because Congress

intended EPA to exercise its technical expertise to assess and
2-72

account for the relative reactivity of VOC in the manner the

Agency considers most appropriate. The EPA believes that it has

met all reactivity-related requirements of section 183(e) of the

Act and that relative reactivity was taken into account to the

extent that currently available scientific data and understanding

allow. As required by section 183(e) of the Act, EPA considered

reactivity in two instances: (1) in listing consumer and

commercial product categories for regulation, and in

(2) establishing the priorities for regulation of consumer and

commercial product categories. The EPA disagrees that a

speciated study of all consumer and commercial product VOC should

have been performed; such a study is not required by the Act and

would have been impractical to undertake.

Section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act requires EPA to "list those

categories of consumer or commercial products that the

Administrator determines, based on the study, account for at

least 80 percent of the VOC emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted

basis, from consumer or commercial products in areas that violate

the NAAQS for ozone." To meet this requirement, EPA used

available information to identify 10 classes of compounds as

"highly reactive." (Note that these are classes of VOC, rather

than 10 individual VOC species as the commenters indicated.) 

The EPA then identified those product categories known to contain

quantities of these highly reactive compounds and estimated the

mass quantity of these compounds found in each category. 

Emissions data for these product categories were adjusted by

applying a compound-specific reactivity adjustment factor to the

mass emissions of each of the highly reactive ingredients. The

EPA thus fulfilled the requirements of section 183(e)(3)(A) of

the Act when it published a list of categories of products that

accounted for 80 percent of mass emissions as adjusted to account

for known quantities of each of the highly reactive ingredients. 

The EPA believes that its methodology is a valid and reasonable

interpretation of the requirements to perform a

reactivity-adjustment of VOC emissions.
2-73

Section 183(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act requires EPA, in

determining product categories to be regulated, to consider

"[t]hose consumer and commercial products which emit highly

reactive volatile organic compounds into the ambient air."

Accordingly, EPA established "Emissions of Highly Reactive

Compounds" as one of the criteria used to rank consumer and

commercial products for possible regulation. Thus, in the study,

EPA distinquished between three groups of compounds: highly

reactive, reactive, and negligibly reactive. Negligibly reactive

compounds, a category established by EPA regulations, are certain

listed compounds EPA has formally determined to have

insignificant ozone-forming potential and excluded from the

definition of VOC (see 40 CFR 51.100 (s)). Compounds that were

identified as negligibly reactive were excluded from the consumer

and commercial product VOC emissions inventory, and will be

excluded from any related regulation. Consumer or commercial

product categories known to contain highly reactive compounds

were assigned a greater weighting than those product categories

that did not contain these compounds. The EPA then factored

these weightings into the prioritization for regulation. A

greater weighting would imply higher priority for regulation.

Chapter 3 of the Report provides a detailed discussion of

reactivity and the rationale for the list of highly reactive

compounds on which EPA relied.

To identify highly reactive VOC, EPA used available

information to identify 10 classes of volatile organic compounds

-- some of which represented very broad groups -- as “highly

reactive” under most conditions. The EPA proposed "highly

reactive" VOC to be those with Maximum Incremental Reactivity

(MIR) greater than 4 or Maximum Ozone Incremental Reactivity

(MOIR) greater than 1.75 and it has concluded that even

moderately large changes in the VOC to nitrogen oxides (NO )x

ratio within an airshed would not invalidate this classification. 

The EPA also established a classification using the reactivity

rate constant for reaction with the hydroxyl radical (k ) OH
2-74

greater than 50,000 per part per million per minute (ppm min 1) -1 -

as a criterion to identify "highly reactive" VOC species. To

resolve conflicting classifications by the MIR and k scales, OH

the latest available results regarding atmospheric photochemistry

studies of these VOC were assessed and used by the Agency to

classify them as "highly reactive" or "reactive."

The EPA also took into consideration highly reactive VOC

under another criterion, “Magnitude of Annual VOC Emissions.” 

For product categories known to contain highly reactive VOC, EPA

adjusted the mass emissions figures for those VOC to reflect

their high reactivity.

The EPA subsequently ranked product categories for possible

regulation, considering the criteria established by the Agency

and advice from the independent NAPCTAC advisory group. In

conducting the ranking, EPA gave product categories containing

highly reactive compounds a higher priority for regulation. In

addressing the two criteria cited above, EPA assigned a range of

scores based on the number of tons of highly reactive VOCs

emitted per year by a product category. The EPA included the

scores from these criteria in the calculation of the total scores

for each product category in considering the regulatory priority

of each category. 

Chapter 3 of the March 1995 Report to Congress provides a

more detailed discussion of reactivity and the rationale for the

list of highly reactive compounds on which EPA relied. Chapter 4

of the Report to Congress discusses in more detail how the Agency

applied each of the criteria.

Although the commenter suggested that EPA should have

conducted reactivity studies to supplement uncertain and

incomplete reactivity data, this was not reasonable or possible

due to time and resource constraints. Section 183(e) of the Act

set aside a limited amount of time for EPA to perform the

section 183(e) study and report to Congress. Existing reactivity
2-75

data on VOC, especially those compounds used to formulate

consumer and commercial products, is either largely incomplete or

uncertain. There is an enormously large diversity of VOC species

emitted by consumer and commercial products. The commenters

themselves estimate there are approximately 1,000 different VOC

species associated with the architectural coating industry alone. 

An examination of the VOC speciation data available for consumer

products (compiled by EPA and shown in the Consumer Product

Survey results) indicated that for about 20 to 30 percent of the

VOC species identified in the survey responses, the atmospheric

chemistry is unknown and a comparable fraction of survey entries

represented VOC mixtures of unspecified composition. Definitive

estimation of VOC reactivity is only possible when the

atmospheric chemistry of the VOC species is known. Furthermore,

to characterize the reactivity of one single VOC compound is

expected to require $25,000 and two months of smog chamber

testing. Neither the equipment nor the specialized expertise to

conduct this type of testing is currently available at EPA. In

fact, staff with this specialized expertise as well as smog

chamber equipment is in limited supply within the scientific

community. In addition, despite much discussion over the years

among atmospheric scientists, there has been no broad acceptance,

within either the scientific or regulatory communities, of any

single relative reactivity scale that could be used to make

reliable predictions of the ozone forming potential of specific

VOC. One reason that reliable predictions are difficult is that

the ozone-formation potential of an individual VOC species varies

depending on ambient conditions -- on an absolute scale, and

occasionally on a relative scale as well. Factors affecting

reactivity include ambient conditions such as VOC-to-NOx ratios,

the presence of other VOC, and sunlight intensity. Each of these

factors can vary widely. These facts all support EPA’s

conclusion that at this time uncertainties, inconsistencies, and

lack of reactivity data on individual compounds preclude a more

detailed determination of the potential of consumer and
2-76

commercial products to contribute to ozone nonattainment of the

type demanded by the commenters. The EPA does not believe that

Congress intended the Agency to characterize the reactivity of

each and every one of the myriad of VOC compounds found in

consumer and commercial products within the limited time provided

by the Act. In addition, since the study and report to Congress

was in part a screening exercise to identify EPA's priorities for

regulating categories of consumer and commercial products, it

would not seem reasonable to delay initiation of regulatory

development efforts to complete extensive reactivity testing. 

The EPA believes that Congress could not have intended EPA to

delay regulation of VOC emissions from consumer and commercial

products until it had complete data on each of the approximately

2,300 VOC species found in household consumer products alone.

Contrary to the commenter's assertion, nothing in

section 183(e) of the Act requires EPA to consider the relative

reactivity of each and every specific compound found in consumer

or commercial products. However, establishing the list of

classes of compounds which EPA considers to be "highly reactive"

required a comparison of the reactivity among specific compounds

found in consumer and commercial products and, as noted earlier,

EPA made a compound-specific relative reactivity adjustment for

known quantities of highly reactive compounds. In this sense,

although more limited than suggested by the commenter, EPA

included consideration of relative reactivity in the

section 183(e) study and report to Congress.

With regard to the commenter's specific assertion that EPA

should have reported on the relative reactivities of those

coating categories containing mineral spirits and those

categories containing glycol compounds, this was a detailed

reactivity analysis that was not undertaken by the Agency due to

the uncertainties previously discussed with regard to reactivity

data. In this case, mineral spirits is a complex mixture of

various petroleum fractions. The composition of mineral spirits

varies with both feedstock (crude oil) and distillation end
2-77

point. As a further complication, feedstock often varies by

manufacturer, area of the country as well as time of year. With

regards to glycol compounds, the four most common solvents in

water-based coatings were identified by Censullo (docket A-94-65,

item IV-J-6) as Texanol®, propylene glycol, diethylene glycol

butyl ether, and ethylene glycol. This agrees substantially with

Harley, et al, (docket A-94-65, item IV-J-3) who reported that

the principal organic cosolvents in water-borne coatings are

ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and a variety of glycol ethers

and esters. Although these compounds require further reactivity

assessment, preliminary data by Carter, et.al., (docket A-94-65,

item IV-J-9) found that propylene glycol produces ozone. Thus,

propylene glycol is too reactive to be exempted from regulation

as a VOC ozone precursor under the criteria presently used by the

EPA. However, propylene glycol cannot be classified as highly

reactive because propylene glycol does not produce significantly

more ozone as emissions of all other VOC equally, under most

atmospheric conditions.

Concerning the allegation that xylene is used in some low

VOC paints instead of mineral spirits, EPA already considered in

the inventory the amount of xylene used in paints. For the

ranking process, EPA considered xylene a highly reactive VOC and

adjusted the emission inventory for architectural coatings for

the amount of xylene used. Also, because xylene is a HAP listed

for regulation under Section 112 of the Act, the EPA expects

manufacturers to decrease the use of xylene in formulations.

Lastly, the Report and listing of consumer and commercial

product categories for regulation are not final agency actions. 

As more complete information on the relative reactivity of

consumer and commercial product VOC is developed, it can be

incorporated into the regulatory program. For example, as a

result of the recent delisting of acetone as a VOC

(characterization of acetone as “negligibly photochemically

reactive” under the definition of VOC), EPA plans to move the

category of aerosol spray paints from the first grouping of
2-78

consumer and commercial products to be regulated (i.e.,

regulation required by March 1997) due to the high proportion of

acetone found in these products. The EPA believes that this

flexibility allows for improvements in the regulatory approach

taken by the Agency if supported by additional technical

information developed in connection with each rule.

With regard to the judicial precedents cited by the

commenters, EPA has concluded that the commenters are mistaken. 

One commenter cited NRDC v. Train, 411 F.Supp. 864

(S.D.N.Y. 1976), in support of its argument that lack of data is

not a sufficient basis for the Agency's alleged failure to

consider reactivity in accordance with section 183(e) of the Act. 

The EPA notes that the NRDC decision turned upon a very specific

provision of the Act, not at issue here, which required EPA to

list lead as a pollutant. The commenters have cited a decision

concerning EPA's reticence to take an action because of lack of

data. The EPA lost the NRDC case because the express statutory

language did not acknowledge lack of data as a basis for refusal

to list lead as a pollutant. Here, however, EPA has concluded

that Congress could not have intended for EPA to refuse to

regulate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products

absent complete, absolute, unequivocal scientific and modeling

data regarding reactivity. In other words, EPA has chosen to act

despite what the commenters portray as inadequate data concerning

reactivity, and thus has acted in accordance with the NRDC

decision.

The EPA presumes that the commenters cited NRDC v. Train

because they contend that EPA cannot refuse to perform the

reactivity assessments advocated by the commenters based upon

lack of data, which in part result from inadequate resources and

time to produce perfect information. As discussed earlier in

this response, EPA does not believe that section 183(e) of the

Act in fact requires the type of reactivity assessment demanded

by the commenters. The EPA has concluded that both the statutory

language and the limited legislative history indicate that
2-79

Congress intended EPA to take relative reactivity of VOC into

account in the manner that the Agency determined was reasonable

under the circumstances.

The commenters have also cited Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 55,

F.Supp. 785 (N.D. Cal. 1982), and American Lung Assn. v. Browner,

884 F.Supp. 345 (D. Ariz. 1994), because they ostensibly support

the commenters' argument that EPA cannot point to inadequate time

as a basis for refusal to perform the reactivity assessments

demanded by the commenters. The EPA notes that reliance upon

these cases for the proposition that EPA has a "heavy burden" to

demonstrate that a certain action is not possible is

inappropriate. Both cases involved deadline suits to force the

Agency to take an action by a specific date. In assessing the

Agency's need for additional time, the courts have indicated that

EPA bears a burden to show why it is entitled to more time than

Congress allotted. This point is irrelevant to the argument made

by EPA which is that one reason Congress cannot have intended the

type of reactivity assessment demanded by the commenters is that

it would be impossible to accomplish within the timeframe

allocated by Congress, thereby confirming that EPA's

interpretation of section 183(e) of the Act regarding reactivity

is more appropriate. Moreover, the commenter's reference to the

cases to suggest that there is a "higher burden" for the Agency

to overcome in this context is misleading and incorrect. As

described earlier, EPA believes that it has performed the

reactivity assessment in accordance with the requirements of

section 183(e) of the Act.

Finally, the commenters cited Weyerhauser v. Costle,

598 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978) and BASF Wyandotte Corp v. Costle,

598 F.2d 637 (1st Cir. 1979), ostensibly in support of their

contention that section 183(e) of the Act obligates EPA to

compare the relative reactivities of all VOC species before it

can regulate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products. 

The EPA presumes that the commenters mean to compare the

distinction between the different types of statutory factors at
2-80

issue in those decisions to the different factors in

section 183(e) of the Act.

The EPA disagrees that these decisions should alter the

Agency's interpretation of section 183(e) of the Act. The cases

dealt with different statutes with markedly different provisions

and are therefore clearly distinguishable. More importantly,

however, EPA believes that the decision in the Weyerhauser case,

to the extent that it is relevant, in fact supports EPA's

contention that Congress intended to grant the Agency discretion

to develop the criteria for product listing and regulation based

upon appropriate consideration of the factors enumerated in

section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The factors in that section are

analogous to the "consideration factors" discussed in Weyerhauser

and thus, by analogy, EPA is not required to apply such standards

except as it deems appropriate. As discussed more fully earlier

in this response, EPA believes that it has taken into

consideration the relative reactivity of VOC species to the

extent practicable and appropriate, in conformity with the

statutory provisions of section 183(e) of the Act.

2.2.1.2 Determination of Reactivity

Comment: Some commenters (AIM-IV-F-1d, CP-IV-D-35,

AIM-IV-D-212, AR-IV-F-1) cited an article titled “Urban Ozone

Control and Atmospheric Reactivity of Organic Gases” (Russell

et al., [docket number CP-IV-D-35r/AIM-IV-D-212p6L]). According

to the commenters, this article reported that characteristic

reactivities of individual VOC could be known with confidence by

applying sophisticated computer modeling techniques. The

reported research also quantified variability and uncertainties

in reactivity estimates using advanced computer modeling

techniques and basic engineering assumptions. The article also

addressed typical concerns and criticisms of reactivity

weighting: the variation of specific reactivities with location

as a result of changing atmospheric conditions and the effects of

uncertainties in the chemical mechanisms employed.
2-81

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) also questioned EPA's reason

for not considering relative reactivity (that existing data and

methods have “uncertainties” and “limitations” and that

additional data could be obtained “only at great expense”) given

that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) uses a

reactivity-based control strategy to implement its clean fuel/low

emissions vehicle regulations.

One commenter (CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) requested the

formation of a reactivity scale that acknowledged that some

compounds increase ozone (positive reactivity values) while other

compounds reduce ozone (negative reactivity values) or have no

affect on ozone formation at all (neutral values). Another

commenter (AIM-IV-D-178) stated that the costs of obtaining data

to determine relative photochemical reactivity would be worth

incurring.

Response: Since the study and report to Congress were in

part a screening exercise to identify EPA's priorities for

regulating categories of consumer and commercial products, EPA

judged that the consideration of relative reactivity should be

limited to currently available data and should not involve

exhaustive testing of relative reactivities of all consumer and

commercial products. The reasons that the EPA did not use any of

the methods or approaches suggested by the commenters are

summarized below.

The EPA agrees that the modeling method cited in the article

by Russell et al. is available and that this type of method is

the most credible of the methods now in existence for use in

estimating the reactivity of a VOC species. However, this method

can be used to estimate the reactivity of a VOC species only if

the atmospheric chemistry of the VOC species is known. As

discussed in detail in section 2.2.1.1, there is an enormously

large diversity of VOC species emitted by consumer and commercial

products and some products are VOC mixtures of unspecified

composition. Furthermore, existing reactivity data on VOC are

incomplete or uncertain, especially for those compounds used to
2-82

formulate consumer and commercial products. Based on these

limitations, it appears that the method reported by Russell et al

can be used on, roughly, only one half of the consumer and

commercial product VOC species. This limitation is one of the

bases for EPA’s conclusion that the uncertainties,

inconsistencies, and lack of reactivity data on hundreds of

individual compounds in consumer products preclude the Agency

from performing the type of reactivity determination advocated by

the commenters.

In addition, computer models generally use chemical

mechanisms which “lump” chemical species into groups or otherwise

treat chemistry in some sort of aggregated fashion. For example,

the widely used carbon bond four (CB-4) mechanism treats VOC

chemistry according to types of chemical bonds present in organic

compounds. Chemical species are characterized according to the

mix of bonds found in each species. In the computer model,

emissions (of each species) are aggregated for each bond type.

This aggregation winds up combining many species and source

categories. After the aggregation occurs, the chemistry of the

resulting mix is simulated. As a result, the modeling does not

provide a ready means for characterizing effects of reducing

emissions of an individual compound in a computer simulation.

Consequently, EPA believes that the model has limitations in its

use for evaluating the effects of reducing specific VOC emissions

from a particular source category.

The EPA agrees with the discussion by Russell et al

regarding uncertainties. However, their analysis, results, and

conclusions apply only to VOC species whose atmospheric

chemistry, and specifically the chemical pathway through which

the VOC molecule reacts in the atmosphere, is known. To further

explain, Russell et al. computed the reactivity uncertainties

from data on rate constant and product yield uncertainties for

all specific reaction steps that constitute the “pathway.” The

pathway, however, is not known for many of the consumer and

commercial product VOC emission species. Thus, for these
2-83

species, the uncertainties, obviously, will be much greater than

those reported by Russell et al.

With regard to the comment concerning CARB’s use of a

reactivity-based control strategy to implement its clean fuel/low

emissions vehicle regulations, it should be noted that a long

history of research exists in the area of mobile source emissions

within California. Since mobile source emissions are fairly

well-characterized in terms of reactivity (i.e., reactivity

uncertainties, inconsistencies, and lack of data are not

prohibitive), the State of California is able to apply a

reactivity-based control strategy to implement its clean fuel/low

emissions vehicle regulations. Consumer and commercial product

VOC emissions, on the other hand, are relatively newly regulated

in areas of the country such as California and, as explained

previously, the emissions data have many uncertainties which

complicate the ability to use reactivity scales such as those

reported by Russell et al..

Also, reactivity scales do exist and were considered by EPA. 

Specifically, one of those scales, the one developed by

Dr. Carter, at the University of California, Riverside, and

widely cited in technical literature, was used by EPA to derive

the reactivity classification described in Chapter 3 of the

report to Congress.

As discussed above, EPA believes that it has adjusted for

relative reactivity reasonably and sufficiently to fulfill the

Congressional directive in section 183(e) of the Act. Because

Congress did not stipulate how EPA should perform this

adjustment, EPA concludes that Congress intended the Agency to

exercise its technical expertise to determine the requisite

adjustment for reactivity necessary to regulate consumer and

commercial products appropriately. The EPA does not believe that

Congress could have intended to delay regulation of VOC emissions

from consumer and commercial products indefinitely, pending

development of complete information regarding reactivity for all

individual species of VOC.
2-84

Comment: One commenter submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) contesting EPA's identification of 

highly reactive VOC. Specifically, the commenter contended that

there are highly reactive VOC in nature (e.g., isoprene) that

actually reduce ozone formation. According to the commenter,

many VOC react with ozone and result in a reduction in ozone

concentrations (here the commenter cites both the 1991 report

“Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air

Pollution”, by The National Research Council/The National Academy

of Science, and “Scientific Basis of the VOC Reactivity Issues

Raised by Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990"

by Dr. Basil Dimitriades). The commenter also noted that EPA 6,1

has acknowledged in the Report that the k method for measuring OH

reactivity does not reflect ozone potential for all VOC. 

Additionally, this commenter and another commenter

(AIM-IV-D-49, AIM-IV-D-177) claimed that the MIR and MOIR tests

are invalid for identifying highly reactive evaporative VOC

because they are conducted at levels of NO , sunlight, and OH x

which do not represent air at the border between attainment and

nonattainment. 

These commenters believe that section 183(e) requires

reactivity tests to be performed at the ozone NAAQS and at NOx

levels of 5 to 10 parts per billion, by volume (ppbv). The

commenter asserted that the MIR and MOIR tests were not valid for

determining which highly reactive VOC to reduce to meet the

requirements of section 183(e) of the Act. The commenter

explained that these tests were not performed under the same

conditions (in terms of NO , sunlight, and OH) that existed when x

air with low levels of NO was at the border between attainment x

and nonattainment.

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-49) asserted that the VOC species’

reactivity and amount must be taken into consideration with the

amount of NO in the environment when selecting the 80 percent of x

VOC from consumer and commercial products on a reactivity

adjusted basis for the purposes of regulation. The commenter
2-85

explained that the amount of NO in the air directly affects the x

VOC species reactivity; therefore, the amount of VOC alone is not

singularly relevant. The commenter contended that EPA did the

reactivity test at the wrong level of NO , and, therefore, x

reached the wrong conclusion and the wrong regulation.

Response: The EPA agrees that in atmospheric conditions

where NO emissions are the limiting factor in ozone formation, x

very reactive species of VOC, such as various olefins, can

actually react with ozone to reduce ozone levels somewhat.

However, the net destruction of ozone by these compounds only

occurs in environments where NO is very low. In general, highly x

reactive VOC have quite the opposite effect in urban environments

most typical of ozone nonattainment areas where there is ample

NO , resulting in increases in ozone concentrations. x

The EPA agrees that the k rate constants associated with OH

various compounds are not perfect indicators of the compounds’

relative ozone forming potential. As noted in section 2.3.2.1,

the reaction of a VOC species with a hydroxyl radical is

generally the first in a series of reactions which produce

organic radicals which, in turn, oxidize nitric oxide (NO) to

nitrogen dioxide (NO . In some instances, products from the 2)

reaction of a VOC species with OH are inert or do not participate

in subsequent reactions to convert NO to NO . Thus, there is not 2

a perfect correspondence between the reaction rate of OH with VOC

species and ozone produced. Nevertheless, it is usually a

reliable indicator of a compound’s relative ozone forming

potential. Other approaches for characterizing reactivity, such

as the MIR or MOIR methods, circumvent this lack of coincidence

between k and relative ozone forming potential, by directly OH

measuring (or calculating) incremental changes in ozone

accompanying incremental changes in a test compound under a

defined set of environmental conditions.

The EPA generally uses k data in determining whether a OH

compound is “negligibly photochemically reactive” and therefore

excluded from the definition of VOC, and also uses MIR and MOIR
2-86

information in this finding, as appropriate, to validate the

conclusion. In determining which compounds are “highly reactive”

for purposes of the section 183(e) study, EPA used MIR, MOIR and

k reactivity data as explained in 2.2.1.1. OH

The EPA believes that the MIR and MOIR tests are valid for

identifying the relatively most reactive VOC, under practically

all ambient conditions. The dependence of a compound’s

reactivity on ambient conditions is strong for absolute

reactivity but not for relative reactivities. Because EPA used

methods based on relative reactivities to classify compounds as

highly reactive, EPA’s reactivity classification is not dependent

on ambient conditions.

In addition, it should be noted that the MIR method, in

particular, is constructed to emphasize differences in the

relative reactivity of various test compounds. As such, it

overstates the importance of differences in reactivity in most

instances. This might tend to undercut an argument that a

particular compound should not be regulated based on its low

relative reactivity according to the MIR test.

Comment: A commenter submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

AIM-IV-D-212p5/CP-IV-D-35v) asking why the list of highly

reactive compounds excluded biogenic compounds like isoprene from

consumer and commercial products. The commenter wondered if EPA

has overlooked biogenic compounds or if EPA’s exclusion of

biogenic compounds was based upon scientific data or a rationale

which EPA did not explain.

Response: Contrary to the commenter's claims, EPA's

classification of highly reactive compounds includes biogenic

compounds. As examples, consider the biogenic compounds

isoprene, formaldehyde, and the pinenes. In the Report, EPA

listed 10 classes of highly reactive compounds, including:

& nitrites,

& alkyl amines with less than eight carbon atoms,

& unsaturated esters,
2-87

& furan,

& aldehydes with less than six carbons,

& poly-substituted naphthalene with less than 14 carbons,

& alkyl styrenes,

& polyalkyl benzenes,

& olefins with less than 10 carbons, and

& alkyl phenols.

Isoprene, which the commenter believed was excluded from the list

of highly reactive compounds, is a five carbon di-olefin and

would be included as a highly reactive compound because it is an

olefin with less than 10 carbons. Formaldehyde is an aldehyde

with less than six carbons so it would also be included as a

highly reactive compound. Pinenes, on the other hand, would not

be considered highly reactive by EPA's classification because

they are cyclic olefins with 10 carbon atoms. 

2.2.1.3 Use of Relative Reactivity in Regulations

Comment: Four commenters submitted five documents

(CP-IV-D-35, AIM-IV-D-02, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-F-1[l], AR-IV-F-1)

informing EPA that establishment of a relative reactivity scale

would allow EPA to control specific VOC species, thereby

increasing the effectiveness of consumer and commercial product

regulations. The commenters cited an article by Russell et al.

(attached as CP-IV-D-35r/AIM-IV-D212a/AIM-IV-D-212p6L) that

according to the commenters advocated the refinement of current

VOC control strategies by controlling specific VOC species rather

than the whole class of VOC. The commenters claimed that the 6

article concluded that it was possible, more cost-effective, and

economically sound to base regulations on reactivity because the

reactivities of compounds differed significantly within a class.

One commenter (CP-IV-D-35, AIM-IV-D-212) further stated that the

article confirmed earlier statements of scientists who were

involved in the OTA report entitled, “Rethinking the Ozone

Problem”. The commenter implied that EPA ignored using relative 6
2-88

reactivity as a part of its regulatory strategy even though

regulations based on relative reactivity would be more

cost-effective. The commenter claimed that EPA disregarded the

overwhelming scientific consensus surrounding the relevance of

characteristic VOC reactivities in the production of smog. As a

result, the commenter contended that EPA will unnecessarily

regulate some manufacturers under the section 183(e) regulations.

In contrast, one commenter (AIM-IV-D-189) agreed that

knowing the relative photochemical reactivity of individual VOC

species is essential for a completely accurate determination of

the impact of VOC control strategies on ozone formation but

contended that EPA lacks sufficiently reliable information to

develop a national VOC control strategy on the basis of the

relative reactivity of VOC. Therefore, the commenter asserted

that EPA’s approach to reduce mass of each VOC species in a

proportional manner without singling our particular VOC on the

basis of photochemical reactivity is not a serious objection to

any rules promulgated under section 183(e) of the Act especially

because section 183(e) of the Act only requires the Agency to

“consider” photochemical reactivity along with the four other

factors in developing consumer and commercial product

regulations.

Response: For the same reasons as discussed in

sections 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.1.2 regarding EPA’s consideration of

reactivity in the section 183(e) study and report to Congress,

the regulatory program under section 183(e) to date has not

considered regulatory strategies that differentiate control

requirements among different VOC species based on relative

reactivity. The EPA’s response to points regarding the Russell

article are addressed in section 2.2.1.2.

The EPA disagrees that “Rethinking the Ozone Problem” states

that such regulations are feasible at this time. The committee 6

which prepared “Rethinking the Ozone Problem” was established to

evaluate scientific information relevant to precursors and

tropospheric formation of ozone and to recommend strategies and
2-89

priorities for addressing the critical gaps in scientific

information necessary to help address the problem of high ozone

concentrations in the lower atmosphere. The committee was not

charged to evaluate and did not address the technologic,

economic, or sociologic implications of current or potential

ozone precursor control strategies. Thus, “Rethinking the Ozone

Problem” and EPA's response in the section 185(b) report to

Congress do not address the policy implications of promulgating

regulations based on controlling highly reactive VOC. Although

EPA agreed with the findings in “Rethinking the Ozone Problem”,

this report did not have any findings regarding the economic

implications of reactivity-based VOC control strategies;

therefore, EPA could not have ignored implementing the report’s

findings in this area.

Currently available speciated reactivity data are not

adequate to support the suggested regulations based on

substitution of lower reactivity VOC for higher reactivity VOC.

An analysis of whether such a system would result in more

efficient regulation would need to consider all costs associated

with implementing a speciated regulatory system (e.g. monitoring

and recordkeeping). Also, it would be necessary to consider the

ability of compounds to form ozone over a several-day period

under different sets of environmental conditions in designing

such an approach and considering its efficiency. 

Finally, current EPA policy allows “negligibly

photochemically reactive” compounds to be exempted from

regulation. This involves showing that the compound is less

photochemically reactive than ethane. Anyone may petition EPA to

have a compound exempted from the VOC definition by submitting

data demonstrating that the compound has a negligible role in

tropospheric ozone formation. If a manufacturer can demonstrate

this finding, EPA may approve the petition and add the compound

to EPA’s list of “exempt compounds” under the definition of VOC

in part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations [51.100(s)]. In effect, the compound is exempt from
2-90

regulation as a VOC. The EPA has exempted more than 100 VOC

species (42 compounds and 2 classes of compounds) under this

provision.

2.2.2 Potential Of Consumer And Commercial Product VOC To 

Contribute To Ozone Nonattainment

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p/CP-IV-D-35n)

disagreed with EPA's conclusion that VOC from consumer and

commercial products contribute to ozone nonattainment. The

commenter acknowledged that VOC evaporate from paints and

coatings, but contended that VOC from paint and coatings do not

contribute to ozone nonattainment.

This commenter submitted two additional letters

(AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212p3/CP-IV-D-35f) explaining that EPA’s

Report set forth selective scientific assumptions to support the

Agency’s determination that VOC from consumer and commercial

products have the potential to contribute to ozone nonattainment. 

The commenter claimed that EPA should have started with the ozone

and ozone precursors found in pristine air and then established

what can be added to the air without exceeding the ozone

standard. The commenter contended that EPA would determine that

none of the man-made evaporative VOC found in consumer and

commercial products will contribute to the formation of ozone in

pristine air. One commenter in two letters (CP-IV-D-35k,

AIM-IV-D-212) claimed that "potential to contribute to ozone

nonattainment" should be defined as the amount of additional peak

ozone produced when the VOC from consumer and commercial products

are added to well-mixed pristine air.

This commenter also submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

AIM-IV-D-212p4/CP-IV-D-35g) that asserted, after the commenter’s

exhaustive research and communications with this nation's leading

atmospheric scientists, that the use of products that contain

evaporative VOC does not contribute to the exceedance of the

ozone NAAQS. Contrary to the Report, the commenter claimed that

many scientists within the Federal government and within academia

agree that evaporative VOC, like those found in paints and
2-91

coatings, have little or no propensity to cause the exceedance of

the ozone NAAQS.

Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-30) asserted that regardless of

whether emissions of VOC are linked directly to ozone formation,

there is value in lowering the emission of VOC from all products. 

The commenter noted that logic dictates that preservation of our

ecology is negatively impacted by the uncontrolled release of

excess amounts of VOC. This commenter thus advocated the

broadest possible interpretation of "potential" to contribute to

ozone nonattainment.

Response: The EPA has concluded that VOC from consumer and

commercial products do contribute to ozone formation in

nonattainment areas. Nonattainment areas are often in urban

centers where the atmosphere is VOC-limited. Addition of VOC to

VOC-limited atmospheres generally results in increased ozone

formation. Ozone formation mechanisms are insensitive to the VOC

source. Thus, any VOC emitted into a VOC-limited atmosphere may

contribute to ozone formation. As the commenter admitted, VOC

from paints and coatings evaporate and, thus, EPA believes that

they have the potential to enter the atmosphere and participate

in ozone-forming reactions.

Section 183(e) requires EPA to determine the potential of

VOC from consumer and commercial products to contribute to ozone

levels which violate the NAAQS for ozone. The EPA disagrees with

the commenter’s interpretation that contribution to ozone levels

should be determined from a pristine environment, because it is

unrepresentative of the current situation. More information

about ozone formation and policy is discussed in section 2.3.2 of

this document. Section 183(e) of the Act did not instruct EPA to

calculate the "potential" to contribute to ozone attainment in a

vacuum, and EPA believes that it would be unreasonable to do so. 

Congress enacted section 183(e) to remedy the endemic problem of

ozone and could not have intended EPA to ignore the existing

levels of ozone across the country when making this

determination.
2-92

Although the commenter claimed that many scientists agree

that evaporative VOC do not contribute to ozone exceedances, the

commenter failed to provide the names of any of those scientists

or references to any publications or research which support the

commenter’s claim. The EPA's scientists believe that VOC,

regardless of its source, will contribute to ozone nonattainment

in VOC-limited atmospheres.

Comment: Two commenters submitted four letters

(CP-IV-D-35k, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-177, AIM-IV-D-177a)

contending that adding VOC to ambient air will in fact reduce

ozone. One commenter in three letters (CP-IV-D-35k, CP-IV-D-35m,

AIM-IV-D-212) attached charts and illustrations to support the

contention that in almost all areas in the country, the addition

of VOC does not have the potential to contribute to ozone levels

that violate the NAAQS. The commenter claimed that the models

proved that the peak ozone level would go down with the addition

of the VOC from consumer and commercial products when starting

with air containing ozone at levels beneath the ozone NAAQS. The

commenter provided an example using Washington, D.C., that

purportedly showed that the peak ozone level would be reduced by

adding VOC from consumer and commercial products. The commenter

further contended that the addition of VOC to nonattainment air

would reduce peak ozone in almost all areas of the country except

in some severe and extreme nonattainment areas. On the other

hand, the commenter claimed that some severe and extreme

nonattainment areas are in nonattainment due primarily to NOx

emissions and could never achieve attainment by reducing VOC

emissions. The second commenter (AIM-IV-D-177) stated that

reducing VOC in attainment areas would increase the sensitivity

of the air to NO contamination and thereby cause ozone NAAQS x

violations to occur sooner than otherwise.

Response: While EPA acknowledges that some species of VOC

can reduce ozone, the reduction of ozone by VOC occurs in very

limited circumstances, that is, with only a small subset of

highly reactive VOC under specific meteorological conditions and
2-93

in the presence of very low NO concentrations. Thus, the x

reduction of ozone by increasing VOC is a phenomenon that is not

widespread and certainly cannot form the basis for an ozone

control policy. In addition, there is ample modeling evidence

obtained by comparing predictions corresponding to base

1990 emissions to those with “base 2007 emissions” (reflecting

net effect of mandated regulations and growth) that decreasing

VOC emissions causes predicted ozone to decrease. The Ozone

Transport Assessment Group’s (OTAG) modeling analyses in the

eastern U.S., modeling performed of Texas, and modeling of

various California locations all attest to this conclusion. 

Ozone trend data also suggest reduced peak concentrations are

occurring. Since most of the regulatory effort to date has been

to reduce VOC, the ambient information tends to refute the

commenter's claims.

The following explanation clarifies the unique situation in

which addition of very reactive VOC can be expected to decrease

ozone concentrations. This phenomenon is expected to occur in

locations where NO emissions are the limiting factor, which is x

often the case in rural attainment areas. In this situation,

ozone is limited by availability of NO to photo-dissociate in 2

the presence of sunlight. Further, other reactions involving the

organic radicals, besides reacting with NO to form NO , become 2

relatively more important. For example, very reactive species of

VOC, such as various olefins, can react with ozone. This

reaction can have the effect of actually reducing ozone levels

somewhat, as well as removing these VOC for possible use in

future ozone production where or when NO is more plentiful. x

Such very reactive VOC, however, are not expected to be used in

architectural coatings or most other consumer and commercial

products.

The notion that increasing “evaporative” VOC will reduce

ozone is based on an improper interpretation of the isopleth

diagram shown in the commenter’s attached graphs 1 and 2. One

has only to compare predicted ozone levels obtained with and
2-94

without biogenic emissions in the inventory to discount this

notion. For example, modeling simulations in which urban

biogenic VOC emissions are first included and then excluded from

the calculations generally indicate little effect of the biogenic

emissions on the predicted ozone levels. This result is expected

from the shape of the ozone isopleths at high VOC:NO ratios x

(Chameides et al, 1988,[docket A-94-65, item IV-J-22]).7

The commenter's argument about reactive VOC reductions

increasing the sensitivity of air to NO is also based on a x

misinterpretation of an isopleth diagram in the area where the

VOC:NO ratio is very large. The commenter's contention is that x

more NO can be added to attainment air that contains high levels x

of VOC and low levels of NO without exceeding the ozone NAAQS. x

This situation exists because in the diagram used by the

commenter, the ozone isopleth at low NO concentration slopes x

upward as the VOC concentration increases. Decreasing the VOC

content of attainment air with low NO concentrations results in x

the ozone NAAQS being exceeded by the addition of smaller

quantities of NO . Using the example for Washington, D.C., the x

commenter illustrates that at a VOC:NO ratio of 225:1, almost x

three times as much NO could be added to the air without x

exceeding the ozone NAAQS as at a VOC ratio of 150:1.

The slight upward slope of the ozone isopleths may be due to

reactions between ozone and some very reactive VOC species such

as limonene, isoprene, or propene. Olefins and other highly

reactive species are likely present in the urban mix assumed in

the figure. Some very reactive compounds may react with ozone to

decrease ozone concentrations especially at high VOC:NO ratios. x

However, EPA believes that this relatively unusual phenomenon is

no basis for a national ozone control strategy. Moreover, the

commenter contended that emissions from their product are not

very reactive. If so, this feature of the isopleth diagram is

not applicable to emissions from their products.

For the foregoing reasons, EPA disagrees with the

commenter’s assertions that VOC emissions from consumer and
2-95

commercial products are in some fashion good for the environment

or will negate violations of the ozone NAAQS. As detailed in the

Report and elsewhere in this document, EPA has concluded that

such emissions do contribute to ozone nonattainment.

Comment: Three commenters in six letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

CP-IV-D-35, CP-IV-D-35k, AIM-IV-D-177a, AIM-IV-214b/CP-IV-D-07b,

AIM-IV-D-214c) asserted that EPA failed to fulfill the

requirements of section 183(e) of the Act which require EPA to

consider the potential of consumer and commercial products to

contribute to ozone nonattainment. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c)

alleged that EPA failed to provide quantitative data

demonstrating ozone-forming potential for all VOC species

emissions associated with consumer and commercial products, EPA

failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between emissions of

individual VOC species and ozone nonattainment, EPA failed to

consider the effect of each VOC species in each airshed, and EPA

ignored factors such as the temperature or sunlight intensity in

each airshed. This commenter contended that EPA's statement in

the study and Report to Congress that a rigorous determination of

the potential of consumer and commercial products to contribute

to ozone nonattainment was not possible at that time is “invalid

as a matter of fact and law.” This commenter also claimed that

EPA acknowledged that a complete characterization of the

reactivity of a VOC species can be obtained from several smog

chamber tests covering the range of VOC:NO ratios, VOC x

composition, and radiation conditions occurring in the various

nonattainment atmospheres. This commenter also claimed that “EPA

admits in the Report that it failed to perform its

nondiscretionary duty to determine the potential of each VOC

species to contribute to ozone nonattainment.”

The commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) cited two cases (EDF v.

Browner, 1995 WL 91324 at 4; NRDC v. EPA, 695 F. Supp. 48, 54-55

[D.D.C. 1988] for the proposition that EPA must regulate each

species of VOC separately. The commenter also cited two

authorities for the proposition that EPA cannot issue regulations
2-96

without sufficient causal relationship between the activity

regulated and the harm the Agency seeks to avert. (Rogers,

Environmental Law: Air and Water, § 3.2(B); ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA,

616 F. 2d 1153, 1162 [9th Cir. 1980]).

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6i/CP-IV-D-35j), claimed that

there were no scientific facts to support and justify the

proposed regulations for consumer and commercial products. 

Specifically, the commenter claimed that there had not been a

determination sufficient to establish that VOC emitted from the

paint and coatings industry constituted a measurable and

identifiable factor in contributing to ozone exceedances in areas

classified as nonattainment.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters and

believes that the Report reflects EPA’s proper consideration of

the potential of VOC emissions from consumer and commercial

products to contribute to ozone formation consistent with

section 183(e) of the Act. The EPA contends that ample evidence

exists that most VOC in consumer and commercial products have the

potential to contribute to ozone nonattainment. Most VOC

contribute to ozone formation in VOC limited atmospheres, such as

those above the center city sections of most urban areas. Most

consumer and commercial products emit VOC during their use. 

Therefore, EPA reasonably concluded that VOC emitted from

consumer and commercial products will have the potential to

contribute to ozone formation, and thus to ozone nonattainment.

The commenters contended that the instruction to the Agency

to determine the “potential” of VOC emissions from consumer and

commercial products to contribute to ozone nonattainment requires

the Agency to ascertain whether each species of VOC, in each

product, in each airshed, will cause nonattainment. In so doing,

the commenters implied that the term “potential” in section

183(e)(2)(A)(i) necessarily connotes a special meaning beyond the

ordinary meaning of the word. The EPA notes that the term

“potential” is not defined in the statute, and therefore believes

that Congress intended the term “potential” to have its normal
2-97

meaning of “having possibility, capability, or power.” Thus, in

this context EPA was to determine if the VOC’s from such products

have the possibility, capability, or power to contribute to ozone

nonattainment. In short, the question posed to the Agency we

“can” these emissions contribute to ozone nonattainment? As

noted above, EPA made this determination. Moreover, EPA notes

that the remainder of section 183(e)(2)(A) does not support the

reading advocated by the commenters. The initial portion of the

provision instructs the Agency to “conduct a study of the

emissions of volatile compounds into the ambient air from

consumer and commercial products (or any combination thereof)” in

order to make this determination. This statement does not direct

the Agency to make the determination on a VOC species by VOC

species basis, nor even on a product by product basis. In fact,

the inclusion of the parenthetical “(or any combination thereof)”

indicates that the Agency is authorized to make this

determination on an aggregated basis.

Although the commenters implied that EPA should have

determined the potential to contribute to ozone formation by

conducting smog chamber tests on all VOC species present in

consumer products, EPA contends that this procedure would be

costly, time consuming, and unnecessary for meeting the

requirements of section 183(e) of the Act, as described more

fully above in section 2.2.1. Such an analysis would require,

for example, substantial additional data on the types and

quantities of individual VOC in each product within the broad

universe of consumer and commercial products. To obtain this

information would have placed an additional burden upon

industries that EPA believes was not necessary for the listing

process. Also, studies to quantify the reactivity of a large

number of individual VOC species would have been required for

this analysis. In addition, many complexities make it difficult

to make reliable predictions of the ozone-forming potential of

individual VOC species. One reason is that this potential varies

depending on ambient conditions -- on an absolute scale, and
2-98

occasionally on a relative scale as well. These conditions

affecting reactivity include ambient conditions such as VOC-toNOx ratios, the presence of other VOC, and sunlight intensity. 

Each of these factors can vary widely. Also, in multiple day

pollution episodes in an area, a VOC species that has low

reactivity (based on a one-day reactivity scale) may continue to

form ozone over several days. Even if EPA could have obtained

the needed data and accounted for these complications, the

results would have been of limited utility. As noted elsewhere

in this BID, available computer models generally aggregate

chemical compounds or consider them as general categories. As a

result, models have limited use for evaluating the effects of

reducing emissions of specific VOC species from a particular

product category. 

The EPA also disagrees with the commenters' use of the

judicial precedents regarding regulation of VOC on a

species-by-species basis and regarding the alleged insufficient

causal relationship between the activity regulated and the harm

the Agency seeks to avert. The EPA understands the commenters’

argument that EPA failed to demonstrate a relationship between

VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products and

exceedances of the ozone NAAQS to be that the commenters believe

that EPA should have done an analysis on the effect on ozone

concentrations on a per product and control strategy basis for

each area in the country. As explained in section 2.2.1 of this

document, EPA does not interpret section 183(e) of the Act to

require a species-by-species assessment of VOC and their

potential to contribute to ozone on an area by area basis. The

EPA believes that an intensive study to quantify each product’s

effect on ozone levels in nonattainment areas is inconsistent

with Congress’s intent in enacting the section 183(e) program. 

Congress recognized that small quantities of VOC emissions from a

very large number of products add up -- and together make up a

significant portion of ozone-forming VOC emissions. Congress
2-99

created the 183(e) program to reduce the aggregate VOC emissions

from consumer and commercial products. It is not necessary, even

if it were feasible, to quantify the effect of each product on

ozone levels in each nonattainment area to make a reasoned

selection of product categories to list for regulation. The EPA

believes that Congress could not have intended to require EPA to

postpone regulation of VOC emissions until such time as

information of the sort demanded by the commenters is available,

if ever. The EPA believes that the use of the phrase "potential

to contribute" to nonattainment was intended to avoid just this

sort of problem with demonstrating causal connection between a

given product and a particular episode of nonattainment in a

specific geographic location.

Finally, the EPA disagrees with the commenters’

characterizations of the statements in the study and Report to

Congress. The commenters quoted several statements from the

study and Report in which EPA acknowledged that there are

presently limitations in the data available and a lack of data on

individual compounds regarding the reactivity, and this

necessarily precluded a “rigorous” analysis of certain questions. 

Contrary to the assertions of the commenters, these were not

admissions by the EPA that it had in some way failed to perform

the study as contemplated by section 183(e). Taken in proper

context, these statements were intended to inform the Congress of

the limitations imposed by the state of scientific knowledge

regarding certain points such as the reactivity of each of the

thousands of VOC species in consumer and commercial products. 

Notwithstanding these limitations, the EPA had sufficient

information to make the requisite determination of the potential

to contribute to ozone nonattainment. 

Comment: One commenter submitted two letters (CP-IV-D-35k,

AIM-IV-D-212) criticizing the reactivity scale method that EPA

used in the Report as one of two possible methods for accounting

for photochemical reactivity when determining the potential of

consumer and commercial product VOC to contribute to ozone
2-100

nonattainment. The commenter alleged that the reactivity scale

method is inappropriate because it uses reactivity data that

reflect absolute ozone yields rather than changes in peak ozone

formation (incremented reactivity data).

In one letter, the commenter (CP-IV-D-35k) also criticized

the Air Quality Simulation Model Method that EPA used in the

Report as a method for determining the potential of VOC from

consumer and commercial products to contribute to ozone

nonattainment. The commenter alleged that the Air Quality

Simulation Model Method is inappropriate for determining

potential contribution to nonattainment because "EPA's Urban

Airshed Model computer model does not yet have usable validity

for all VOC reactivity... especially ... for low NOx

conditions..." which are the conditions at which the commenter

contends EPA should determine the potential to contribute to

ozone nonattainment.

In this same letter the commenter (CP-IV-D-35k) concluded

that EPA will not be able to determine potential contribution to

nonattainment using the two proposed methods and that a new

approach for determining potential, “peer-reviewed by this

nation's leading scientists,” is necessary for this

determination.

Response: Neither the reactivity scale method nor the air

quality simulation method cited by the commenter as being

inappropriate was actually used by EPA in its determination of

which VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products have

the potential to contribute to ozone levels which violate the

ozone NAAQS. These two methods were discussed in the report to

Congress as being two possible methods. Rather, EPA studied

indicators of product categories’ relative potential to form

ozone in conducting the commercial and consumer products study,

and considered those indicators in prioritizing and listing

product categories for regulation. Therefore, these criticisms

of the reactivity scale method and the air quality simulation

method are not applicable to EPA’s determination.
2-101

Although EPA did not use either of the two possible methods

described in the report to Congress, EPA would like to correct

several misrepresentations concerning these two methods. The

reactivity data are "incremental reactivity" (IR) data, and as

such, they do reflect change in peak ozone formation, as

explained by the developer of the IR concept, Dr. W. Carter, in

“Environmental Science and Technology.”8

As discussed in section 2.3.2 of this document, EPA

disagrees with the commenter regarding the appropriateness of

EPA's computer model method to determine the potential of

consumer and commercial product VOC to contribute to ozone

nonattainment. The computer model method, while having

uncertainties, has been judged by peer reviewers to be a

state-of-the-art modeling method.

The EPA also contends that the approach for determining

potential to contribute to ozone that was presented in the Report

has been peer-reviewed by this nation's leading scientists. In

October of 1996, this approach was published as a technical paper

in the “Journal of Air and Waste Management Association.”1

[docket A-94-65, item IV-J-8] As a published paper, it was

subjected to the same peer review policy as all other papers

submitted to this journal. The fact that, after meeting the peer

review requirements of the journal, it was published without

changes confirms its technical merit.

Comment: Two commenters in four letters (CP-IV-D-35k,

AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212p5/CP-IV-D-35v, AIM-IV-D-177) expressed

concern with EPA's definition of potential to contribute to ozone

in the Report and in the article “Scientific Basis of the VOC

Reactivity Issues Raised by Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990" by EPA’s Dr. Basil Dimitriades.1

This same commenter in another letter (AIM-IV-D-212p5/

CP-IV-D-35v) asserted that the definition of "potential" should

not include any and all VOC which could have a capability to form

ozone. The commenter claimed that this definition of "potential"

would mean that any insignificant amount of VOC, no matter how
2-102

small, could be said to have some "potential" to form ozone which

the commenter believes to be incorrect. In the commenter's view,

potential to contribute to ozone nonattainment should be defined

to mean only the VOC which have the ability to cause ozone

nonattainment directly. For example, if only a small amount of

VOC is emitted from consumer and commercial products and a large

amount of VOC is emitted from biogenic sources and if the emitted

biogenic VOC are sufficient by themselves to cause ozone

nonattainment, then the commenter claimed that VOC from consumer

and commercial products do not have the "potential" to contribute

to ozone attainment.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention

that biogenic VOC have more potential to contribute to ozone

nonattainment than anthropogenic VOC simply because biogenic VOC

are present in larger quantities and that VOC from consumer and

commercial products therefore have no "potential" to contribute

to ozone nonattainment.

The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s view that the

potential to contribute to ozone nonattainment should be defined

to mean only the VOC which have the ability to cause ozone

nonattainment directly. The EPA believes that such an

interpretation is inconsistent with Congress’s intent in enacting

the section 183(e) program. Congress recognized that small

quantities of VOC emissions from a very large number of products

add up -- and together make up a significant portion of ozoneforming VOC emissions. Congress created the 183(e) program to

reduce the aggregate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial

products. Of the remaining uncontrolled emissions from VOC

sources, consumer and commercial products represent a significant

fraction of anthropogenic VOC emissions (28 percent). Consumer

and commercial products, therefore, are a significant source that

warrants regulation. The Agency believes that Congress expressly

recognized this significance when it directed EPA to regulate

VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products in

section 183(e) of the Act. The study the Agency conducted
 Although not specifically defined in the Act, a CTG is a a

guidance document issued by EPA which, under section 182(b)(2) of

the Act, triggers a responsibility for States to submit

reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules for

stationary sources of VOC that are covered by the CTG as part of

their State Implementation Plans (SIP).

2-103

confirms this conclusion. The Agency believes that

section 183(e) of the Act explicitly directs EPA to assess the

"potential" of consumer and commercial product VOC to form ozone

and hence to contribute to violation of the ozone NAAQS, and that

its reading of this term is correct.

The EPA also notes that the fact that biogenic or other

sources of VOC may be present in larger quantities than consumer

and commercial product VOC in some circumstances does not

preclude consumer and commercial product VOC from contributing to

ozone nonattainment. Even if the ozone NAAQS could be exceeded

without the addition of consumer and commercial product VOC, EPA

considers consumer and commercial product VOC to have the

"potential" to contribute to ozone nonattainment when the

addition of consumer and commercial product VOC can cause ozone

formation to increase.

2.3 EPA's REGULATORY STRATEGY

2.3.1 National Rule Versus Other Strategies

Issue Overview: This subsection provides a general summary

of the commenter’s rationale and positions. Some commenters

questioned whether EPA is using the appropriate regulatory

strategy in its implementation of section 183(e) of the Act,

expressing the following concerns. First, commenters asserted

that existing control technology available to nonattainment areas

is all that is needed for many of these areas to reach

attainment. For this reason, they believe it is not necessary to

subject these areas as well as attainment areas to nationwide

requirements. Second, commenters asserted that if VOC regulation

is necessary, it should be done using a CTG rather than a a

national rule because national VOC controls would be ineffective. 
2-104

The commenters argued that national rules would be ineffective

because the ozone problem is complex with ozone response to

precursor control varying from area to area, thereby requiring

varying controls in different areas of the country. Finally,

commenters asserted that even if national rules are developed,

section 183(e) of the Act does not provide EPA authority to

regulate attainment areas in addition to nonattainment areas. 

2.3.1.1 Necessity of Additional National VOC Rules

Comment: One commenter submitted three documents

(AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D35t, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-49) asserting

that EPA should not issue regulations applicable to attainment

areas plus marginal and moderate nonattainment areas. The

commenter suggested that historical designation trends, a report

prepared by the OTA of the U.S. Congress, and the section 185(b)

report to Congress (attached in part as

CP-IV-D-35t3/CP-IV-D-35b/AIM-IV-D-212m/AIM-IV-D-212p6c) all

supported the argument that current nonattainment areas will

reach attainment under present regulations using existing

technology without additional regulations under section 183(e) of

the Act. The commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) noted that several

nonattainment regions were recently redesignated as attainment

areas (including the Bay Area Region in California). The

commenter stated that control of consumer and commercial products

was not necessary for these areas to achieve attainment because

the redesignation occurred under existing regulations.

Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-82) contended that there is no

health-based justification for controlling VOC emissions in

attainment areas and therefore, that VOC-content standards should

be limited to nonattainment areas and nationwide standards should

be precluded.

Response: The EPA agrees that the degree of VOC reductions

necessary to prevent exceedances of the ozone standard varies

regionally. However, it does not agree with the commenter’s

conclusion that regulations applying to both attainment and

nonattainment areas under section 183(e) of the Act are
2-105

unnecessary or inappropriate. To achieve effective control of

VOC emissions in nonattainment areas from consumer and commercial

products such as architectural coatings, automobile refinishing

products, and household consumer products, a nationwide

regulation targeting the manufacturers of these consumer and

commercial products is expected to be an effective and efficient

control strategy. A national rule which focuses on manufacturers

and importers is an effective approach for reducing emissions

from consumer and commercial products which are easily

transportable and widely distributed to consumers and contractors

for use in locations which vary from day to day. Although many

areas of the country are currently in attainment of the ozone

NAAQS, EPA believes that it has the authority under

section 183(e) of the Act to impose VOC requirements nationwide

to reduce emissions in nonattainment areas more effectively.

Although the commenter included the Bay Area Region in

California as an example of a nonattainment area that was able to

achieve attainment status without reductions from EPA’s national

VOC rules, it should be noted that the Bay Area was redesignated

as an attainment area in June 1995 due to air quality gains

resulting from both regulatory and voluntary measures at the

Federal, State, and local levels. State and local rules in the

Bay Area already include VOC requirements on all three of the

sources for which EPA plans to issue national rules:

architectural coatings, automobile refinish coatings, and

household consumer products. The EPA notes that the State and

local rules include standards that are more stringent than those

set forth in the regulations developed by the Agency. Despite

these efforts, the Bay Area has experienced 43 exceedances and

17 violations of the 1 hour ozone standard since being

redesignated to attainment in June 1995. In December 1997, EPA

proposed to redesignate the Bay Area from attainment to

nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone standard because of these

violations.
 OTAG is a group made up of State, Federal, industry b

organizations and environmental groups charged by EPA with

developing consensus recommendations regarding implementation of

the Act as amended in 1990 related to ground-level ozone problems

in the United States.

2-106

The EPA notes that many existing nonattainment areas have

identified the control of consumer and commercial products, such

as architectural coatings, automobile refinish coatings, and

household consumer products, in their strategies as an important

means to reduce VOC emissions to attain the ozone NAAQS. In

fact, the OTAG included in its June 1997 recommendations to EPA,

a recommendation that EPA continue to develop, adopt and

implement stringent national control measures that meet or exceed

emission reduction levels specified by OTAG. In the case of b

automobile refinish coating, consumer products, and architectural

coatings, the group recommended future control requirements in

the year 2003 to achieve reductions beyond those expected from

these rules in 1998. 

2.3.1.2 Appropriateness of Additional National Volatile

Organic Compound Rules

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that EPA was

inconsistent to redesignate nonattainment areas that achieved the

ozone NAAQS as attainment areas and then to subject such areas to

national consumer and commercial product rules. By contrast,

another commenter (AIM-IV-D-32) noted that 10 years from now the

Portland, Oregon, area is expected to face further growth in the

emission of ozone precursors, and will need to develop a new

round of control measures for the following decade. The

commenter asserted that VOC reductions produced by Federal

control measures will reduce the demand for new local rules at

that time and will thus help alleviate ozone nonattainment in the

future.

Response: The EPA disagrees that it is inconsistent for the

Agency to require VOC reductions from products nationwide where

some of those products will be sold in attainment areas. As

explained in sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.5, a national rule which
2-107

focuses on manufacturers and importers is an effective approach

for reducing emissions from consumer and commercial products

which are easily transportable and widely distributed to

consumers and contractors for use in locations which vary from

day to day. A national rule helps to eliminate the potential

problem of noncompliant materials being transported into an area

with controls. A rule applicable only to selected areas would

thus cause significant enforcement problems as noted by one

commenter. It also helps to eliminate problems for manufacturers

in the tracking and distribution of products. Consequently, EPA

has determined that nationwide regulation of the manufacturers of

certain consumer and commercial products including automobile

refinish coatings, architectural coatings, and household consumer

products is the most effective and efficient regulatory strategy

to achieve reductions in VOC emissions from these categories of

products in nonattainment areas. As discussed elsewhere in this

BID, EPA has authority to regulate both nonattainment and

attainment areas (including recently redesignated areas) to

achieve these reductions under section 183(e) of the Act.

In addition, after nonattainment areas achieve attainment,

these areas must develop plans to demonstrate maintenance of the

ozone NAAQS over the long term. The EPA believes that the rules

designed to reduce ozone nonattainment will have the incidental

benefit of assisting areas that to maintain compliance with the

NAAQS. Maintenance of the ozone NAAQS may require additional

control measures, particularly as areas grow in population and in

economic prosperity. To accommodate growth, therefore, EPA

believes that additional controls of existing sources may be

necessary as well as requiring that emissions from new sources

are minimized. Since the VOC emissions from consumer and

commercial products are related to population, for areas to

remain in attainment as population increases, regulation of the

VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products may be

useful. The EPA agrees with the second commenter that these

rules will have the additional benefit of further reducing VOC
2-108

emissions and hence the potential need for more ozone control

measures in the future in certain areas.

2.3.1.3 Use of Control Techniques Guidelines

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-177) stated that, if VOC

emissions from consumer and commercial products really did need

to be controlled, a CTG would be the only appropriate regulatory

solution. Another commenter (CP-IV-D-34) does not want national

rules or CTGs but Federal regulations that apply only to products

that contribute to ozone formation in ozone nonattainment areas.

Eight commenters (AIM-IV-D-33, AIM-IV-D-28, AIM-IV-D-93,

AIM-IV-D-161, AIM-IV-D-162, CP-IV-D-11, CP-IV-D-13, CP-IV-D-33)

expressed their support for national rules over a CTG approach. 

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-28) acknowledged that, under the national

rule, some manufacturers that distribute products exclusively

within an attainment area will encounter unintended regulatory

costs. However, three commenters (CP-IV-D-11, CP-IV-D-13,

CP-IV-D-33) stated that national rules are an effective way to

reduce VOC from the consumer products category. One commenter

(CP-IV-D-11) supported national rules because they enable the

control of VOC emissions in both attainment and nonattainment

areas. The latter commenter stated that issuing CTGs in lieu of

national regulations would require that States with ozone

nonattainment areas adopt minimum requirements for those specific

nonattainment areas. According to the commenter, this approach

would discourage States from implementing a statewide regulation

and would, therefore, result in fewer emission reductions.

Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-28, CP-IV-D-11) also pointed out

that recent meteorologic studies indicate that ozone precursor

emissions (i.e., VOC and NO ) in attainment areas contribute to x

ozone exceedances in nonattainment areas and that this justifies

controlling VOC in both attainment and nonattainment areas. A

third commenter (AIM-IV-D-96) noted that national rules will aid

in reducing anthropogenic VOC emissions which are partially

responsible for ozone formation and the exceedance of the ozone

NAAQS across the country. This commenter also asserted that
2-109

national rules will also help to reduce the amount of precursor

VOC transported from ozone attainment areas into nonattainment

areas throughout the country.

In addition, another commenter (AIM-IV-D-28) stressed that a

CTG approach would not preclude the use of "non-compliant"

products in nonattainment areas as well as a national rule and

therefore might not achieve any environmental gains. Another

commenter (AIM-IV-D-32) argued that a national rule would be more

effective than equivalent State or local measures because it

eliminates the problem of noncomplying materials leaking through

the boundary of an area with State or local controls.

One commenter (CP-IV-D-13) stated that a CTG is not an

effective way of adopting limits for consumer and commercial

products. Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-33) pointed out that a CTG

approach is more appropriate for high volume emitters which are

more likely to be found in nonattainment areas, and have easily

definable sources and processes.

One commenter (CP-IV-D-11) stated that a CTG-based approach

would also complicate both rule development and rule enforcement

as it is possible that each nonattainment area could adopt

slightly different regulations. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-162)

explained that many facility owners and manufacturers operate and

distribute in different States, and multiple CTGs would create

numerous compliance difficulties.

Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-28) stated that

distribution-based products, such as architectural coatings,

should be regulated on a national basis because under a CTG

approach national producers would have to maintain multiple

product lines and therefore would incur an unnecessary economic

burden. One commenter (CP-IV-D-13) also stated that national

rules would provide product manufacturers with consistent

regulatory requirements rather than relying on State-specific

interpretation of a CTG.

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-161) preferred a national rule

because having multiple regulatory authorities with many
2-110

variations of rules would produce needless complexity. To

maintain competitiveness in response to this array of

regulations, companies might be forced to offer different

formulations in different parts of the country. Because each

regulatory authority can modify the VOC content limits and

disrupt long term planning, companies would find it more

challenging to maintain an effective research and development

program. The commenter also explained that manufacturers cannot

always control where the product will ultimately be sold because

distribution from the manufacturer to the final sales location

frequently occurs through a central warehouse owned by a

distributor, chain, mass merchandiser, etc. For most

manufacturers control of the final destination of the product is

impossible. Thus, products can be shipped without a

manufacturer’s knowledge into areas where the product does not

meet the local regulatory limit.

Another advantage of national rules, according to this

commenter (AIM-IV-D-161), is that for manufacturers and raw

material suppliers the financial return from research and

development activities is improved when those activities result

in products with potential for broad distribution throughout the

nation. For example, the commenter noted that in recent years

with the anticipation of a national architectural coatings rule,

raw material suppliers have been actively striving to provide

lower VOC alternative technologies for many of the higher VOC

traditional coatings and to solve the problems previously

associated with lower VOC technologies. These activities have

reduced the cost of lower VOC technologies for all manufacturers,

because the sales volume of low VOC technologies can now be

anticipated to be significantly higher.

The commenter (AIM-IV-D-161) also contended that adoption of

national rules will substantially reduce the costs associated

with complying with a large number of differing State and local

regulations. The commenter explained that State, regional, and

local districts hold meetings and workshops to discuss possible
2-111

rules and amendments to existing rules which the regulated

community must participate in to provide a full input into the

regulatory process. Average cost for participating in one such

meeting with travel and manpower expense totaled can be as much

as $1,667. Each State, region, and district may have numerous

such meetings for each proposed rule or amendment. Even after

the rule development process, the commenter noted that there are

additional costs associated with informing local personnel and

customers of the rule provisions and impact. Expand this to

include numerous regulatory authorities throughout the country

plus all of the additional nonattainment areas which would need

to adopt a CTG and the costs of CTGs instead of national rules

can become enormous to each regulated company.

The commenter (AIM-IV-D-161) explained that the necessity to

develop and maintain inventory and distribution tracking systems

is a significant cost burden for manufactures. Because of the

complexity and variety of the rules adopted by numerous

regulatory authorities, manufacturers need complex computer

programs to manage the distribution of product. Such complex

management systems can cost between $250,000 and $500,000 and

require sophisticated computer expertise as well as constant data

management. As each new product is developed, it must be

evaluated for compliance with each of the regulatory requirements

throughout the country.

The commenter (AIM-IV-D-161) asserted that the cost burden

associated with complying with all of the different State and

local regulations can be reduced by adoption of national rules. 

The commenter asserted that these costs will escalate

astronomically if EPA adopts a CTG because then each

nonattainment area will need to adopt a rule which frequently

results in rule variations and differences in rule

interpretations.

The commenter (AIM-IV-D-161) noted that complying with the

significant number of rule variations and variations in rule

interpretations throughout the country is a technical,
2-112

administrative, and logistic problem. Adoption of CTGs will

continue and increase the complexity of this situation because

CTGs require each nonattainment area to formally adopt rules with

limits at least as stringent as the CTGs. During the adoption

process various areas may adopt rules with different variations

creating a complex situation requiring a complex and expensive

computer system and full-time staff dedicated to compliance

determinations to manage products. Smaller companies doing

business in multiple locations would be at a particular

disadvantage keeping informed and managing the informational

needs.

Response: In exercising its discretion to consider a CTG as

a regulatory alternative under section 183(e) of the Act, EPA

recognizes that its specific purpose is to reduce emissions of

VOC in ozone nonattainment areas and in some cases a CTG can be

substantially as effective as a national regulation, particularly

for some of the commercial products scheduled for regulation

under section 183(e)of the Act. In fact, in some instances, a

CTG may be more effective because it can target end users rather

than suppliers of the product and, therefore, can base emission

reductions on add-on control technologies, application equipment

specifications and work practice standards. A national rule, on

the other hand, is limited to requirements on the manufacturers,

processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of consumer or

commercial products and thus precludes many effective strategies

permissible with a CTG approach.

The EPA's position for establishing nationwide rules for

consumer products, automobile refinish coatings, and

architectural coatings rather than CTGs is summarized in

section 2.3.1.5 and its rationale is discussed in the notice of

final listing of these products (section II.C.2 of the notice). 

For these types of consumer and commercial products, which are

highly transportable and are used in locations which vary from

day to day, EPA believes that regulations which target products

used solely in nonattainment areas, such as through a CTG or a
2-113

Federal rule that only applies in nonattainment areas, will not

be as effective as a national regulation targeting all

manufacturers of all the products. This is because the

transportability of the products tends to decrease rule

effectiveness due to the likelihood of unregulated or “higher

VOC” products being bought in attainment areas and used in

nonattainment areas. In contrast, a national regulation that

applies to products in both attainment and nonattainment areas

could require modification of the products everywhere. The EPA

believes that this could prove critical to ensure effective

enforcement and implementation of VOC controls in all areas. For

consumer and commercial products used primarily by homeowners,

contractors, and a wide variety of other types of consumers,

effective enforcement of requirements for the product would be

much more difficult than for a national rule because of the

potential transport of products from attainment to nonattainment

areas. The EPA believes that it would be difficult and

inefficient to enforce a ban on the importation of noncomplying

products into nonattainment areas because of the easy

transportability of such products, limitations on enforcement

resources, and the sheer number of products involved. 

Furthermore, as noted by several commenters and as discussed in

section 2.3.1.5 of this BID, the EPA believes that regulations

targeted only at nonattainment areas could impose significant

additional burdens upon regulated entities to achieve the goals

of section 183 (e). In addition, since the ability for a CTG to

require add-on controls, work practices, and equipment

specifications for architectural coatings and household consumer

products is limited or nonexistent, one of the key potential

advantages of a CTG approach would not be realized for these

product categories.

The EPA notes that a number of commenters raised points that

EPA considers valid but are not independently forming the basis

for the Agency's decision (e.g. desire to ensure ozone NAAQS

attainment nationwide, and the desire of manufacturers to have
2-114

more uniform standards across the nation). The EPA considers

these incidental benefits that help provide additional

justification for the Agency's actions.

Comment: One commenter in two documents (AIM-IV-D-212,

AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) referred to the section 185(b) report

to Congress, which the commenter claimed demonstrated that a

nationally based control approach, NO -only, VOC-only, or NO and x x

VOC, was not likely to be an efficient means for reducing ozone

everywhere. The commenter acknowledged that the ozone problem

was complex, and response to precursor control could vary greatly

with each area. The commenter asserted that even EPA concluded

that national rules may not be productive in controlling ozone.

The commenter in three documents (AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35,

AIM-IV-F-1d) also cited findings of the Southern Oxidants Study

which indicated that in the South, VOC controls would be

ineffective and NO controls would be more effective in x

decreasing ozone. The commenter concluded that a "one size fits

all" rule is not appropriate if the goal was regulating only

those consumer and commercial product VOC emissions that

contribute to ozone levels which violate the ozone NAAQS.

The commenter (CP-IV-D-35m) stated that national VOC

controls are wrong scientifically and should not be promulgated. 

The commenter in two documents (AIM-IV-F-1d, CP-IV-F-1a) quoted

an EPA scientist (Dr. Basil Dimitriades) who raised questions

about national VOC control in an article in “Environmental Week”

(AIM-IV-D-212d). According to the commenter, the article stated

that regional or metropolitan ozone attainment strategies might

be more productive than nationwide strategies. According to the

commenter, Dr. Dimitriades based this statement on studies which

indicated that in some areas, and under certain conditions, NOx

control was more effective than VOC control.

Response: The commenter is correct that the section 185(b)

report to Congress noted that a nationally based control

approach, whether NO only, VOC only, or combined VOC and NO , x x

may not be an efficient approach for reducing ozone everywhere.
2-115

This conclusion is not the same as saying that no national

regulations are appropriate. Rather, this conclusion means that

it would be inefficient for EPA to mandate control of VOC

everywhere to the exclusion of NO , or vice versa. In addition, x

it would be inefficient to limit control strategies to national

approaches since some regional or local controls may be more

beneficial. Extending the commenter’s argument to its logical

conclusion would imply that the report suggests that national

emission standards for automobiles are not effective. This

suggestion is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from the

section 185(b) report to Congress since State-by-State regulation

of automobiles would complicate distribution and enforcement,

thereby creating problems for manufacturers, regulators, and

consumers.

It is also not appropriate to conclude from Dr. Dimitriades

remarks that national VOC rules are inappropriate. 

Dr. Dimitriades remarks are correct that in some areas, and under

some circumstances, NO control may be more effective than VOC x

control and that regional or metropolitan strategies might be

more productive. As noted above, there are other factors that

influence the effectiveness of different control strategies. 

Dr. Dimitriades remarks are premised on the assumption that the

regional or metropolitan strategies are not complicated by

transport of noncompliant materials or products from neighboring

areas and States. Consequently, decisions on control strategies

must also include consideration of practical enforceability of

different strategies as well as potential for creating

distribution problems for manufacturers and for consumers. 

The EPA believes that a combination of Federal, State and

local measures is the best strategy for areas to achieve ozone

precursor reductions. In the case of consumer and commercial

products such as architectural coatings, State representatives

have recommended that EPA develop and implement Federal control

measures to augment their implementation plans. States recommend

national rules because they can supplement local programs and are
2-116

critical to reducing compliance problems associated with

transport of noncompliant consumer and commercial products into

nonattainment areas from neighboring areas and neighboring

States. An added benefit is that Federal national rules save

State resources which then can be devoted to local regulatory

development efforts to reduce emissions which contribute to ozone

within a particular State.

As discussed in section 2.3.2, EPA believes that both VOC

and NO control strategies are needed to help areas attain the x

ozone NAAQS. Although there may be areas where VOC control is not

needed to attain the ozone NAAQS, section 183(e) of the Act gives

EPA the authority to establish national standards in both

attainment and nonattainment areas in order to more effectively

reduce those VOC emissions from commercial and consumer products

which occur in nonattainment areas.

2.3.1.4 Most of the Nation is Already in Attainment

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) alleged that it is

senseless to submit the entire nation to VOC emission reduction

rules for controlling ozone when most of the nation has already

attained the ozone standard. The commenter (AIM-IV-D-212)

referred to figure 1-1 on page 6 of the Office of Technology

Assessment report, "Catching Our Breath: Next Steps for Reducing

Urban Ozone." The map showed that the areas in the country that 4

were in attainment represented a greater portion of the nation

than those areas in nonattainment. The commenter concluded that

nonattainment was thus a regional and a local problem not a

national one. The commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) cited EPA's National

Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1990-1994, Report (Trends Report)

that reflected that of the total of 6,313,000 tons of emissions

from solvent utilization, 73 percent were emitted from sources in

only 17 States. The commenter contended that the Trends Report

indicated that sources in 16 States emit a very small amount of

solvents per year, and several States (e.g., Alaska and Hawaii)

did not have any sources of solvent emissions. Because only a

few areas of the country were affected by the VOC from consumer
2-117

and commercial products, the commenter contended national rules

were not appropriate. Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-16) stated

that it was senseless for EPA to apply rules for achieving the

ozone NAAQS in areas that are already in attainment.

Response: The EPA maintains that it is appropriate for the

Agency to regulate VOC emissions from products sold in attainment

areas to reduce their potential to contribute to ozone

nonattainment and to protect the public health and welfare

generally. As of May 9, 1997, 90 areas are designated as ozone

nonattainment areas. These areas are located primarily in

Southern California, the Northeastern United States, and around

the Great Lakes. Although they comprise a small fraction of the

nation's total land mass, over 111 million people or 42 percent

of the nation's population live in these nonattainment areas. As

population increases and economic growth occurs, it is expected

that even more areas will be in need of VOC reductions to reach

attainment or to maintain attainment status.

As discussed in section 2.3.1.5 of this document, EPA has

authority to regulate manufacturers and distributors in both

attainment and nonattainment areas to ensure effectiveness of the

reductions achieved in nonattainment areas. In addition,

modeling often indicates high emission reduction targets may be

necessary to meet the ozone NAAQS in the nonattainment areas. 

Some States have run out of effective control activities on the

local level and may require additional measures, including

national rules, to reach attainment.

Although the commenter claimed that the Trends Report

reported that several States (Alaska and Hawaii) had no VOC

emissions from solvent utilization, the emission estimates for

Alaska and Hawaii included only onroad vehicle and fossil-fuel

steam electric utility emissions. Rather than indicating no

emissions from solvent usage, the report indicated no data were

available for these two States. The Agency also believes that

the commenter missed the larger issues presented in the Trends

Report such as the continued persistence of ozone nonattainment,
2-118

the number of people exposed to unacceptable levels of ozone, and

the serious health effects of exposure to excessive ozone.

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that to

impose regulations on attainment areas was inconsistent with the

economic and scientific facts. The commenter referred to

table 1-39 and figure 1-8 of The Rauch Guide to the U.S. Paint

Industry (AIM-IV-D-212l). The commenter concluded that areas

with a high volume of paint shipments and sales experienced a

high number of ozone exceedance days. The commenter stated that

60 percent of all paint shipment and sales occurred in 14 States

and more than 30 of the remaining States had little or no

involvement with the ozone problem. The commenter implied that

EPA should regulate paint VOC emissions only in the 14 States

where the bulk of paint shipment and sales occurred rather than

promulgating a national rule.

Response: The Rauch Guide cited by the commenter relates

shipments and sales to the locations where paint is manufactured

and not to the locations where paint is used. Section 183(e) of

the Act does not regulate emissions from the manufacturing of

architectural coatings or other consumer and commercial products,

rather, it targets emissions from the products themselves, since

the products will be introduced into commerce and therefore

potentially emit VOC in nonattainment areas. Therefore, the

location of manufacturing plants is irrelevant for purposes of

the regulations under this section. 

Comment: Four commenters in five letters (AIM-IV-D-02,

AIM-IV-D-08, AIM-IV-D-26, AIM-IV-D-82, CP-IV-D-34) opposed

national rules for consumer and commercial products because they

would be costly and would impose an unnecessary burden on

consumers and businesses in attainment areas. Three commenters

in four letters (AIM-IV-D-02, AIM-IV-D-26, AIM-IV-D-82,

CP-IV-D-34) provided three examples of these costs and burdens. 

The first commenter (AIM-IV-D-02) stated that a national rule

would place a formulation burden on hundreds of small businesses

that manufacture and sell consumer and commercial products only
2-119

in attainment areas and, therefore, do not contribute to

exceedance of the ozone NAAQS. The second commenter

(AIM-IV-D-26) stated that consumers in attainment areas would be

forced to forego the benefits of lower cost, higher quality

products. The third commenter (AIM-IV-D-82, CP-IV-D-34)

submitted two letters contending that EPA has not fully

considered in recent rulemakings the impacts its rules have on

raw material producers selling raw materials in attainment areas. 

The commenter (AIM-IV-D-82) cited the automotive refinishing rule

as an example. The second commenter (AIM-IV-D-26) also argued

that national rules benefit large manufacturers because of the

economy of scale derived from large judiciously located

manufacturing plants. For these reasons the commenters contended

that VOC-content standards for consumer and commercial products

should be limited to nonattainment areas and nationwide standards

should be precluded. 

In contrast, three commenters (AIM-IV-D-30, AIM-IV-D-117,

CP-IV-F-1g) argued that national rules for consumer and

commercial products would be beneficial to everyone -- both

attainment and nonattainment States and both national and

regional manufacturers. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-30) stated that

a multitude of regulations, from individual States and on a

national basis, create an environment that made doing business

very difficult for a national or regional company. As a result,

the commenter urged EPA to include as many State concerns in its

rule making as possible. The commenter also noted that the

release of VOC is the same regardless of location and all

businesses should have to meet the same emission requirements.

Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-117) stated that timely and firm

action by EPA is needed to control emissions from architectural

coatings because State-by-State control in the Mid-Atlantic

region is ineffective and the ozone nonattainment areas in this

region cannot meet their attainment deadlines without strong

national rules in place.
2-120

Response: The Agency believes that a national rule that

regulates products manufactured for sale and distribution in both

attainment and nonattainment areas is necessary to ensure the

reduction of VOC emissions from products that are easily

transportable and used by a wide variety of consumers in an

infinite number of locations, such as is the case with the

consumer products rule. The Agency’s rationale for issuing

national rules is discussed in depth in section 2.3.1.5 of this

BID.

The EPA agrees that a single national regulation for a

category of products is preferable to a patch work of differing

regulations that will cause tracking and distribution problems

for regulated entities and will pose administrative and

enforcement problems for the Agency and for States. The EPA 

notes, however, that some States may still exercise their option

to enact more stringent regulations to address more localized

ozone problems.

With respect to the specific comments on potential cost

impacts of rules, EPA disagrees that these factors raise issues

for consideration at the time of the Study. The EPA examines

the economic impacts of regulations at the time of rulemaking

because it is only at that point that it is possible to evaluate

such impacts. In this case, the commenter presupposed that there

are significant adverse economic impacts of any rule. The EPA

does not agree that it is possible to anticipate the economic

impacts and benefits of any rules issued under section 183 (e) of

the Act in advance of development of the rules. The EPA has

considered the economic impact of the proposed standards for the

automobile refinish coatings rule, the consumer products rule,

and the architectural coatings rule in the rulemakings on these

standards rather than in the study.

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) stated that in

applying the same regulations nationally, EPA failed to recognize

meteorological and climatic differences that may affect air

quality. The commenter used Southern California as an example. 
2-121

According to the commenter, Southern California has low wind

speeds, summertime maximum mixing height averages that are the

lowest in the U.S., and abundant sunshine. The commenter stated

that few other areas in the nation have similar geography and

meteorological conditions, yet EPA would impose the same rules

across the country even though emissions of ozone precursors vary

considerably among the major metropolitan areas.

Response: The EPA’s goal in developing national rules for

certain categories of consumer and commercial products is to

control effectively emissions from these products in all

nonattainment areas. The Agency’s goal is the same for the

entire nation, regardless of the local climate or meteorological

conditions of particular areas which helped contribute to their

nonattainment status. These factors entered into the Agency's

consideration of what constitutes “best available controls” or

“BAC.” For example, EPA did not choose one of the options

considered for BAC for coatings in the automobile refinish

coatings rule due to limitations in drying times for certain

products in humid and cold areas of the country. More to the

point, EPA did not determine that BAC for architectural coatings

would be a rule equivalent to that necessary or appropriate only

for Southern California.

The EPA agrees with the commenter that certain areas of the

country may need more stringent air quality requirements that go

beyond current requirements at the national level. This is

already the case for requirements in Southern California for both

architectural coatings and automobile refinishing. For both of

these product categories, the SCAQMD of Southern California has

some of the most stringent VOC requirements in the country. The

success of those regulations at targeting VOC reductions and the

ability of manufacturers to meet those VOC limits are among the

factors that EPA has taken into account in the development of

national rules. The EPA did not, however, believe that

equivalent rules would be appropriate nationwide under current

BAC analysis.
2-122

2.3.1.5 Authority to Regulate Attainment Areas

Comment: Five commenters in nine documents (CP-IV-D-35,

AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-82, AIM-IV-D-165, AIM-IV-D-08)

AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, AIM-IV-D-214c,

CP-IV-F-1a) stated that section 183(e) of the Act authorizes

regulation of VOC only in ozone nonattainment areas. The

commenters asserted that section 183(e) of the Act does not

authorize a national VOC emission standard. Two commenters

(AIM-IV-D-82, AIM-IV-D-212) stated that EPA misinterpreted the

Act and was authorized to issue CTGs or promulgate regulations

concerning VOC in consumer and commercial products applicable

only to nonattainment areas. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-82) stated

that if Congress intended section 183(e) of the Act to apply to

both attainment and nonattainment areas, it would not have

authorized EPA to use CTGs, which apply only to nonattainment

areas. Therefore, the commenter reasoned that EPA is precluded

from regulating emissions in attainment areas.

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D35t) asserted that a

national rule to control architectural coatings was contrary to

the express language of section 183(e) of the Act, and contrary

to Congressional intent as well. Two commenters in three

documents (AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D35t, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-49)

referred to the legislative debate pertaining to Senate

Conference Report 1630, as set forth in the Congressional Record,

which allegedly reflected that it was the intent of Congress that

these rules be applied only in nonattainment areas. The first

commenter in two documents (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212p6/

CP-IV-D-35t) asserted that the intent of Congress was to focus

primarily on areas classified as severe and extreme.

One commenter (CP-IV-D-34) questioned whether EPA has

authority under section 183(e) to regulate products in areas that

do not exceed the ozone NAAQS. The commenter stated that the

structure and language of the Act suggests that Congress intended

EPA to regulate consumer and commercial products that have an

impact on ozone nonattainment areas only. Another commenter
2-123

(AIM-IV-D-08) urged EPA to evaluate other alternative methods to

control ozone in the noncompliant areas. The commenter preferred

regulations that applied only to nonattainment areas.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the conclusion of the

commenters that section 183(e) of the Act does not permit the

Agency to promulgate rules that apply to both attainment and

nonattainment areas. The EPA interprets section 183(e) of the

Act to permit the Agency to promulgate rules that apply

nationwide. The EPA bases this interpretation both upon the

statutory language of section 183(e), and upon the Congressional

directive to utilize any system or systems of regulation

necessary to achieve the appropriate reductions. In particular,

the EPA believes that the transportability of products and the

difficulties attendant upon tracking their ultimate place of use

compel the nationwide scope of the final rule for consumer

products, architectural coatings and automobile refinish

coatings. 

First, the express statutory language of section 183(e) of

the Act does not preclude regulation of products in attainment

areas. To the contrary, in section 183(e)(2)(A) and

section 183(e)(3)(A)of the Act, Congress explicitly directed EPA

to examine VOC emissions "into the ambient air" without

restriction regarding whether such air was in attainment or

nonattainment areas. Moreover, EPA believes that no such

distinction between attainment and nonattainment areas is

appropriate because section 183(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act requires

EPA to assess the "potential to contribute" to ozone NAAQS

violations wherever they may occur. Although commenters argued

that the “potential to contribute” clause links the VOC emissions

only to those products used in nonattainment areas, EPA believes

that the language of the statute compels no such reading and that

it would be illogical given that VOC emissions in attainment

areas can contribute to nonattainment in adjoining nonattainment

areas.
2-124

In section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act Congress also explicitly

granted EPA broad powers to reduce emissions into the ambient air

in order to combat ozone nonattainment. These powers provided

that to meet the objectives of section 183(e), EPA may “by

regulation, control or prohibit any activity, including the

manufacture or introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or

sale of any consumer or commercial product which results in

emission of [VOC] into the ambient air.” In section 183(e)(4)

Congress explicitly provided that to meet the objectives of the

provision, EPA may “include any system or systems of regulation

as the Administrator may deem appropriate.” The EPA believes

that Congress thereby granted the Agency discretion to determine

which measures would best obtain reductions, including

regulations, controls, or prohibitions, and to determine the

appropriate geographical scope for such measures to achieve the

goal of emissions reductions and ozone NAAQS attainment in

nonattainment areas. Inherent in this authority is the power to

determine that a national rule with nationwide applicability

across both attainment and nonattainment areas is the appropriate

means to obtain the requisite reductions.

In addition, section 183(e)(3)(A)of the Act expressly

directs EPA to promulgate regulations that "require best

available controls." In accordance with the definition of that

term in the statute, EPA is to consider "technological and

economic feasibility, health, environmental and energy impacts"

and is to consider, among other things, "the most effective

equipment, measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques"

to obtain the reductions. The EPA believes that it is reasonable

to conclude that Congress did not intend to preclude the Agency

from taking into account the relative effectiveness of the

available means to obtain reductions that would be applicable to

all areas or only to nonattainment areas, and to make its

determination as to the proper geographic scope of the rules

based upon appropriate factors. The EPA has determined that

national rules that apply nationwide to both attainment and
2-125

nonattainment areas are the best available controls to insure

that reductions in VOC emissions occur for certain categories of

products.

The EPA has concluded that a national rule is the more

effective approach for reducing emissions from consumer products,

automobile refinish coatings and architectural coatings for the

following reasons. First, EPA believes that a national rule is

an appropriate means to deal with the issue of products that are,

by their nature, easily transported across area boundaries,

widely distributed, and widely used by varied types of end-users,

such as the general public and the building-trade contractors. 

For many such products, the end user uses 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, 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 Agency to

administer. The potentially regulated entities under

section 183(e) are the manufacturers, processors, wholesale

distributors, or importers of consumer or commercial products. 

The 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
2-126

ultimate destination for use to insure that only compliant

products go to nonattainment areas. The EPA notes that for

architectural coatings and consumer products, 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

permit regulation not only of the types of entities which are

regulated under section 183(e) of the Act, but also a broader

range of entities including retail distributors and end users.

Given the limitations of section 183(e) as to regulated entities,

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). Several of the trade associations of

the industries for whom EPA has proposed national rules

(i.e., architectural coatings, consumer products and automobile

refinish coatings) have supported national rules that apply to

all areas as the most efficient regulatory mechanism from the

perspective of marketing and distribution of products. 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. 

Instead, the national standard is expected to reduce the number

of States needing to develop separate rules for these categories.

Third, 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. 
2-127

Recent modeling performed by OTAG and others suggests that in

some circumstances VOCs emitted outside nonattainment area

boundaries can contribute to ozone pollution in nonattainment

areas -- for example, by traveling relatively short distances

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 PM NAAQS 10 

concerning credit for VOC emission reductions towards rate of

progress requirements (see docket A-94-65, item IV-B-5). 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 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.

The EPA notes that some commenters asserted that one clause

in section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act compels the conclusion that

Congress intended EPA to regulate consumer and commercial

products only in nonattainment areas. That subsection of the Act

instructs EPA to list the products that account for 80 percent of

the VOC emissions “from consumer or commercial products in areas

that violate the NAAQS for ozone.” The EPA believes that this

clause pertains not to the scope of the regulations that EPA may

choose to impose, but rather to the listing process itself. 

Thus, EPA believes that this provision of the statute requires

the Agency to regulate the categories of products that account

for 80 percent of the VOC emissions in nonattainment areas, but

does not necessarily control whether EPA is to regulate such

products only in nonattainment areas. Because EPA has otherwise
2-128

determined that a national rule with applicability in both

attainment and nonattainment areas is the best means to obtain

necessary VOC emission reductions intended by Congress, the

Agency believes that the language in question does not preclude

that strategy.

Finally, the arguments in this section supporting EPA’s

authority and rationale for regulating both nonattainment and

attainment areas under section 183(e) of the Act are not intended

to imply that EPA would not consider using its discretion to

develop a CTG for a category in lieu of a regulation. The EPA

recognizes that characteristics of distribution and use will vary

among categories of products. Therefore, EPA intends to use its

discretion to determine the most efficient and effective mode of

regulation for each of the categories under section 183(e) of the

Act.

Comment: One commenter (CP-IV-D-35) contended that by

promising States a SIP emission reduction credit based on the

forthcoming national regulation of consumer products, EPA may be

forcing States to include the regulation of VOC from consumer

products in their SIP plans with no consideration of whether or

not VOC reductions from those products were necessary for that

State to attain the ozone NAAQS.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion

that promulgation of national rules will "force" States to

include consumer product regulations in their SIPs in order to

get credit. States have theoption to seek SIP credit for VOC

emission reductions within their jurisdictions. Each state’s

plans contain different assortments of measures to achieve the

emission reduction goal that is designed to achieve the NAAQS or

to maintain good air quality. These measures may include state

or local requirements as well as federally implemented programs,

such as standards for motor vehicles.

Since several section 183 (e) rules will be federally

implemented and were initially expected to be finalized prior to

1996, EPA provided guidance to the states that in their SIP plans
2-129

they could “take credit” for the amount of reductions projected

to be attributable to the nationwide rules. The EPA anticipates

that many States with nonattainment areas will claim credit for

the VOC emission reductions that will result from the

regulations. For example, 14 states are currently relying on

anticipated reductions in architectural coating VOC emissions

from EPA’s national rule in their rate-of-progress plans. The

EPA notes that nothing in section 183(e) of the Act precludes a

State from enacting its own more stringent consumer product

regulations and from seeking additional SIP credit for any

resulting reductions. Some states, such as California, may need

to implement more stringent standards to meet their air quality

goals.

2.3.1.6 Role of National Rules in Achieving Uniform

Regulation

Comment: One commenter agreed that although uniform

commerce was a desirable goal, the commenter (AIM-IV-D-49)

asserted that the proposed architectural coating regulations

would not achieve uniform regulation across the States. Another

commenter (AIM-IV-D-96) noted that legal problems could develop

if States repealed their rules in favor of national rules that

were less stringent than the State rules. The Act contains

provisions that prohibit rolling back implemented control

programs. As a result, portions of current State programs that

are more stringent than those in national rules, are likely to

remain in effect. Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) quoted from

the 1990 Act Leg. Hist. (1177, 1268) to support the position that

Congress viewed national uniformity as a government aspiration

but not a legislative mandate. Two commenters in three documents

(CP-IV-D-35, CP-IV-F-1a, AR-IV-F-1) stated that the goal of

section 183(e) of the Act was preventing the exceedance of the

ozone standard and not national uniformity in VOC regulations. 

Both commenters (CP-IV-D-35, AR-IV-F-1) argued that uniformity

could be addressed through the State administration and State

consultation provisions of section 183(e)of the Act.
2-130

Four commenters (AIM-IV-D-189, AIM-IV-F-1o, AIM-IV-D-185,

AIM-IV-F-1k) supported a uniform national rule instead of local

or regional regulation of ozone nonattainment areas only. 

Several commenters (CP-IV-D-10, CP-IV-D-40, CP-IV-D-42,

CP-IV-D-44 to 46, CP-IV-D-48 to 56, CP-IV-F-1g, CP-IV-F-1k)

stated that national rules bring consistency between State

requirements and this consistency eases the burden on interstate

commerce and reduces the difficulty of complying with different

State and local regulations.

Twelve commenters (CP-IV-D-01, CP-IV-D-02, CP-IV-D-04,

CP-IV-D-06, CP-IV-D-42, CP-IV-D-46, CP-IV-D-48 to 51, CP-IV-D-53,

CP-IV-F-1j) stated that national rules ensure consistency in

product formulations throughout the country. According to these

commenters, national rules are more cost-effective for the

manufacturers who will not need to develop multiple formulations

for all their products to meet each state regulation. One

commenter (AIM-IV-D-08) acknowledged that national rules bring

some consistency to product formulation, labeling, and marketing

and contended that national rules will not completely eliminate

the problem because some State will maintain their own rules that

may be more stringent than the national rules. The commenter

contended that the costs for compliance under national rules will

increase because there will be more products regulated than under

existing State regulations.

Three commenters (AIM-IV-D-189, AIM-IV-F-1o, AIM-IV-F-1k)

contended that a uniform national rule is consistent with

Congressional intent and that Congress recognized the benefits

associated with not disrupting interstate commerce with

conflicting State regulations. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-185)

stated that differing State standards clearly raised significant

barriers to interstate commerce and created logistical

difficulties for manufacturers. The commenter explained that

when a patchwork of standards evolves under State initiatives,

manufacturers need to produce different products for different

State and local markets. In addition, manufacturers need to make
2-131

fundamental adjustments in the procurement of raw materials and

packaging materials, in the preparation of promotional literature

and bulletins, in production planning, and in notifications to

the trade of pricing and other changes. The commenter encouraged

expeditious action by EPA in finalizing the national

architectural coatings VOC rule to promote uniformity nationwide

and to relieve individual States of the need to develop unique

standards.

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-189) urged States to follow the

procedures of section 183(e)(9) of the Act, which requires that

States first consult with EPA before developing rules that differ

from the national rule. The commenter stated that this language

is very broad and should be invoked if the State rule differed in

any way.

Response: The EPA agrees that the main purpose of rules

promulgated under section 183(e) of the Act is to reduce VOC

emissions effectively and efficiently in nonattainment areas

utilizing “best available controls.” A side benefit of

regulations that apply both in attainment and nonattainment

areas, however, is that it promotes consistency in regulations,

thereby reducing the administrative burden of complying with

differing State standards. The EPA believes that the legislative

history indicates that uniformity was an issue that Congress

considered significant in its deliberations concerning

section 183(e), even if it did not explicitly direct the Agency

to ensure such uniformity. To date, consistency has already been

promoted because many States which intended to develop their own

regulations for categories of household consumer products as well

as architectural coatings have instead relied on the forthcoming

rules that apply nationwide. The EPA does not expect regulations

issued under section 183(e) of the Act to provide complete

uniformity in requirements across the country because some States

may need to implement more stringent standards to meet their air

quality goals. The consultation provisions of section 183(e)(9)

of the Act are designed to promote uniformity in such cases where
2-132

States or local areas need to adopt requirements other than those

promulgated by EPA. This section requires EPA to maintain and

provide relevant information, studies, and regulations to any

State who requests it. This service is expected to help States

consider options for regulation which will be consistent with

those existing in other States or local subdivisions. With

regard to the commenters who raised the issue of states not

rolling back existing State rules that are more stringent, EPA

agrees that States cannot do so if there will be adverse

environmental effects. The EPA does not anticipate, however,

that areas with more stringent State rules will be encouraged to

revoke them because they will continue to desire the emission

reductions from such rules. The EPA anticipates that the

promulgation of national rules may, however, minimize the need

for additional States to enact consumer product rules.

2.3.2 Nitrogen Oxides Versus Volatile Organic Compounds

Emissions Control Strategies

Issue Overview: This subsection provides a general summary

of the commenters rationale and positions. Some commenters

argued that VOC alone do not have the potential to cause

exceedances of the ozone NAAQS and therefore, a Federal

regulation to reduce VOC emissions is not justified. Since NOx

is the source of all ozone in the ambient air, according to the

commenter any uniform Federal rules aimed at ozone abatement

should control NO emissions, not VOC emissions from consumer and x

commercial products.

The commenter justified this position by pointing out that

VOC alone in pristine air cannot form ozone. Ozone is formed

only where NO is also present. Depending on the existing ratio x

of VOC to NO in local areas, the commenter asserted that x

reducing VOC emissions can have a variety of effects on ozone. 

Volatile organic compound emission reductions can increase ozone,

decrease ozone, or have no effect. Therefore, a control strategy

based on national emissions reductions of VOC will not be

uniformly effective and is not justified. If national reductions
2-133

of precursor emissions are required by the Act, NO should be the x

target because all studies agree that substantial NO emission x

reductions will reduce ozone. The commenters argued that EPA

should examine recent data and studies available since the

enactment of the Act and conclude that VOC emissions from

consumer and commercial products do not have any significant

potential to contribute to ozone levels that violate the ozone

NAAQS. The technical arguments supporting this position are

included in the comments summarized in the following sections.

2.3.2.1 Control Strategy is Flawed: Nitrogen Oxide Control

is Needed to Reduce Ozone

Comment: Two commenters asserted in six letters

(AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212mm/ AIM-IV-D-212p6h/ CP-IV-D-35h/

CP-IV-D-35k3, AIM-IV-D-49, CP-IV-D-35k, CP-IV-D-35m,

AIM-IV-D-177) that EPA’s strategy is to reduce the peak ozone

concentration by examining polluted air and determining the level

of precursor emissions that must be removed to achieve

attainment. The commenter argued that the only appropriate

interpretation of section 183(e) of the Act is to determine which

precursors can be added to pristine air and at what levels

without exceeding the ozone NAAQS. The commenter claimed that

this second interpretation would result in a NO -only control x

strategy. These two interpretations of section 183(e) of the Act

are referred to in the comments as the “two sciences” for ozone

regulation. As part of this argument, the commenter also stated

that EPA is ignoring findings of recent studies including

“Rethinking the Ozone Problem,” “the Southern Oxidants Study”

(AIM-IV-D-212g), and “Ozone Precursor Relationships in the

Ambient Atmosphere.”6,9

Two commenters in five letters (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-55,

AIM-IV-D-49, AIM-IV-D-155, CP-IV-D-35) claimed that the findings

and recommendations of “Rethinking the Ozone Problem” were

ignored by EPA. The authors questioned the effectiveness of a

VOC-only control strategy, stated that control of NO may be x

necessary, and discussed the importance of reactivity in ozone
2-134

formation. Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) referred to

“Rethinking the Ozone Problem” which the commenter alleged

revealed that ozone exceedances were caused primarily, if not

exclusively, by NO emissions, not VOC emissions. One x

10

commenter in three documents (AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35,

AIM-IV-F-1d) cited findings of the “Southern Oxidants Study” for

the proposition that NO controls would be more effective in the x

rural south, and in the south anthropogenic NO had a greater x

impact on formation of ozone than anthropogenic VOC.16

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) contended that EPA's policy

goal should be the control of NO , not VOC. The commenter used x

isopleth charts to illustrate that increasing the NOx

concentration caused the ozone concentration to increase. 

According to the commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p/CP-IV-D-35n,

AIM-IV-D-212p4/CP-IV-D-35g, CP-IV-D-35m), in many areas of the

country, ozone attainment could only be reached through NOx

controls. A second commenter (AIM-IV-D-49) attached section 3.8

of the section 185(b) report to Congress which also noted the

necessity of NO controls. x

One commenter submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

AIM-IV-D-212k/AIM-IV-D-212mm/AIM-IV-D-212p6h/CP-IV-D-35h/

CP-IV-D-35k3) pointing out that according to charts from

“Rethinking the Ozone Problem” and "Ozone Precursor Relationships

in the Ambient Atmosphere," increasing NO concentrations caused x

the exceedance whereas changes in VOC concentration were almost

irrelevant. The commenter (AIM-IV-D-177a) cited a study by 10,17

Chameides, et al., which suggested that the level of NO , not x

VOC, determined the ozone levels in the world. The commenter 17

stated that almost all VOC incremental reactivity went to zero or

negative value at high levels of VOC and low levels of NO .x

A commenter (CP-IV-D-35m) stated that starting with

nonattainment air, an isopleth chart to determine which

precursors need to be removed to meet the ozone NAAQS showed:

(1) most reduction of NO caused a decrease in peak ozone; x

(2) sometimes the initial reduction in NO caused an increase in x
2-135

peak ozone but additional decreases in NO eventually caused x

decreases in peak ozone and the direction was always toward true

attainment; (3) a decrease in peak ozone occurred for a decrease

in NO on a national level; (4) benefits or cost were possible x

for a national NO rule; and (5) national NO rules should be x x

promulgated.

One commenter (CP-IV-D-34) stated that EPA should consider

exempting products used in NO -limited areas. The commenter x

explained that NO -limited areas are areas that have an x

overabundance of VOC relative to NO . The commenter explained x

that NO is needed with VOC in the presence of sunlight to x

produce ozone. The commenter believes that in these areas the

additional VOC emissions do not have an appreciable impact on

ozone formation.

Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-115) referenced the 1991

National Research Council (NRC) study titled "Rethinking the

Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution," which

concluded that NO emissions should be controlled in addition to, x

or instead of VOC control. In light of this study, the 10

commenter stated that EPA should focus more on NO reductions, x

especially in nonattainment areas, instead of controlling VOC

emissions to unrealistic levels. The commenter predicted that

the current set of architectural coatings VOC regulations will

ultimately cause an increase in ground level ozone, instead of a

decrease.

Response: The EPA's ozone reduction strategy is to control

both NO and VOC emissions. The EPA’s policy is consistent with x

recent scientific studies and with the Congressional mandate of

the Act as a whole in which Congress has directed the Agency to

combat ozone through measures directed at both VOC and NO . x

Ozone control is a complex problem that must consider a number of

local factors, including meteorological conditions, the relative

concentrations of NO and VOC in the air, and the proximity of x

emission sources to one another. The EPA recognizes that NOx

control is an effective means for reducing ozone. The EPA’s
2-136

policy also recognizes that VOC control, with or without NOx

control, is essential or beneficial in many areas for reducing

peak ozone concentrations. The EPA believes that the current

ozone policy is a scientifically valid strategy, and that the

commenters have mischaracterized EPA’s ozone control policy and

the past results of the policy.

This group of comments focuses on the commenters’

interpretation of the roles of ozone precursors (VOC and NO ) in x

the formation, accumulation, and transport of ozone and the

commenters’ theory that there are “two sciences” for ozone

regulation. The EPA understands the conclusion of the comments

to be that because a control strategy based on VOC emission

reductions will not be uniformly effective, EPA should regulate

only NO . The commenters premise these arguments on the fact x

that, in many cases, reducing NO rather than VOC emissions maybe x

a more effective means for attaining the ozone NAAQS.

To address these arguments, outlined below is a discussion

of the roles of NO and VOC in the chemistry leading to high x

ozone concentrations and the role of meteorology and relative

location of sources in influencing mixing of VOC and NOx

emissions (and, therefore, the chemistry leading to ozone

formation). A discussion of the limitations on the use of

isopleth charts for determining control strategies is also

presented.

2.3.2.1.1 Roles of Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic

Compounds in chemistry of ozone formation. Ozone (O ) would be 3

present in the troposphere even in the absence of anthropogenic

NO or VOC emissions. Its presence results from interchange with x

the stratosphere, and is sustained by the chemical and physical

properties of ozone itself and the presence of other naturally

produced compounds. More specifically, ozone (like NO )2

photolyzes in the presence of sunlight. In the presence of

naturally-occurring water vapor (H O), photolysis of ozone leads 2

to an equilibrium among ozone, water vapor and hydroxyl radicals

(OH). As shown in the subsequent discussion, OH play a crucial
2-137

role in the accumulation of ozone to levels greater than the

level specified in the ozone NAAQS.

Introducing NO emissions to the atmosphere results in the NO

being oxidized to NO by the following reaction: 2

NO + O = NO (1) 3 2

Sunlight however, causes the resulting NO to photodissociate 2

back into NO and O .3

NO + (sunlight) = NO + O (2) 2 3

Photodissociation of NO is a major potential source of ozone in 2

the troposphere. However, in the absence of VOC emissions, ozone

concentrations greater than the level specified in the ozone

NAAQS are unlikely. Instead, an equilibrium among O , NO and NO 3 2

exists as a result of the interaction of reactions (1) and (2).

For high ozone concentrations to occur, a third factor is

needed in addition to NO emissions and sunlight. This factor x

must serve as an alternate to reaction (1) for converting NO to

NO . Volatile organic compound emissions provide the means for 2

converting NO to NO without using up the ozone formed in 2

reaction (2). This conversion occurs as a result of a series of

reactions, initiated by the reaction of VOC with OH.

VOC + OH = (Organic Radical Products) + More OH

 + (Other Products, e.g., formaldehyde) (3)

and

NO + (Organic Radical Products) = NO 2

+ (more Organic Radicals) (4)

+ (Other Products, e.g., nitrous acid)

The “organic radicals” shown on the right-hand side of composite

reactions (3) and (4) can, in subsequent reactions, form more OH. 

The resulting OH drives reactions (3) and (4) through several

more cycles. In reactions (3) and (4), formaldehyde and nitrous
2-138

acid are identified as products. These compounds are important

because, like NO and ozone, they photodissociate in the presence 2

of sunlight. Additional OH are among the products formed as a

result of this photodissociation. This additional OH drives

production of ozone still further through reactions (3), (4)

and (2).

On sunny days in polluted areas, such as cities,

reactions (2), (3) and (4) can result in concentrations of OH

several orders of magnitude greater than present in background

air. A useful metaphor is to picture the cycle of reactions

represented by reactions (2) through (4) as a “wheel of

reactions.” The size (diameter) of the wheel grows as

concentrations of OH (and ozone) increase. This growth will

continue until one or more of the three factors fueling the

process (sunlight, VOC emissions, NO emissions) becomes limited. x

In locations where VOC emissions are the limiting factor

(low VOC:NO ratios), the reaction of NO with ozone to form O x 2

[reaction (1)] becomes increasingly important as the means for

converting NO to NO . This reaction suppresses ambient ozone 2

levels through scavenging by NO. This reaction also suppresses

OH production (and, therefore, the ease with which subsequent VOC

emissions can lead to high ozone) by reducing ozone available to

photo dissociate to form OH.

In locations where NO emissions are the limiting factor x

(high VOC:NO ratios), ozone is limited by availability of NO to x 2

photodissociate in the presence of sunlight [reaction (2)]. 

Further, other reactions involving the organic radicals with NO

to form NO and more organic radicals [reaction (4)] become 2

relatively more important. For example, very reactive species of

VOC, such as various olefins and aldehydes, can react with ozone. 

This reaction can have the effect of actually reducing ozone

levels somewhat, as well as removing these VOC for possible use

in future ozone production where or when NO is more plentiful. x
2-139

2.3.2.1.2 Meteorological conditions and the orientation of

precursor sources to one another determine the effectiveness of a

control strategy. Roles of VOC and NO in the chemistry of ozone x

formation can be effectively conceptualized using an ozone

isopleth diagram. Chart 2 attached to a July 10, 1995 letter

from Mr. Robert Mitchell to Administrator Browner (Docket

item AIM-IV-D-212) is a good example of such a diagram. These

diagrams are generated by repeatedly estimating maximum predicted

ozone after varying initial concentrations assumed for VOC and

for NO . Relative importance of initial conditions and x

meteorology versus emissions occurring for each simulation

(i.e., “post-8 a.m. emissions”) are kept constant for all

simulations used to construct the diagram. Further, the diagrams

assume that the emissions are instantly and perfectly mixed in

the atmosphere so that the chemistry can proceed in accordance

with the relative amounts of VOC and NO emitted across x

relatively large areas.

Contrary to the assumptions underlying Chart 2, mixing of

precursors is often likely to be limited by prevailing

meteorological conditions. This limitation can lead to different

conclusions about the relative importance of initial conditions

versus “post-8 a.m. emissions” in different parts of a modeling

domain. For example, if the trajectory assumed in the model

generating the isopleths traversed an area where “post-8 a.m.

emissions” are dominated by sources of NO , the resulting x

isopleth diagram would be shaped very differently. Such a

diagram would likely lead to a conclusion that VOC availability

would be the most limiting factor, at ratios that are higher than

those implied in Chart 2. (AIM-IV-D-212k2, AIM-IV-D-212mm2, 

AIM-IV-D-212p6h2, CP-IV-D-35h2).

Effects of limited mixing described in the preceding

paragraph can be illustrated by constructing isopleth diagrams

which reflect different mixes of “post 8 a.m. emissions” injected

into the cloud of pollution. This has been illustrated by

Milford et al. (1989). These authors show that, for a given 10
2-140

2-day episode (August 30-31, 1982) in the Los Angeles basin, the

shapes of predicted ozone isopleth diagrams vary as a function of

location, starting location, and subsequent trajectory of the

cloud of pollution. The diagrams suggest that, for the simulated

episode, reducing VOC is likely to be more effective than

reducing NO to reduce ozone in Los Angeles County. Further x

downwind, however (San Bernardino, Riverside Counties), reducing

either or both precursors appears to be a viable approach for

reducing predicted ozone during the simulated episode. The point

of this discussion is that the chemistry of ozone formation can

be significantly affected by prevailing meteorological conditions

as well as by the orientation of VOC and NO sources to one x

another. These conditions control how readily VOC and NOx

emissions mix. This mixing, in turn, affects the chemistry of

ozone formation. Thus, it may be overly simplistic to assume

ozone formation in an urban area is VOC- or NO -limited on the x

basis of a single isopleth diagram which assumes perfect mixing

throughout the area.

Meteorological conditions vary daily. Further, the effects

of varying meteorology on ozone formation differ depending on the

orientation of VOC and NO sources to one another. The x

significance of this interaction between meteorological

conditions and source orientation relative to drawing conclusions

about the importance of VOC versus NO controls in reducing ozone x

has been illustrated in modeling studies, as well as in different

reviews and analyses of monitored air quality data. For example,

in its study of Regional Ozone Modeling for Northeast Transport

(ROMNET), EPA concluded that a NO -oriented strategy appeared x

more effective than a VOC strategy in reducing peak predicted

daily maximum ozone in the Washington/Baltimore area on 6 of

15 days modeled. A VOC-oriented strategy was more effective on

6 of the 15 days. Both strategies appeared about equally

effective on the remaining three days.11

Modeling in Atlanta has suggested that NO controls will be x

needed to meet the ozone NAAQS on most of the days examined. 
2-141

Further, NO controls are usually shown to be more effective than x

VOC controls in reducing peak predicted ozone to levels near the

ozone NAAQS. However, on some of the modeled days (e.g., July 8,

1988, August 10, 1992) reducing VOC emissions appears to be more

effective in reducing predicted ozone. Another finding in the 12

Atlanta modeling, as well as in applications elsewhere, is that

the initial effect of moderate NO reductions may not always be x

beneficial (e.g., July 31, 1987 results). That is, under some

conditions, controlling NO makes predicted ozone worse x

initially, until additional NO controls lower the predicted x

ozone. It is probably not reasonable to expect NO controls to x

be implemented all at once. Thus, this increase in ozone

formation could be a realistic scenario. Isopleth diagrams

generated for the Atlanta modeling studies suggest that reducing

VOC emissions will mitigate most, if not all, of the detrimental

effect arising from initial efforts to reduce NO under x

meteorological conditions like those of July 31, 1987.

Modeling results showing variable responses of predicted

ozone to VOC and NO controls as a function of location and time x

appear to be corroborated by the observational studies performed

to date. For example, Cardelino et al have examined ambient data

obtained during a 1990 field study in Atlanta, and applied their

relative incremental reactivity (RIR) approach to the data to

assess likely sensitivity of observed ozone to changes in

observed NO and VOC levels. On one of the six days examined, x

13

these authors found peak ozone likely to be more sensitive to

changes in VOC rather than NO . On the other five days, ozone x

levels exhibited some sensitivity to changes in VOC, but were

more sensitive to changes in NO .x

Blanchard et al. have reviewed ambient air quality data from

the Los Angeles Basin, San Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley

and the Lake Michigan area. These authors have applied a “smog

produced algorithm” to assess geographic and temporal patterns

regarding whether ozone formation appears limited by available

VOC or NO . The results often suggest that NO is a limiting x

14

x
2-142

factor to further production of ozone. Nevertheless, the authors

conclude that factors limiting ozone production vary as a

function of time and location.

Because ozone formation is greatly affected by

meteorological conditions and source/receptor orientation, ozone

formation may be limited by VOC or by NO at different times and x

locations. Modeling results suggest that under some

circumstances, detrimental effects can occur from piecemeal

implementation of NO controls. Results suggest that VOC x

emission reductions could mitigate some undesirable effects of

piecemeal NO controls in urban areas. Thus, even though NO x x

control may be a more effective means of reducing ozone levels on

many of the worst days in many locations, reduction of VOC

emissions is still necessary to reduce peak ozone concentrations

under the variety of meteorological and source receptor

conditions in urban areas. 

2.3.2.1.3 Limitations in the use of isopleth charts for

determining control strategies. The commenter uses the isopleth

charts to illustrate that EPA's goal should be preventing

saturation of the air by NO . The NO and VOC concentrations x x

shown on the isopleth diagrams depict initial concentrations,

generally in the middle of downtown.

Isopleths are a series of constant ozone lines generated by

a model. Isopleth charts are generated by carrying out a large

number of model simulations in which the initial concentrations

and anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NO are varied x

systematically, whereas all other model inputs are held constant. 

The isopleths show the downwind, peak 1-hour ozone levels as a

function of the concentrations of VOC and NO for a hypothetical x

urban area.

City-specific ozone isopleths can be used to estimate the

reduction in VOC or NO levels needed to achieve the ozone NAAQS x

in a specific urban area. The first step is to determine the

early-morning VOC:NO ratio for the urban area in question and x

the maximum 1-hour downwind ozone concentration. Both the
2-143

VOC:NO ratio and the peak ozone concentration are obtained from x

air monitoring data. These two values define a point on the

isopleth surface and, from this point, the percentage reductions

in VOC and/or NO needed to achieve the ozone NAAQS can be x

determined.

An examination of the isopleth chart attached by the

commenter reveals, for a VOC concentration of 0.5 ppmC, for

example, increasing NO leads to increased ozone until VOC:NO x x

ratios of about 8:1 are reached. Further NO increases, leading x

to lower VOC:NO ratios, inhibit ozone formation. Thus, in this x

example, there is a "critical" ratio (in the range of 8:1) at

which the NO effect on ozone changes direction. Besides this x

"critical" ratio, an "equal control" VOC:NO ratio also exists, x

above which the reduction of NO is more beneficial in terms of x

ozone reduction than an equal percentage reduction in VOC. This

ratio, for the isopleths attached by the commenter, is roughly

10:1 for low levels of control and as high as 25:1 for the levels

of control needed to reduce ozone to 0.12 ppm.

Using the isopleth charts for determining control strategies

has some limitations, the most serious of which is that predicted

emissions reductions are critically dependent on the initial

VOC:NO ratio used in the calculations. This ratio cannot be x

determined with any certainty because it is expected to be quite

variable in time and space in an urban area. Another limitation

is that these charts have limited spatial and temporal scopes of

application. They are generally 1-day models. Another problem

with the use of morning VOC:NO ratios is the failure to account x

for photochemical evolution as urban emissions are carried

downwind. As demonstrated in simulations by Milford et al (1989)

and in smog chamber studies by Johnson and Quigley (1989), an

urban plume that is in the VOC-controlling regime (low VOC:NOx

ratio) near the city center can move increasingly into the

NO -controlling regime (high VOC:NO ratio) as the air parcels x x

age and move downwind. This progression occurs because NO 10,15 x

is photochemically removed from an aging plume more rapidly than
2-144

VOC, causing the VOC:NO ratio to increase. As demonstrated by x

Milford et al. (1989), the implication of this evolution is that

different locations in a large urban area can show very different

ozone sensitivities to VOC and NO changes. The commenter’s x

10

position does not recognize the dynamic nature of the process and

assumes that the composition of urban air remains static. Unlike

the commenter’s approach, EPA’s approach recognizes that ozone

formation may be limited by VOC or by NO at different times and x

different locations. Thus, even though NO control may be an x

effective means for of reducing ozone levels on many of the worst

days in many locations, reduction of VOC emissions is still

necessary to reduce peak ozone concentrations under the variety

of meteorological and source receptor conditions that occur in

urban areas. Thus, the commenter’s suggestion that EPA exempt

products used in NO -limited areas is impractical. x

2.3.2.2 Contribution of Biogenic VOC Sources versus

Anthropogenic Sources to Ozone Nonattainment

Comment: Four commenters submitted seven documents

(AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35, AIM-IV-D-214c, AIM-IV-D-177a,

AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-49, AR-IV-F-1) supporting their contention

that biogenic VOC is more prevalent in the atmosphere than

anthropogenic VOC. Two commenters submitted three documents

(AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35, AR-IV-F-1) citing findings of the

“Southern Oxidants Study” that vegetation was a significant

source of VOC in the rural south and in urban areas and complete

elimination of manmade VOC would leave areas of metropolitan

Atlanta in exceedance. Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-214c, AR-IV-F-1)

referred to “Rethinking the Ozone Problem” which revealed that

the primary sources of any VOC contribution to ozone

nonattainment were biogenic.6

Two commenters submitted four documents (AIM-IV-D-49,

AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-177, AIM-IV-D-177a) asserting that control

of VOC will not work because there is so much naturally emitted

VOC already in the air. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-177a) noted that

natural VOC was about 60 percent of total VOC. Two commenters
2-145

(AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-49) asserted that only 7 percent of

evaporative VOC was manmade and controllable and that the other

93 percent of evaporative VOC comes from biogenic sources and is 

not controllable. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-177) cited the Amazon

rain forest as an area with high VOC levels and low ozone levels.

Response: The EPA understands the commenters to be saying

generally that control of VOC will not work because there is so

much naturally emitted VOC already in the air. The EPA disagrees

with the commenters' interpretation of the factual information

and their conclusion that control of anthropogenic VOC is

therefore unnecessary. Section 2.3.2.1 presents a more detailed

discussion of the chemistry of ozone formation, focusing on the

role of VOC versus NO in the formation of ozone. This response x

focuses on the role of biogenic VOC in the formation of ozone and

builds on the earlier response.

According to national estimates consistent with estimates

used in the OTAG study, biogenic emissions are, indeed, a major

fraction of total (anthropogenic and natural) VOC emissions on a

typical summer day. Nationwide, biogenics comprise about

79 percent of the total 1990 VOC emissions on a typical summer

day. Emissions from all consumer and commercial products

comprise about 6 percent, while architectural coatings comprise

about 0.5 percent of total estimated VOC in 1990. The EPA notes

that VOC from consumer and commercial products do, however,

constitute 28 percent of the anthropogenic, and hence the

controllable, portion of the VOC inventory. Within the inventory

of consumer and commercial products emissions, it will be

necessary to obtain reasonable reductions from many categories of

sources in order to achieve the aggregate benefits of VOC

emission reductions contemplated by section 183(e) of the Act.

However, the use of total emission estimates overstates the

importance of biogenic emissions in the production of ozone.

Biogenic VOC generally are less important than anthropogenic VOC

because biogenic VOC are usually emitted in the presence of

limited amounts of NO , resulting in a limited amount of ozone x
2-146

formation. Moreover, under the right conditions, biogenic VOC

tends to scavenge ozone from polluted air as well as form new

ozone. Anthropogenic VOC, on the other hand, are usually emitted

in the presence of NO , resulting in more ozone formation and are x

generally unreactive with ozone under most conditions. Thus, VOC

emissions from consumer and commercial products will play a

proportionately greater role in ozone formation than is indicated

by the percentage of total national emissions.

These factors should be kept in mind when assessing the

relative importance of naturally-emitted versus anthropogenic

VOC. Approximately 60 percent of natural VOC consists of very

reactive olefins such as isoprene, -pinene, and other terpenes,

which can react with ozone and, therefore, can have the effect of

reducing ozone levels somewhat. However, different VOC react at

differing rates in the troposphere resulting in differing

tropospheric lifetimes. The lifetimes of most VOC with respect

to reaction with OH and ozone are in the range 1 hour to

10 years. In large part, because of these differing

tropospheric lifetimes and rates of reaction, VOC exhibit a range

of reactivities with respect to the formation of ozone

(Altshuller and Bufalini). For example, according to EPA’s 16

Criteria Document for Photochemical Oxidants (U.S. EPA 1996), the

lifetime of isoprene (a very reactive natural species of VOC

which, in the presence of NO , can lead to ozone formation) is x

1.3 days and 1.7 hours respectively in reactions with ozone and

OH present at average ambient concentrations. In contrast, 17

under the same conditions n-octane (an anthropogenic VOC) has a

lifetime of greater than 4,500 years with ozone and 1.7 days with

OH. Therefore, in many cases, more anthropogenic VOC remain

available to produce ozone when NO availability ceases to be a x

limiting factor (i.e., as in many urban areas). Very reactive

VOC, such as isoprene, are not expected to be widely used in

architectural coatings or most other consumer and commercial

products.
2-147

Thus, anthropogenic VOC emissions (often occurring in the

presence of NO at low VOC:NO ratios) can be a more important x x

source of ozone than natural VOC (often occurring with very

limited NO at high VOC:NO ratio) than might at first be x x

surmised from inventory estimates. Under NO -limited conditions, x

ozone is formed rapidly and fairly close to the sources of NO .x

Comment: Two commenters in three letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

AIM-IV-D-177, AIM-IV-D-212p3/CP-IV-D-35f) claimed that EPA did

not want to prevent the exceedance of the ozone standard as

mandated by law, but to justify regulations based upon reducing

ozone levels in nonattainment areas by reducing VOC levels. One

commenter (AIM-IV-D-177) explained that EPA's policy required

computer modeling at a level of NO so high that permanent x

attainment could not be achieved. Although a temporary local

attainment might be achieved by controlling VOC, the level of NOx

allowed by EPA's policy could lead to ozone nonattainment in

downwind areas. The commenter concluded that controlling VOC

based on Urban Airshed Model (UAM) computer modeling results did

not make scientific sense for preventing exceedance of the ozone

NAAQS. The commenter alleged that EPA's VOC policy only served

to ensure large amounts of VOC regulations to provide work for

the regulators and to control American industry.

Response: As discussed in section 2.3.2.1, VOC emissions

play a significant role in development of high concentrations of

ozone. The EPA’s ozone control policy is based on recognition

that the science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation

is complex. In designing control strategies it is necessary to

consider a number of local factors, including meteorological

conditions, the relative concentrations of NO and VOC in the x

air, and the proximity of emission sources to one another. The

EPA’s policy recognizes that in certain areas NO controls are x

very effective in reducing peak ozone concentrations, while in

other areas they may not be effective and VOC controls are

necessary. The EPA believes that the ozone policy is a

scientifically valid strategy and that the commenter has
2-148

mischaracterized EPA’s ozone control policy and the past results

of the policy.

Contrary to the commenter's claims, EPA expects both local

and downwind ozone to improve as a result of these regulations. 

Effectiveness of VOC controls in reducing highest concentrations

of ozone in and near cities can be inferred by examining ozone

trends reported between 1987 and 1996 in the U.S. EPA’s National

Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1996 (docket A-94-65,

item IV-J-11). During this 10-year period, estimated VOC

emissions were reduced nationally by about 18% (despite

considerable population and economic growth during this period)

whereas NOx emissions increased slightly (~3%). Thus, downward

trends in high ozone concentrations near cities are attributable

to reductions in VOC emissions. During 1987-96, both the

incidence in which ozone exceeded the concentration (0.12 ppm)

specified in 1-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)

as well as the magnitude of high observed concentrations

decreased. The trend data indicate that the typical 2d high 1-

hour daily maximum ozone concentration observed at numerous sites

has been reduced by about 13% during a period in which VOC

emissions have been reduced. Further, the incidence of

observations in excess of the concentration specified in the 1-hr

NAAQS (0.12 ppm) has been reduced by about 65 - 70%. Since

predicted ozone has decreased using VOC controls, EPA believes

the current policy has been demonstrated to be effective.

The current policy, as expressed in the SIP regulations and

the Act, also requires the control of NO in many instances. The x

relative degree of NO and VOC control required is determined x

using computer models based on local air quality conditions. The

Agency's policy with respect to computer modeling for both

control strategy demonstrations and national policy studies is to

use NO levels that actually exist today in the ambient air. The x

EPA disagrees with the commenter's position that ozone modeling

should be conducted assuming a relatively NO -free environment, x

which does not exist in our polluted cities today. However, as
2-149

noted in section 2.2.2 of this document, computer modeling was

not used to form the basis of EPA’s determination under

section 183(e) that emissions from consumer and commercial

products have the potential to contribute to ozone levels which

violate the NAAQS. As explained in section 2.3.2.1 of this

document, control of NO alone is not a practical solution to the x

ozone problem.

Comment: One commenter submitted three documents

(AIM-IV-D-49, AIM-IV-D-177a, AIM-IV-D-177) asserting that a

national VOC rule would be economically counterproductive. The

commenter (AIM-IV-D-177a) referenced a paper submitted by another

commenter, "Economic Analysis of Ozone Reduction" (CP-IV-D-35m). 

The premise of the analysis is that VOC control will not achieve

the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, widespread and stringent NOx

controls will be required after implementation of VOC controls

has been exhausted and the level of NO control required will be x

greater than if NO were the only pollutant controlled initially. x

The commenter (AIM-IV-D-49) explained that the economic loss

would be 100 percent of the total cost of any national VOC

regulation, plus an extra cost for increased NO controls. Thus, x

explained a second commenter (CP-IV-D-35m), national VOC controls

were the maximum cost approach for complying with the ozone

NAAQS. This commenter asserted that starting with VOC control

was a mistake and regulating evaporative VOC had been a national

financial disaster.

As part of an argument that VOC controls are ineffective,

one commenter (CP-IV-D-35m) stated that national VOC controls

created only cost to the nation. The commenter asserted that

considering which precursors need to be removed from

nonattainment air, rather than which precursors could be added to

attainment air could create rules that were wrong and costly. The

commenter concluded that all VOC rules would be economically

counterproductive and stated that no cost effective VOC rules are

possible.
2-150

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's claims

that VOC controls are economically counterproductive because the

control measures are ineffective. The EPA’s ozone control

program, which relies on a combination of regional, local, and

Federal control measures, has been effective in improving ozone

attainment and is expected to achieve further improvements in

ozone air quality. Specifically, modeling evidence shows that

decreasing VOC emissions causes predicted ozone to decrease.

Ambient monitoring data shows that reduced peak ozone

concentrations are occurring despite economic growth. Ozone

trends data show that reductions in peak ozone concentrations are

occurring across the country. Monitoring data from more than

700 sites show that composite averages of the second highest

maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations have shown a clear, steady,

downward trend over the past 10 years. These downward trends

apply also to the number of daily exceedances of the standard. 

Since historically the control policies placed greater reliance

on VOC control, the trend of ozone reductions confirms that VOC

control has been effective in many areas of the country.

According to the commenter's own admission, several areas of

the country have achieved attainment. Recent studies have shown

that in some areas of the country, a combination of NO and VOC x

controls will be required. In other areas, control of upwind

sources of NO may be necessary to achieve attainment. The x

controls will be implemented through a combination of regional

and local control strategies considering local air quality

conditions and the most cost-effective mix of NO and VOC x

controls.

2.3.2.3 Role of Combustion Sources in Ozone Nonattainment

Comment: Two commenters in six documents (CP-IV-D-35k3,

CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212k/

AIM-IV-D-212p6h/CP-IV-D-35h/AIM-IV-D-212mm, AIM-IV-D-177 and

AIM-IV-D-177a) claimed that fuel combustion sources cause the

exceedance of the ozone NAAQS because combustion is the major

source of NO and anthropogenic VOC. Controlling NO emissions x x
2-151

from combustion sources with existing technology would enable all

ozone nonattainment areas to achieve attainment. One commenter

(AIM-IV-D-177) inferred that regulations should focus on the

development of new combustion processes that produce less

emissions and that NO could be controlled by using electric x

automobiles.

Response: The EPA agrees that the major source of NO is x

combustion processes. According to the Trends Report, in 1996,

95 percent of the anthropogenic NO emissions came from x

combustion sources with 30 percent coming from onroad vehicles. 

This report also stated that the 1996 biogenic NO emissions were

estimated to be 1.55 million short tons using the Biogenic

Emissions Inventory System -- Version 2 (BEIS2). Another report

(Biogenic Emissions of 1995) estimated 1995 biogenic emissions of

nitric oxides at 1.5 million short tons using BEIS2.2. Thus,

biogenic NO emissions account for almost 7 percent of the total

NO and approximately 88 percent of the total NO emissions are x x

produced by manmade combustion.

 The EPA has several other programs already in place to

reduce levels of NO nationwide that contribute to ground-level x

ozone (smog), acid rain, and other environmental problems.

First, EPA introduced tighter tailpipe standards for cars in

1994 that were phased-in on car models through 1996. Tighter

tailpipe standards will substantially reduce emissions of VOC and

NO , the main components in the formation of ground-level ozone. x

In addition, EPA is currently developing regulations in

partnership with the State of California and leading

manufacturers of heavy-duty engines that will significantly

reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides from cars and trucks.

Second, large sources of nitrogen oxides, such as power

plants, that are located in nonattainment areas, are generally

required to apply stringent controls (e.g., RACT, as defined by

the Act).
2-152

Third, EPA has promulgated new rules for NO under the Acid x

Rain Program. These regulations will result in substantial

additional NO reductions. x

Fourth, in September 1994, the 11 Northeastern States and

the District of Columbia that comprise the Ozone Transport

Commission, have agreed to plans to reduce NO emissions by x

35 percent from 1990 levels. The reductions will help

significantly reduce ozone levels in the Northeastern United

States.

These programs are expected to reduce NO and VOC emissions x

from both mobile and stationary sources significantly and thereby

reduce ground-level ozone. However, EPA projects that additional

VOC control from noncombustive sources such as consumer and

commercial products will be required to achieve the ozone NAAQS

in all parts of the country. To achieve the ozone NAAQS using

NO control alone as suggested by the commenter would require x

that ambient NO levels throughout the nation be reduced to less x

than 5 ppbv. The Agency does not know of technology that can be

applied at a reasonable cost to reduce the remaining NO to such x

low levels. The commenter's self-acknowledged "futuristic

approach" to NO control is impractical because it calls for x

technology that is not yet existent. For example, the commenter

contended that converting to electric automobiles would solve the

ozone problem. Although electric automobiles have been

manufactured on a limited scale, this technology is still

impractical for widespread use. In addition, electric vehicles

will also rely on power plants to charge the batteries. Thus,

the commenter’s suggestion will not solve the problem of

eliminating NO emissions. Carrying the commenter's argument to x

its logical conclusion calls for replacing most or all internal

combustion engines, fossil fuel-fired power plants, industrial

boilers, and incinerators with alternative technologies. 

Comment: Two commenters on four occasions (AIM-IV-D-212,

CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5, CP-IV-F-1a, AIM-IV-D-177a) claimed:

(1) NO in the presence of sunlight forms ozone, (2) natural x
2-153

sources do not produce enough NO to exceed the ozone NAAQS, x

(3) the ozone NAAQS is exceeded because of the presence of

manmade NO , and (4) VOC from consumer and commercial products do x

not contribute to exceedance of the ozone NAAQS because

evaporative VOC alone do not cause ozone. Therefore, the

commenters conclude that evaporative VOC should not be controlled

under section 183(e) of the Act.

Two commenters in four letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5, AIM-IV-D-177a, AIM-IV-D-212k/

AIM-IV-D-212mm/AIM-IV-D-212p6h/CP-IV-D-35h/CP-IV-D-35k3) claimed

that there is a difference between "combustive" VOC and

"evaporative" VOC. Combustive VOC are generated through

combustion of materials such as fuels, waste, etc. Evaporative

VOC are generated from the use and production of chemicals as

well as the use of consumer and commercial products such as

architectural coatings, cleaning products, personal care

products, pesticides, adhesives, etc. According to the

commenters, combustive VOC are worse than evaporative VOC because

the combustion process produces both NO and VOC and combustive x

VOC are more reactive than evaporative VOC.

Third, one commenter in three letters (CP-IV-D-35k3,

AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212k/AIM-IV-D-212p6h/CP-IV-D-35h/

AIM-IV-D-212mm) claimed that some natural highly reactive VOC

help prevent the buildup of NO and ozone. One commenter in two x

letters (CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5, AIM-IV-D-212) cited

“Rethinking the Ozone Problem” and “Scientific Basis of the VOC

Reactivity Issues” which stated that many VOC reacted directly

with ozone resulting in a reduction of the ozone

concentration. The commenter implied that EPA should by 1,6

regulation require manufacturers to replace the ozone-forming VOC

in their products with other VOC that would react with either NOx

or ozone in such a way as to remove them from the air. 

Response: As discussed in section 2.3.2.1, EPA agrees that

NO in the presence of sunlight will form low concentrations of x

ozone in an otherwise unpolluted atmosphere. In an otherwise
2-154

unpolluted atmosphere a natural equilibrium exists between NO,

NO , and ozone that prevents the buildup of high concentrations 2

of ozone. However, other components, such as VOC, present in the

air disrupt this equilibrium causing ozone to accumulate. 

Volatile organic compounds are clearly understood to be a

necessary ingredient in the complex series of reactions that lead

to ozone generation. The fact that VOC are not a necessary

ingredient for every one of these reactions (e.g., the photolysis

of NO ) is irrelevant. Both NO and VOC control will be needed 2 x

to achieve attainment.

The EPA acknowledges that combustion sources emit both NOx

and VOC, while evaporative sources emit only VOC. The EPA has

been regulating both mobile and stationary combustion sources of

VOC, as well as evaporative VOC sources, for years. However, the

amount of NO and VOC emissions reductions obtained from x

regulating combustion sources (e.g., automobiles) has not been

great enough to enable some areas of the country to achieve the

ozone NAAQS. In many of these areas, evaporative VOC emissions

from such sources as architectural coatings are one of the

largest unregulated sources of VOC emissions. Thus, EPA contends

that evaporative VOC sources still matter and must be controlled

if the ozone NAAQS is to be achieved in all parts of the nation.

While EPA acknowledges that some VOC are highly reactive and

do react to reduce ozone through various mechanisms, this

scenario occurs only in very limited cases, with only a few

species of VOC (not VOC species typically used in consumer and

commercial products), and under specific meteorological

conditions. This phenomenon does not occur generally in the

ambient air.

The commenter's suggestion that EPA should, by regulation,

require manufacturers to substitute certain ozone-forming VOC

used in their products with other VOC that would react with

either NO or ozone to remove them from the air is impractical. x

Ozone chemistry is extremely complex. How a VOC reacts with a

reactive species, such as NO or ozone, depends on the x
2-155

concentration of the reactive species and the rate constant for

reaction of the VOC with the reactive species. In general, the

ambient atmospheric concentrations of OH, nitrate radicals, and

ozone are variable, depending on time of day, season, latitude,

altitude, etc. Thus, all VOC do not react the same and even a

single VOC will react differently under different atmospheric

conditions. Moreover, a VOC cannot necessarily directly replace

another VOC in terms of properties and functions within the

products or processes in which the compound is used. Therefore,

it is not technically feasible to ban broad classes of chemicals

and mandate the use of a limited set of VOC in commerce.

2.3.2.4 The Role of Long-Range Transport of Nitrogen Oxides

in Ozone Nonattainment

Comment: One commenter submitted three documents

(CP-IV-D-35m, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212k/AIM-IV-D-212mm/

AIM-IV-D-p6h/CP-IV-D-35h/CP-IV-D-35k3) stating that another

reason to focus on control of NO is to reduce the long range x

transport of NO and ozone. One document (CP-IV-D-35m) asserted x

that to stop downwind exceedances of the ozone NAAQS, the

transport of NO and ozone must be stopped by controlling NO . x x

The commenter concluded that because the reaction of NO and 2

sunlight was almost the only source of ozone in the troposphere,

eliminating NO would stop the formation of ozone and its x

transportation. The commenter explained that controlling

anthropogenic VOC was unnecessary because biogenic VOC were

present almost everywhere.

The other two letters (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212k/

AIM-IV-D-212mm/AIM-IV-D-212p6h/CP-IV-D-35h/CP-IV-D-35k3) stated

that EPA's approach of controlling VOC greatly increased the

transport of ozone and NO . The commenter explained that EPA x

assumed the air was fully saturated with NO and that most VOC x

reacted with NO , so reducing VOC would reduce the peak ozone x

formed in core urban areas. However, the commenter contended

that NO -saturated air was always (in the presence of strong x
2-156

sunlight and adequate heat) in nonattainment because of the

presence of biogenic VOC, which were ignored in EPA’s model.

Response: Section 2.3.2.1 provides responses to the

comments concerning the relative role of VOC and NO in the x

formation of ozone. This response will address only the

commenter’s arguments that control of NO is more effective for x

control of long range transport of NO and ozone than control of x

VOC.

The EPA agrees that the transport of ozone can contribute 

to ozone nonattainment. The EPA also agrees that additional NOx

emissions reductions are essential to reduce long range transport

problems. Ozone transport has been most problematic and most

studied in the eastern States, and plans have been proposed for a

regional NO emission reduction strategy. However, control of x

transported ozone and NO will not solve the ozone problem x

universally. Control of VOC beyond current State and Federal VOC

control measures will be necessary to achieve attainment in many

areas - particularly those with longstanding and serious problems

with nonattainment.

Ozone nonattainment can be a function of two components:

locally formed ozone and transported ozone. Historically, most

control strategies have focused on controlling locally formed

ozone by controlling local NO and VOC sources in the immediate x

vicinity of nonattainment. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

recognized that certain downwind areas receive transported ozone

and ozone precursors that can contribute to nonattainment. Many

of these areas may be close to violating the NAAQS due to local

emissions even after applying all reasonably available controls,

and the additional contribution of transported ozone can lead to

periods of nonattainment.

More recently, exhaustive modeling studies of the eastern

States by OTAG and others have explored the transport phenomenon. 

These studies have concluded that control measures mandated by

the Act for ozone nonattainment areas will provide ozone

reductions in many nonattainment areas. However, some areas will
2-157

remain in nonattainment, and new nonattainment problems may arise

due to economic growth. The studies predict that regional NOx

reductions will decrease ozone concentrations across broad

regions and will be more effective in reducing long-range ozone

transport than will VOC reductions.

The EPA has recognized the role of NOx in the ozone

transport problem. On November 7, 1997 (62 FR 60317), EPA issued

a proposed rulemaking requiring certain eastern States to adopt

NO emission reduction measures as needed to mitigate the x

transport of ozone and NO across State boundaries. x

Considering the state-by-state emission budgets, an overall NOx

emission reduction of 35 percent is targeted for the 23-State

region.

The modeling conclusions about the importance of ozone

transport do not mean that VOC reductions are not also needed. 

The OTAG study concluded that attaining the NAAQS will require

local VOC and/or NO controls in addition to the recommended x

regional NO controls. The OTAG modeling suggested that x

reduction of VOC emissions will be most effective in and near

urban core areas and will be necessary to control the component

of locally produced ozone that contributes to nonattainment. The

OTAG States recommended national rules for architectural

coatings, consumer products, and automobile refinish coatings to

help achieve the needed VOC reductions.

In conclusion, the commenter is incorrect that the control

of anthropogenic VOC emissions is unnecessary to attain the ozone

NAAQS. The VOC emitted in close proximity to NO will generally x

react to form ozone. Depending on the relevant conditions, this

ozone may contribute to nonattainment. To achieve and maintain

the NAAQS will require a program to address both local and

transported ozone effectively. Control of anthropogenic VOC,

therefore, will continue to be a vital part of the strategy to

reduce ozone pollution, particularly in urban settings.

 Ozone is usually the most significant component of

transport into an urban nonattainment area, rather than transport
2-158

of precursors (like isoprene, other species of VOC or NO ). Much x

of the ozone formed during the day can survive aloft overnight. 

A lack of vertical mixing at nighttime effectively insulates the

ozone from the earth's surface, precluding natural removal

mechanisms such as dry deposition. In addition, there is a

general lack of NO aloft at night to remove ozone. The next x

day, the ozone aloft mixes with ground level emissions of VOC and

NO . All other things being equal, this mixing likely x

accelerates ozone formation on the second day of an episode. The

acceleration of ozone formation results from the ozone being

available to photo dissociate to form an elevated level of OH

early in the day. The increased OH speeds initiation of the

reactions that lead to ozone formation. This accelerated

initiation of ozone formation reactions, in turn, may sometimes

lead to higher ozone formation on subsequent days of a multi-day

episode. Thus, transport of ozone can negatively impact an

area's ability to achieve and maintain the ozone NAAQS.

2.3.2.5 A VOC Regulatory Approach Has Been Based on Flawed

Data

Comment: One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

CP-IV-D-35) asserted that a VOC regulatory approach had been

ineffective in reducing ozone levels in many metropolitan and

urban areas. The commenter quoted from “Rethinking the Ozone

Problem” to support this position. According to the commenter, 6

the report found that:

[d]espite the major regulatory and pollution-control

programs of the past 20 years, efforts to attain the

ozone NAAQS largely have failed. The EPA's approach to

ozone control, originally developed in 1971, has relied

largely upon unverified estimates of reductions in

precursor emission; EPA has not required systematic

measurements of ambient precursor concentrations. 

Systematic measurements of NO and VOC are needed in x

addition to ozone measurements to determine the extent

to which precursor emissions must be controlled and to

verify the effectiveness of the control measures

undertaken. Over the past two decades, the substantial

reductions in ozone concentrations predicted to result

from the VOC emission reductions in major urban centers

have not occurred.
2-159

According to the commenter, “Rethinking the Ozone Problem”

noted that EPA's approach has depended heavily on VOC reductions

estimated on the basis of speculative "emission inventories" that

significantly underestimate anthropogenic VOC emissions from

mobile sources and fail to account adequately for biogenic VOC. 

The commenter stated that “Rethinking the Ozone Problem” also

found that "past ozone control strategies may have been

misdirected" in relying almost exclusively on VOC emission

reductions. As a corrective measure, two commenters in four 6

letters (AIM-IV-D-49, AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35)

stated that the report made this recommendation: "To

substantially reduce ozone concentrations in many urban,

suburban, and rural areas of the U.S., the control of NOx

emissions will probably be necessary in addition to, or instead

of, the control of VOC."

According to the commenter (AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35m,

CP-IV-D-35), “Rethinking the Ozone Problem” continues, "The

result is an overestimate of the effectiveness of VOC controls

and an underestimate of the efficacy of NO controls. If the x

anthropogenic VOC inventory is as badly underestimated, as recent

studies indicate, areas that were previously believed to be

adversely affected by NO controls might actually benefit from x

them."

The commenter also attached an article from “Environmental

Week” (AIM-IV-D-212d). The article stated that EPA was biased

toward VOC reductions for control of ozone even though VOC

controls may not work and NO controls were more effective in x

controlling ozone in some situations. The commenter

(AIM-IV-F-1d, AIM-IV-D-212d) also quoted the article as saying

that the models EPA used to predict effectiveness of various

mitigation efforts needed to be improved and the emission

inventories used in the models underestimated anthropogenic VOC.

Response: While EPA acknowledges the validity of some

criticisms of the data used in the past, EPA does not agree with

the conclusions of the commenters that control of VOC emissions
2-160

has been ineffective or is unnecessary. To enhance the ozone

control program, EPA has supported and contributed to efforts to

improve the understanding of ozone formation mechanisms in the

ambient air and to develop better data and analytical tools with

which to evaluate control strategies. The focus of current

program enhancements includes: (1) enhancement of the ambient

data bases used to design and check the progress of strategies,

(2) a focus on improving emission inventories, and (3) regional

and local application of the most comprehensive and defensible

air quality models. The EPA has relied on “Rethinking the Ozone

Problem” and other scientific studies to formulate these improved

strategies. Nothing in “Rethinking the Ozone Problem,” or any 6

other credible scientific study, however, has suggested that the

control of VOC is not a necessary component of an ozone control

program. Although NO control is an important component of an 6

x

ozone control program, controlling only NO is an insufficient x

strategy for achieving the ozone NAAQS.

Although air quality data clearly attest to a current

situation where a number of U.S. metropolitan areas are in

nonattainment with respect to ozone, EPA can demonstrate that a

VOC regulatory approach has been effective in reducing ozone

levels in many metropolitan and urban areas. As discussed by Cox

and Chu, results of trend analyses for 43 cities, normalized for

meteorological differences, between 1981 and 1991, show that high

peak 1-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations were typically

reduced by about 11 percent over this period. In most cases, 18

observed reductions in high daily maximum ozone were deemed to be

statistically significant, providing evidence that decreasing VOC

emissions causes predicted ozone to decrease. Since most of the

regulatory effort to date has been to reduce VOC, the ambient

information tends to refute the commenter's claims that VOC do

not cause ozone pollution.

Furthermore, this downward trend coincides with a period of

substantial population and economic growth. In the absence of

effective emission control programs, the demographic growth would
2-161

have led to increased emissions and attendant increases in ozone. 

Thus, considerable "progress" has been achieved by averting

increases in ozone concentrations in the face of demographic

factors which would have otherwise increased ozone levels.

The precise extent to which various source categories have

been understated in the emission inventories is unclear, and

adequate data currently are unavailable to revise the emissions

models or estimates. The most likely causes are understatement

of emissions from mobile sources (including nonroad mobile

sources), commercial/consumer solvents, and point sources (caused

by ineffective regulations, poorly-characterized fugitive

emissions, and small sources that historically have been exempt

from State emission regulations). Shortcomings in emissions

estimates have arisen from incomplete scientific understanding

and inadequate emphasis on inventory studies.

The 1990 Amendments to the Act put a much higher premium on

accurate inventory compilations than had been true formerly. The

EPA has accelerated and enhanced its efforts to upgrade the

inventory process and has directed increased support to States to

assist them in utilizing new findings in SIPs. For example,

mobile source models are upgraded periodically to reflect new

findings on evaporative and exhaust emission components, in

addition to incorporating changes stemming from combustion

technology in new automobiles. In fact, EPA is planning to

release MOBILE6 for use in the summer of 1998.

In addition to improving highway vehicle emission estimates,

EPA is planning to develop a SIP-related nonroad emissions

inventory model to meet the needs of providing an accurate

inventory of nonroad mobile source emissions (e.g., diesel

engines in large construction operations).

The EPA has also issued several volumes (EPA, 1991 c-g) of

Emission Inventory guidance procedures and held national

workshops on preparing inventories. The EPA has taken numerous 19

other steps to upgrade inventories including steps to enhance the

consistency and quality control aspects of the inventory process. 
2-162

The EPA has also undertaken a multi-disciplinary effort

structured to develop consistency among EPA's various research

and operation arms and to incorporate the latest research and

technical efforts into the inventory process. 

Past ozone precursor control approaches have relied on the

best science available. The EPA will continue to improve the

inventories used in their control approach so that current and

future ozone precursor control strategies will always be based on

the best available science.

The EPA agrees that NO controls in addition to, or instead x

of, VOC controls are likely to reduce ozone in many areas. 

However, in certain cases NO controls might not be effective in x

reducing ozone. Possible exceptions are not necessarily limited

to New York and Los Angeles urban cores. Application of gridded

photochemical models on a case-by-case basis is required to

determine the efficacy of NO controls, because the ozone x

response to precursor reductions is area specific. The 5-City

UAM study (EPA, 1990a) supports the general assertion that NOx

controls: (1) may be beneficial in many places (e.g., Atlanta

and several parts of the northeastern U.S.) and (2) might not be

effective in reducing ozone in other areas (e.g., Dallas-Fort

Worth and New York). The 5-City UAM study illustrates that 20

ozone response to controls of VOC or NO is area-specific. The x

five-City UAM study investigated only a limited set of

meteorological conditions.

Contrasting ozone responses from VOC and NO controls for x

specific days in Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth illustrate

variability in the response of predicted ozone to changes in VOC

and NO . Modeling of the relative benefits of VOC and NO x x

control, to the base case (i.e., zero control) throughout the

Atlanta domain illustrates that VOC controls result in limited

benefits that are restricted to the center of the Atlanta domain;

whereas NO controls result in more widespread and more x

pronounced reductions in peak ozone predictions throughout most

of the domain. The Dallas-Fort Worth results show greater peak
2-163

ozone reductions for VOC controls, and several areas which

exhibit ozone increases due to NO controls. x

2.3.2.6 The EPA’s Air Quality Models

Comment: Three commenters (AIM-IV-D-177a, CP-IV-D-35m,

AIM-IV-D-49) listed three problems with photochemical air quality

models based on the Carbon IV mechanism such as the UAM and

Regional Oxidant Model (ROM). Two of these commenters

(CP-IV-D-35m, AIM-IV-D-177a) also asserted that the ability of

the model to provide accurate speciated VOC reactivity was very

poor. The commenters asserted that the model incorrectly

calculated the conversion of VOC to reactive VOC as a function of

NO concentration, resulting in poor results at the high VOC and x

low NO levels. These commenters stated that this error x

overstated the required VOC reductions for attainment, greatly

increasing the perception that VOC reductions were necessary. 

One commenter (AIM-IV-D-49) cited the section 185(b) report to

Congress that pointed out that the weakness of the chemistry used

in the model affected the accuracy of the model.

Response: Air quality models operate on sets of input data

that characterize the emissions, topography, and meteorology of a

region and produce outputs that describe air quality in that

region. Mathematical models for photochemical air pollution were

first developed in the early 1970s and have been improved,

applied, and evaluated since that time.

Several grid-based photochemical air quality models have

been developed to simulate ozone production in urban areas or in

larger regions. These models differ primarily in their treatment

of specific atmospheric processes, such as chemistry, and in the

numerical procedures used to solve the governing system of

equations. The Act mandates the use of three-dimensional

(grid-based) air quality models such as UAM in developing SIPs

for areas designated as extreme, severe, serious, or multistate

moderate.

Uncertainties arise in photochemical modeling from the basic

model components (chemical mechanism and numerical techniques in
2-164

solving the governing equations) and from inputs to the

simulations that reflect the particular episode (boundary and

initial conditions, emissions inventory, wind field, and mixing

depth). While, as noted by the commenter, these limitations are

legitimate sources of uncertainty, they are even more applicable

to some of the evidence used by the commenter. For example, the

isopleth diagrams that the commenter uses to make his argument

are subject to similar limitations because they are either

generated by these models or by the same fundamental concepts as

used in these models.

The EPA addresses the uncertainties in models by using

sensitivity studies. Sensitivity studies aim to determine the

range of uncertainty in model predictions corresponding to ranges

of uncertainty in the basic model components and input

quantities. Such studies are valuable to pinpoint those

quantities to which model predictions are most sensitive and,

therefore, in directing future efforts in reducing the

uncertainty in key parameters. These studies are also valuable

in assessing the sensitivity of future air quality changes to

uncertainties in the base case episode. It is not possible to

state general, widely applicable levels of uncertainty for

photochemical model inputs and parameters. These will depend on

the particular region being modeled, and, in the case of

meteorological and emissions inputs, may even depend on the time

of day during the simulation. All model application exercises

should include, to the extent possible, an analysis of the

uncertainties in model inputs and parameters.

In conclusion, the computer models, while not perfect

representations of meteorological conditions nor atmospheric

chemistry, provide a far more complete description of their

effects than any other means of analysis available. Application

of grid models using different chemical mechanisms and differing

means of generating meteorological inputs consistently leads to a

conclusion that, under some conditions, ozone is sensitive to

reductions in anthropogenic VOC emissions. The UAM has been
2-165

reviewed by Scheffe and Morris in "A Review of the Development

and Application of the Urban Airshed Model." 21

The UAM is the most widely applied and broadly tested

grid-based photochemical air quality model. The model is

described in a number of sources, including a multi-volume series

of documents issued by the U.S. EPA (1990a,b,c; 1992b) and a

comprehensive evaluation by Tesche et al (1993). The UAM 20,22-25

has been applied to many urban areas in the United States and

Europe, and most of these studies have included some form of

performance evaluation (see summary in Tesche et al., 1993,

table 6-2). The UAM is continuing to undergo revision to 25

increase its accuracy as we better understand the atmospheric

chemistry.

Evaluations of UAM's performance have been carried out for a

number of geographic areas. Evaluations conducted since 1985

have indicated mean differences between predicted and measured

ozone values of 20 to 40 percent when paired in space and time

(Roth et al.). The prediction of peaks exhibits relative 26

errors that are smaller than the average error, with a tendency

toward underprediction. The leading cause of underprediction in

urban areas is the discovery that mobile source VOC emissions are

significantly underestimated. In September of 1996, EPA

published updated guidance for State and local agencies to use in

developing motor vehicle emission inventories using Highway

Performance Monitoring System datasets and state-of-the-practice

Travel Demand Model outputs. Through this guidance and 27

complementary activities, EPA will improve and confirm the

accuracy of mobile source emission inventories, leading to better

ozone prediction by the models.

The concentration of NO predicted by the UAM is generally 2

within 30 to 50 percent of the measured NO in UAM applications. 2

This discrepancy between predicted and measured NO has remained 2

consistent over the history of modeling applications (Roth

et al.).26 Thus, the UAM is no better or worse than other models

at predicting NO . Typically, the UAM predicts a lower 2
2-166

concentration of NO , generally on the order of 20 to 40 percent 2

below what is actually measured (Roth et al.).26

Comment: Two commenters (CP-IV-D-35m, AIM-IV-D-177a)

asserted that EPA requires the use of the UAM to determine which

control techniques to use to control ozone. One commenter

(CP-IV-D-35m) claimed that section 183(e) of the Act does not

require the use of the UAM. These commenters (CP-IV-D-177a,

AIM-IV-D-35m, AIM-IV-D-49) on three occasions concluded that the

UAM concentrates on which precursors need to be removed from the

air in a discrete nonattainment area to attain the ozone NAAQS

whereas section 183(e) of the Act focuses on what can or cannot

be added to "natural air" and still remain in attainment with the

ozone NAAQS. One commenter (CP-IV-D-35m) explained that the UAM

model had a software defect in the critical VOC:NO ratio that x

seriously compromised its use for supporting section 183(e)

regulation.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters’

interpretation of the requirements of the Clean Air Act of 1990. 

First, contrary to the commenter’s claims, the Act mandates the

use of photochemical grid models for demonstrating how serious,

severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas can attain the

ozone NAAQS.

Also, EPA contends that the focus of the Act is on how to

achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS in all parts of the

country. The only practical way to accomplish this goal in

nonattainment areas is to start with current conditions and

reduce the emission of ozone precursors. 

The software defect in the UAM alleged by the commenter is

due to the limitations of the model at the low NO conditions x

that exist in some attainment areas. The UAM is not designed for

modeling the effect of precursors on ozone formation in pristine

air. Rather, it is designed for modeling how changes in

precursor emissions affect ozone formation in air that is typical

of current atmospheric conditions. As also noted in

section 2.2.2 of this document, EPA disagrees that section 183(e)

requires EPA to make its determination starting from natural
2-167

pristine air. Furthermore, although UAM was discussed in the

report to Congress, it was not used as the basis of any

determinations under section 183(e). 

2.3.2.7 The EPA Study Incorrectly Evaluated the Cost

Effectiveness Ranking Criterion

Comment: One commenter in two documents (CP-IV-D-35,

CP-IV-D-35m) stated that EPA’s method, which is to estimate the

cost per ton of VOC removed for potential control options, is not

a valid measure of cost effectiveness. Two commenters

(CP-IV-D-35, AIM-IV-F-1) claimed that EPA was required by law to

evaluate the effect of consumer product emission reductions on

ozone concentrations in each individual nonattainment area and

list for regulation under section 183(e)(3) only those products

that have the greatest impact on ozone reduction for the least

cost. This study would require air quality modeling and a

determination of the cost per unit of ozone reduction. If such a

study were done, one commenter (CP-IV-D-35) contended that EPA

would conclude that VOC from consumer and commercial products do

not contribute to ozone formation. The commenter claimed that

such an analysis was required by three authorities:

section 183(e) of the Act, section 309 of the Act, and EO 12866.

Response: The EPA believes that it properly applied the cost

effectiveness criterion of section 183(e) and that the

cost-per-ton approach used in the report to Congress is the

correct approach for applying the cost-effectiveness criterion. 

The EPA continues to believe that VOC from consumer and

commercial products do have the potential to contribute to ozone

formation. Moreover, EPA disagrees that an assessment of cost

per unit of ozone reduction is legally required in order to list

and rank consumer and commercial products for regulation under

the authorities cited by the commenter.

Ozone attainment is a local responsibility, and the national

VOC emission control programs [like the Motor Vehicle Control

Program, New Source Performance Standards, and section 183(e)]

are designed to support the State programs by requiring the best

available controls for sources that are national in scope. Cost
2-168

per ton of VOC removed is the most appropriate method of

evaluating the effectiveness of these national, technology-based

programs. For the report to Congress, this method involved

assessing available information on potential control technologies

for the products that emit VOC during use and giving the highest

priority to those products that could be controlled at the lowest

cost.

The commenter’s suggested approach would also have been

extraordinarily resource and time intensive.Such an analysis

would require, for example, substantial addditional data on the

types and quantities of individual VOC in each product within the

broad universe of consumer and commercial products. To obtain

this information would have placed an additional burden upon

industries that EPA believes was not necessary for the listing

process. Also, studies to quantify the reactivity of a large

number of individual VOC species would have been required for

this analysis. In addition, many complexities make it difficult

to make reliable predictions of the ozone-forming potential of

individual VOC species. One reason is that this potential varies

depending on ambient conditions -- on an absolute scale, and

occasionally on a relative scale as well. These conditions

affecting reactivity include ambient conditions such as VOC-toNOx ratios, the presence of other VOC, and sunlight intensity. 

Each of these factors can vary widely. Also, in multiple day

pollution episodes in an area, a VOC species that has low

reactivity (based on a one-day reactivity scale) may continue to

form ozone over several days. Even if EPA could have obtained

the needed data and accounted for these complications, the

results would have been of limited utility. As mentioned

previously, available computer models generally aggregate

chemical compounds or consider them as general categories. As a

result, models have limited use for evaluating the effects of

reducing emissions of specific VOC species from a particular

product category. 
2-169

Finally, EPA believes that an intensive study to quantify

each product’s effect on ozone levels in nonattainment areas is

inconsistent with Congress’s intent in enacting the section

183(e) program. Congress recognized that small quantities of VOC

emissions from a very large number of products add up -- and

together make up a significant portion of ozone-forming VOC

emissions. Congress created the 183(e) program to reduce the

aggregate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products. 

It is not necessary, even if it were feasible, to quantify the

effect of each product on ozone levels in each nonattainment area

to make a reasoned selection of product categories to list for

regulation. Nothing in the statute implies that the specific

ambient impact of these emissions must be assessed other than to

give priority to the products that emit “highly reactive” VOC. 

The EPA also believes that additional air quality modeling

is not needed to justify the benefits of regulating these

products. The Ozone Transport Assessment Group recently

completed the most comprehensive modeling analysis of ozone

transport and control ever conducted. The goal of the group was

to develop a consensus ozone control strategy for achieving the

ozone standard over a 37-State region of the eastern U.S. The

group, which included more than 700 public and private sector

stakeholders, recommended a series of control measures, including

national standards for reducing emissions from the use of

consumer and commercial products. Modeling analysis showed the

need for VOC reductions and the need for national control

strategies for reducing NO and VOC. The OTAG study confirms x

that EPA’s regulatory approach for consumer and commercial

products should be implemented. 

Finally, EPA believes that the modeling analysis recommended

by the commenters is not legally required by section 183(e),

section 309, or EO 12866. The reasoning is explained below for

each of these authorities.

Section 183(e). Nothing in the structure or language of

section 183(e) implies that an air quality modeling study is
2-170

required to assess cost-effectiveness. In fact, nowhere does the

Act or the legislative history of section 183(e) provide guidance

on how EPA should evaluate cost-effectiveness in this context. 

Therefore, EPA believes that Congress intended the Agency to

exercise its discretion and expertise in assessing the relative

cost-effectiveness of controls, as evidenced by the authority it

gave the Agency to establish the relevant criteria. Based on the

current national strategy for ozone control and the factors

discussed above in this response, EPA believes that the cost per

ton of precursor removed approach is a reasonable and appropriate

exercise of this discretion. Section 183(e) requires EPA to take

into consideration cost effectiveness, and the Agency concludes

that it has done so in a fashion consistent with the language of

the statute.

Section 309. Section 309 requires the Administrator to

review and comment in writing on the environmental impact of

certain legislation and actions of other Federal agencies. When

activities are found to be unsatisfactory from the point of view

of public health or welfare, EPA is required to refer its finding

to the Council on Environmental Quality. The policy review

provisions of section 309 do not apply to regulations that are

promulgated by EPA. Thus, section 309 does not require EPA to

perform any additional economic or impact assessments or

judgments that are not already required to promulgate a rule

under section 183(e).

Executive Order 12866. The EO applies to significant

regulatory actions, as defined by the order. For regulatory

actions which are considered significant regulatory actions

within the meaning of the order, EPA submits the action and

supporting information to OMB for review. For the announcement

of the consumer and commercial product report to Congress, list

and schedule, OMB designated this action as a “significant

regulatory action” within the meaning of the order because this

action is likely to lead to rules which may meet one or more of

the criteria. The EPA submitted this action to OMB for review in

full compliance with this order. For the consumer products and
2-171

architectural coatings rules, OMB designated these regulatory

actions as “significant regulatory actions” within the meaning of

the EO. Thus, EPA submitted these actions including the economic

impact analyses to OMB for review under this order. For the

automobile refinish coatings rule, OMB designated this regulatory

action as a “not significant regulatory action” within the

meaning of the order. 

2.3.2.8 Effect of VOC Controls on Peak Ozone Concentrations

Comment: Two commenters submitted six documents

(AIM-IV-D-49, AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35, AIM-IV-D-177a,

CP-IV-D-35k, CP-IV-D-35m) supporting their contention that VOC

controls will harm the environment. The commenters used isopleth

charts to illustrate that decreasing VOC emissions from consumer

and commercial products in all attainment air and nonattainment

air that was not VOC-limited increased peak ozone levels.

Therefore, reducing VOC from consumer and commercial products

would increase peak ozone in most of the United States, and no

VOC controls should be promulgated for consumer and commercial

products.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter regarding the

relative ineffectiveness of VOC controls in NO -limited x

atmospheres. The EPA disagrees, however, with the claim that the

atmosphere above "almost all areas in the country" is NO -limited x

and with the claim that control of consumer and commercial

product VOC will be counter effective. By the commenter's

admission, conditions in "severe" and "extreme" problem areas are

VOC limited, and this, sometimes, is true even in Atlanta, which

has a less than “severe”/”extreme” ozone problem. Thus,

Chameides and Cowling, in the “Southern Oxidants Study” cited by

the commenter, state that "the (Atlanta) data showing

NO -limitation are flawed...and some ozone exceedances in Atlanta x

are characterized by NO -limitation and others by x

VOC-limitation."

 The commenter’s judgment that responsibility for a problem

already in existence lies solely and wholly with the NOx

emissions is in disagreement with EPA’s view that VOC also have
2-172

"responsibility" for a nonattainment problem. Atmospheric

conditions vary both within and among problem areas so that

either one of the two ozone precursors, VOC or NO , can be x

"responsible" for ozone nonattainment in some areas or some area

sections or for some of the time.

2.3.3 Miscellaneous Regulatory Issues

Comment: One commenter (CP-IV-D-35m) contended that there

were at least four possible ways to interpret and implement the

intent of section 183(e) of the Act. The commenter stated that

the best choice would be for EPA to agree that the VOC from

consumer and commercial products do not have the potential to

contribute to the exceedance of the ozone NAAQS. As an

alternative, the commenter suggested that EPA delay action on

regulations under section 183(e) of the Act until completion of

the section 183(e) study as required by Congress. The commenter

stated that EPA could use the North American Research Strategy

for Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO) project (to which EPA is an

active signatory and participant) to study the science of VOC

potential or EPA could commission the National Academy of

Sciences to do a study. The commenter suggested as a third

alternative that Congress could hold hearings on section 183(e)

of the Act to revise or clarify those provisions that were deemed

appropriate or necessary. As a final alternative, the commenter

suggested the issue could be elevated to a national discussion. 

The commenter recommended that any effects pertaining to the SIP

process be addressed at the same time, if appropriate. 

 Response: The EPA disagrees that there alternative means

for the EPA to comply with section 183 (e) of the Act. Having

determined that consumer and commercial products have the

requisite potential to contribute to violations of the ozone

NAAQS, it is incumbent upon the EPA to follow the statutory

directive to regulate such products. The EPA has demonstrated

that VOC from consumer and commercial products do have the

potential to contribute to the exceedance of the ozone NAAQS (see

section 2.2.2). The EPA has conducted the section 183(e) study

as required by Congress (see section 2.2.1) and has concluded
2-173

that emissions from consumer and commercial products are

significant and that emission reductions are appropriate. In

addition, the Agency has considered all of the statutory factors

in developing the criteria for regulation of consumer and

commercial products and in prioritizing categories for

regulation. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the statutory

criteria for regulating commercial and consumer products clearly

have been met and will proceed with the regulatory process as

outlined in the March 23, 1995 Federal Register notice.

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) contended that using

VOC to improve products was discouraged by EPA's unsubstantiated

claim that VOC caused air pollution. Because EPA failed to

perform concrete, specific scientific tests to support its

charge, the commenter contended that the products did not

contribute to air pollution and should not have been discouraged. 

Response: As discussed in section 2.3.2.5, there is ample

evidence that decreasing VOC emissions causes predicted ozone to

decrease. Since most of the regulatory effort to date has been

to reduce VOC, the ambient information tends not to support the

commenter's claims that VOC do not cause air pollution.

Comment: One commenter (IV-F-1d) referred to a 1996 article

by David Lewis, an EPA employee at EPA's National Exposure

Research Lab in Athens Georgia. The article discusses how EPA 28

administrators loaded EPA employees down with paperwork resulting

in less science coming out of EPA. The commenter quoted the

article as saying that EPA "must develop a broad vision of the

science needed and take bold steps to acquire and apply it. This

will require more than just improving ORD. It means making

fundamental changes in structure and mission of EPA as a whole so

that the science leads, rather than trying to catch up, with the

promulgation of environmental regulation." Later in the article

it is stated "Congress has placed on the national agenda the need

to rectify EPA's inadequate basis for supporting its regulatory

process with sound science." The commenter continued by quoting

from a September 27, 1994 document (memorandum) from Mr. Bruce
2-174

Jordan to Dr. Basil Dimitriades. The commenter stated that

Mr. Jordan recommended certain changes to the scientific report

that Dr. Dimitriades was submitting. The commenter asserts that

EPA had a specific goal in mind and that Dr. Dimitriades changed

his report to meet those goals.

Response: As described elsewhere in this comment response

document, EPA considers the section 183(e) study and report to

Congress to be based on appropriate use of science. The

commenter’s remarks concerning the September 27, 1994 memorandum

are a mischaracterization of the contents of that document. The

memorandum in question conveys comments on the report to limit

the scope of the paper to address the scientific issues

pertaining to section 183(e) of the Act. The memorandum

accordingly included recommendations to make clarifications to

the report to ensure that there would be no confusion that the

report was addressing anything other than the scientific issues

of section 183(e) of the Act.

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) noted that EPA had

not addressed the seasonality of emissions. The commenter

explained that paint sales and use were weather sensitive and

followed an annual pattern of peaking in the good weather summer

months and ebbing in the fall and winter. The commenter stated

that in California and the Southwest, paint applications during

spring months, before the hot summer, would lead to less paint

emissions during summer months.

Response: Reducing VOC emissions during the ozone season by

applying paint at times other than the ozone season is not a

practical approach. Practicality issues preclude EPA from

restricting the seasons when VOC emissions are allowed. 

Section 183(e) of the Act provides EPA only with the regulatory

authority to regulate manufacturers and distributors and no

ability to dictate when paint is going to be applied. In

addition, regulations that attempt to control consumption or user

habits are considered to be impractical and undesirable. 

Therefore, EPA concluded that limits on the amount of VOC
2-175

incorporated into the products would be the most feasible and

least disruptive control measure.

Comment: The commenter (AIM-IV-D-177) claimed the

environmental movement and the policies of EPA should have

addressed the relationship of environmental sustainability and

population levels. The commenter stated that most activities

regulated by EPA would not cause an environmental problem at one

level of population but would at a higher level. The commenter

concluded that VOC at one level of use by a stable population

became huge at a much higher population level.

Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter’s conclusion

that VOC at one level of use by a stable population may become

huge at a much higher population level. Thus, as nonattainment

and even attainment areas grow in population, for certain types

of consumer and commercial products, national VOC regulations

become a more important tool in assisting States, regions, and

localities achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS. This point is

discussed more in section 2.3.1 of this document. 

2.3.4 Economic And Social Impacts Of National VOC Rules

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) attached the

following two reports to their comments: “Preliminary Report to

Dunn-Edwards Corporation: A Bio-Psycho-Social Perspective on Some

Implications of VOC Regulation” (AIM-IV-D-212p6q/CP-IV-D-35s4)

and “Stepping Stones - A Technical Paper Introducing Some

Theoretical Dynamics in ... A Preliminary Report to Dunn-Edwards

Corporation: A Bio-Psycho-Social Perspective on Some

Implications of VOC Regulation” (AIM-IV-D-212p6r/CP-IV-D-35s5). 

The authors state that the reports explore their “analysis of

social trends in American culture and some implications of

environmental policy, VOC regulation in particular, on the

nation’s future.” The authors assert that EPA needs to analyze,

anticipate, and factor in the unintended social consequences of

VOC regulations and recommendations. The reports presents claims

that the results of EPA's current approach to control of VOC

have, in effect, placed urban cores and economically fragile

rural areas further into an "at-risk" social development process. 
2-176

The commenter asserted that entry-level crafts and manufacturing

jobs are frequently the very jobs that utilized products

containing VOC; thus, the VOC issue was closely linked with

keeping the social development process intact. The commenters

also asserted that environmental regulations that resulted in

employer flight or demise, due to increased operating/compliance

costs or outright banning of product use, are a form of

environmental injustice that EPA must consider carefully.

The commenter submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,

AIM-IV-D-212p4/CP-IV-D-35g) claiming that in California, 29 years

of evaporative VOC regulations resulted in a loss of jobs. The

commenter explained that this loss in job base in turn led to a

loss of tax revenues to the State. As a result, the commenter

continued, poverty and hunger increased and the ability to

provide for the health and welfare of citizens declined. Thus,

the commenter maintains that VOC emission controls contributed to

the problems of hunger and malnutrition.

Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-166) opposed national rules that

applied to attainment areas because the effort required to

enforce such activity is counter-productive and would eliminate

business for smaller companies, increase costs for mid-size

companies, protect the market for major corporations, and hurt

the consumer.

Response: The Agency believes that national rules proposed

under section 183(e) of the Act will not have a significant

primary or secondary economic impact as described by the

commenter. The Agency acknowledges that by establishing a set of

product-specific standards for VOC content, national rules have

cost implications for producers of the affected products. 

Manufacturers of consumer and commercial products that do not

meet the VOC levels in the national rules or use another

compliance option in the rule will be required to reformulate

products or remove products from the market. Each option imposes

costs, some of which will be passed on to other members of

society (consumers) in the form of higher prices, and some of

which will be borne directly by manufacturers. 
2-177

The cost of reformulation includes the resources that must

be devoted to creating a compliant product, e.g., research and

development expenditures plus any net changes in the variable

cost of producing the new product. Variable costs may be

affected by changes in the material composition of the new

product. The cost for each noncompliant product depends on the

level of effort required to develop a new product and how these

expenditures are incurred over time. Economic impact analyses

completed by EPA for the automobile refinish coatings, consumer

products, and architectural coatings rules have indicated that it

is highly unlikely that the rule will have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities. The EPA also

does not expect these rules to have significant secondary

impacts, given the expected primary economic impacts. See the 

economic impact analyses for these rulemakings for more detailed

information on these analyses.

2.4 CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL ISSUES

2.4.1 Clean Air Act Issues

2.4.1.1 Ultra Vires Consideration of Regulatory Criteria

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) asserted that the

consideration of allegedly nonstatutory factors in establishing

regulatory criteria to list and schedule consumer or commercial

products for regulation by EPA officials were actions ultra vires

and hence give rise to causes of action against the officials. 

The commenter cited a number of judicial precedents which

ostensibly support its claim.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s conclusion

that the actions are ultra vires. As explained more fully in

section 2.1.1.2 of this 183-BID, section 183(e)(2) of the Act

does not restrict EPA’s consideration of additional factors in

establishing criteria for regulating consumer and commercial

products. 

Section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act provides only that EPA

“shall take into consideration” certain enumerated factors in

deciding upon the proper criteria. The provision does not
2-178

dictate the criteria themselves. The EPA concludes that it has

discretion to decide how many criteria to establish, what the

criteria should be, and whether and to what extent the criteria

should precisely mirror the considerations Congress enumerated in

section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act. Most importantly for purposes

of this discussion, so long as EPA considers the factors Congress

did enumerate in the statute, the statute does not preclude EPA’s

additional consideration of any other factors or criteria that

EPA deems reasonable and necessary to fulfill its statutory

obligation to regulate consumer and commercial products. The EPA

believes that actions permitted by the statute itself can never

give rise to a claim for ultra vires actions.

2.4.1.2 No Legal Justification for Regulation of Area

Sources.

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-F-1c) in a public hearing

indicated his belief that section 183(e) of the Act does not

authorize the regulation of “area sources” and, in particular,

that EPA cannot now regulate “area sources” through

section 183(e) of the Act because of flaws that the commenter

perceives in an unspecified 1989 report from the Office of

Technology Assessment, presumably “Catching Our Breath: Next

Steps for Reducing Urban Ozone.”4

Response: The EPA believes that the commenter misconstrues

EPA’s obligations under section 183(e) of the Act. 

Section 183(e) of the Act directs EPA to regulate consumer and

commercial products that generate VOC emissions. By their

nature, of course, individual consumer or commercial products

such as a single can of paint contain only a limited amount of

VOC. The statute clearly indicates, however, that Congress

decided that such products in the aggregate cause sufficient

environmental harm to necessitate regulation of their VOC

content. Thus, Congress has made the determination that EPA

shall consider regulation of consumer and commercial products. 

Whether consumer and commercial products are “area sources” or

not is therefore irrelevant to EPA’s obligations under

section 183(e) of the Act. Whether Congress based its
2-179

determination in whole, in part, or not at all, on the report

questioned by the commenter does not obviate EPA’s duty to

regulate the VOC content of consumer and commercial products

imposed by Congress.

2.4.2 Procedural Issues

2.4.2.1 Regulations Void Ab Initio

Comment: Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-214c,

AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) have asserted that EPA’s regulations

promulgated pursuant to section 183(e) of the Act are based upon

deficient procedures and are therefore of no force or effect

because a court could declare them void ab initio. One of the

commenters explained that the regulations should be void ab

initio for several reasons. First, the commenter stated that EPA

could issue no regulations unless and until EPA completes a study

and listing that comply with the statutory requirements of

section 183(e) of the Act. Second, the commenter asserted that

EPA must determine which method of regulation would be most

effective for consumer and commercial products on the basis of

the environmental impacts of such method, and that EPA had failed

to consider the environmental impacts in compliance with

section 183(e) of the Act, EO 12866, and the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (UMRA). Third, the commenter noted that EPA is to

make rulemaking determinations based upon economic feasibility,

and that EPA failed to perform economic feasibility studies in

accordance with EO 12866, UMRA, and the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA).

Response: The EPA disagrees that the consumer and

commercial product regulations are void ab initio because it has

complied with the requirements of the statutes enumerated by the

commenters. As explained more fully in section 2.1.1.1 of this

183-BID, EPA performed the study and the listing in accordance

with the requirements of section 183(e) of the Act. As required

by the statute, EPA conducted the study to determine the

potential for VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products

to contribute to ozone levels which violate the ozone NAAQS, and

establish criteria for prioritizing the products for regulation. 
2-180

In prioritizing the products for regulation, EPA considered the

factors enumerated in the statute and exercised its discretion to

establish the exact criteria and their application to the

categories of products to determine the schedule for regulation

of products. The EPA thus performed the study and listing as

directed by the statute.

With regard to the commenter’s second point, EPA believes

that it has determined the best method to regulate the categories

of consumer and commercial products consistent with the

objectives of section 183(e) of the Act and other operative

provisions. That section explicitly empowers EPA to choose “any”

regulatory remedy to alleviate VOC emissions that the

Administrator deems appropriate, including registration,

labeling, self-monitoring and reporting requirements,

prohibitions, limitations, and economic incentives. 

Section 183(e) of the Act further instructs EPA to promulgate

regulations that require the “Best Available Controls” to achieve

reductions. The statutory definition of “Best Available

Controls” gives the Administrator explicit discretion to consider

a number of factors in determining how best to obtain VOC

emission reductions, including but not limited to technological

and economic feasibility, and health, environmental, and energy

impacts.

In the case of consumer products, architectural coatings,

and automobile refinish coatings, EPA has determined that the

most effective control of VOC emissions, taking into account the

range of operative factors, can be achieved through limitation of

the VOC content of the products at the time of manufacture. The

commenter might argue that other types of regulatory controls

might result in greater reductions and hence greater positive

environmental impacts, or disagree with the Agency’s perspective

on which products to regulate, in which order, and to what

degree, but EPA believes that a national rule requiring a set of

VOC content limits for certain categories of products is

appropriate to meet the objectives of section 183(e) of the Act. 

Contrary to the commenter’s assertions, EPA specifically
2-181

considered the “environmental impacts” of each rule in

determining that it was the best available control method for the

product category. For example, in the proposed national rule for

consumer products, EPA explicitly explained that the regulations

as proposed would obtain a 20 percent reduction of VOC emissions

from this category of products and that this would have a

beneficial effect by helping to reduce tropospheric ozone and

thereby helping to alleviate ozone NAAQS nonattainment and to

protect human health. See April 2, 1996 Federal Register (61 FR

14531 and 14534). 

Similarly, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s claims that

the Agency did not comply with requirements to consider the

economic feasibility of the regulations. As discussed more fully

in section 2.3.2.7 of this BID and in the preambles for the final

consumer products rule, architectural coatings rule, and

automobile refinish coatings rule, EPA has complied with the

applicable requirements of EO 12866, UMRA, and the RFA,

concerning economic analysis of the regulations.

2.4.2.2 Conflict of Interest

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-49b) expressed concern

that the participation of an employee of an automobile company as

the chairman of a meeting of a committee reviewing a document

concerning ozone precursors constituted a conflict of interest.

The implication of the commenter’s assertion is that because

automobiles are a major contributor to ozone nonattainment in

certain areas, the participation of an employee of an automobile

company on the committee could constitute a conflict of interest

and that such individual could skew the outcome of the

committee’s work to the detriment of manufacturers of consumer

and commercial products. The committee in question was the Clean

Air Scientific Advisory Committee of the Science Advisory Board

(CASAC). The meeting in question occurred on July 20-21, 1994,

and the purpose of the meeting was to review the draft of a

report entitled “Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related

Photochemical Oxidants.”
2-182

Response: The EPA rejects the implication of the

commenter’s assertions regarding bias or conflict of interest. 

Congress provided for the creation of CASAC as an independent

scientific review committee to provide an opportunity for

objective evaluation of scientific issues. See

section 109(d)(2)(A) of the Act. The EPA uses CASAC to provide a

balanced, independent perspective on scientific aspects of

various actions taken by the Agency. To accomplish this, the

committee must necessarily have representatives from various

industries and groups with expertise and experience in various

aspects of air pollution. It is precisely this balance that EPA

believes adds credence and reliability to the recommendations of

CASAC. To suggest that the committee members should only

represent industries, groups, or perspectives approved by or

satisfactory to a certain member of a potentially regulated

community is neither sensible nor legally required.

In addition, EPA disagrees with the implication of the

commenter’s statements that an individual who chaired a meeting

of the CASAC could in some fashion skew the outcome of the

meeting to the detriment of the commenter’s industry. As with

all committees, the recommendations of CASAC reflect the

consensus of the committee members and no one member controls the

outcome of the committee’s positions. Moreover, even if there

were some possibility of a single member influencing the process

to any degree, the recommendations of CASAC are merely advisory

in nature. See section 109(d)(2)(C) of the Act. No decision of

CASAC results in direct impacts upon regulated entities as the

Agency merely takes such information into account in its own

decision making process. The EPA notes that in the case

complained about by the commenter, the supposed connection

between the alleged impropriety and the ultimate impact upon the

commenter is particularly attenuated. The meeting in question

only addressed one report that was taken into account by the

Agency. The EPA’s determinations regarding regulation of

consumer and commercial products are not based upon this one

report alone, and thus the Agency believes that it is
2-183

unreasonable to suggest that any alleged bias therein in fact

affected the commenter in any significant way.

2.4.2.3 Information Disclosure

Comment: One commenter (CP-IV-F-1a) expressed concern that

members of the public did not have an opportunity to make a

comparison of the various categories of consumer products or the

products themselves during the process of product listing and

scheduling for regulation. The commenter asserted that all such

information should have been provided at the time of the

section 183(e) study and report to Congress. The commenter took

issue with EPA’s stated intention to provide data regarding each

category of product at the time of promulgation of rules

applicable to such category. The commenter expressed concern

that EPA was not providing the public with adequate information

and may never do so. The implication of the commenter’s

assertions is that EPA could not perform the listing of

categories of consumer products and could not schedule those

categories for regulation before providing the public with all

data the commenter contends are necessary to support those

actions.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s

assertions. First, as a factual matter, the Agency believes that

the report to Congress in fact did provide information of the

type to which the commenter refers. The report included explicit

discussions of such topics as: (1) the findings of the Agency

relevant to consumer and commercial products, (2) the

comprehensive emissions inventory which detailed the relevant

data for the various categories of consumer and commercial

products, and (3) the explanation of the criteria EPA had

developed to list and regulate consumer and commercial products. 

Nevertheless, the Agency made clear at the time of the report to

Congress that it would continue to collect additional data in

connection with the development of consumer product regulations,

and that based upon such data the Agency may reassess the product

listing and schedule. See March 23, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR

15264, 15265). The EPA stated explicitly that the public will
2-184

have an opportunity to comment on the listing and schedule at the

time EPA proposes a product category regulation, at which time

interested parties will have an opportunity to examine the data

utilized by the Agency to reach its determinations. Given that

the Agency could not develop perfect information on each and

every category of product short of taking the same steps

necessary to develop a regulation, the Agency believes that this

is a practical and reasonable approach. If information

subsequently developed indicates that a category of product

should not be regulated, or should be regulated later in the

schedule, EPA intends to act upon such information.

Second, EPA also specifically disagrees with the commenter’s

assertions that the data utilized by EPA were unavailable to the

public. The EPA developed the data it deemed necessary to list

and schedule the consumer products for regulation and then shared

this information with the public. The EPA provided the data to

the NAPCTAC, a committee made up of 12 members including

representatives from the Agency, industry, State and local

agencies, public interest groups and academia, for the ranking

process. The NAPCTAC held an open meeting to discuss product

listing and scheduling and shared the data with members of the

public. Attendees at this meeting included representatives of

the commenter. Furthermore, EPA provided all of its information

to the public when it announced its initial listing of products,

and has solicited comment on that information in the course of

the individual consumer product regulation development. Only

after consideration of these comments has the Agency made any

final decisions based upon the information.

Finally, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s interpretation

of section 183(e) of the Act regarding the supposed obligation to

provide complete data at the time of the report to Congress. 

Section 183(e)(2)(A) of the Act directs the Agency to conduct a

study and submit a report to Congress that addresses two

enumerated objectives: (1) determination of the potential to

contribute to ozone nonattainment of VOC emissions from such

products, and (2) establishment of the appropriate criteria to
2-185

regulate such products. The EPA believes that this statutory

provision thus obligated the Agency to engage in a listing

exercise based upon the information available to it. The statute

does not obligate EPA to provide any particular type of data at

any particular time, but rather leaves to the Agency’s discretion

the question of what data to take into account for purposes of

listing the products and scheduling them for regulation, subject

to the requirements of section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act to take

into consideration the enumerated factors as it develops

regulatory criteria. The Agency believes that the adequacy of

the report to Congress and the data therein are issues that are

solely within the power of Congress to decide, as demonstrated by

the legislative history of the Act and judicial precedents.

2.4.3 Constitutional Issues

2.4.3.1 Regulation of Consumer and Commercial Products is

an Unconstitutional Restraint on Trade

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t,

AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that consumer and commercial product

regulations issued by EPA under section 183(e) of the Act

constitute “an effort to place substantial restraints on

interstate commerce.” The commenter’s reasoning was that

consumer and commercial product regulations will provide market

advantages to “national and international manufacturing

companies” because such companies already produce products that

are in compliance with the proposed consumer and commercial

product rules. The commenter explained that the rules would thus

give unfair advantage to some companies over other companies

whose products do not comply. In the architectural coatings

industry, the commenter claimed that “regional and local

manufacturers” which “are involved in interstate commerce” would

be hampered in their competition with the other companies whose

products already comply. The commenter opined that there “may be

a high probability” that other industries subject to consumer and

commercial product regulations would likewise incur restraints on

trade as a result of the regulations. Because of this alleged

differential treatment, the commenter concluded that the consumer
2-186

and commercial product regulations result in a “substantial

restraint of trade.”

Response: To the extent that the commenter implies that the

consumer and commercial product regulations required by

section 183(e) of the Act violate the Commerce Clause of the

Constitution, EPA believes that the commenter misconstrues the

nature of that clause. The Constitution gives Congress the power

“[t]o regulate commerce ... among the several States.” U.S.

Const., Art. I, section 8, cl3. Under the Commerce Clause,

Congress may “regulate those activities having a substantial

relationship to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that

substantially affect interstate commerce.” U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S.

Ct. 1624, 1629-30 (1995) (citation omitted). The courts have

held that Congress acted within its powers under the Commerce

Clause when it enacted the Act. See Hodel v. Virginia Surface

Mining & Reclamation Ass’n., 452 U.S. 264, 289 (1981). 

Regulation of air pollution and of emission sources that

contribute to air pollution is a legitimate exercise of authority

by Congress in enacting section 183(e) of the Act, and of EPA

when acting in accordance with the Act. To the extent that the

commenters intended to assert that there is an equal protection

clause problem with the regulation of consumer and commercial

products, EPA likewise disagrees. The intent of the Agency is

not to discriminate against any group or protected class, but

rather to promulgate regulations that accomplish the directives

of Congress to reduce VOC emissions. Because these regulations

are rationally related to accomplishment of a legitimate

objective, EPA disagrees that there can be any equal protection

violation.

The EPA also disagrees with the commenter’s conclusion that

consumer and commercial product regulations will constitute

unreasonable restraints of trade because of the burdens imposed

upon companies that do not already comply relative to those that

already do. In any regulation, those who already comply will

have an advantage over those who do not. The EPA does not

believe that the Agency can simply refuse to issue regulations on
2-187

the grounds that some regulated entity will suffer a greater

impact than others, especially when the supposed benefit to the

other entities is a result of their already producing products

that are more protective of the environment. Section 183(e) of

the Act directs EPA to regulate consumer and commercial products

for the purposes of reducing VOC emissions; to do so, some

products and some regulated entities must necessarily be affected

in a way that they may consider disadvantageous. Certainly,

EPA's intent in setting standards is to achieve certain

environmental results, not to discriminate against or otherwise

disadvantage a certain segment of an industry. In addition, the

Agency has striven to tailor the rules to make appropriate

adjustments for small entities in accordance with statutory

directives under other applicable statutes.

The EPA notes that the specific concern of the commenter was

that companies which produce predominantly solvent-based coatings

cannot compete favorably with other companies which produce

predominantly water-based coatings with less VOC content. The

EPA has already taken a number of steps to include provisions the

Agency deems appropriate to provide flexibility in the final rule

for architectural coatings. 

2.4.3.2 Violations of Due Process

Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-12p6/

CP-IV-D-35t) has alleged that EPA’s rulemakings under

section 183(e) of the Act included violations of the Due Process

Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The

commenter did not specify consistently whether it perceived

violations of substantive due process, procedural due process, or

both in each instance. The commenter did, however, note various

actions that it contended were violative of due process: (1) the

manner in which EPA conducted the regulatory negotiation;

(2) EPA’s method of ranking products for regulation; and

(3) EPA’s treatment of relative reactivity of VOCs.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertions

that the Agency’s actions violate due process, whether

substantive or procedural. The Fifth Amendment Due Process
2-188

Clause states that “[n]o person shall ... be deprived of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In the case

of substantive due process for economic regulation, like that at

issue with the consumer and commercial product regulations, “[i]t

is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and that

it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a

rational way to correct it.” Williamson v. Lee Optical of

Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 488 (1955). As described more

fully elsewhere in this 183-BID, EPA has legal authority to issue

the regulations under section 183(e) of the Act. The EPA’s duty

to protect public safety and health under the Act is explicit. 

Because the regulations issued by EPA pursuant to section 183(e)

of the Act, are designed to reduce tropospheric ozone, a

pollutant with adverse effects upon human health and the public

welfare, the regulations are rationally related to Congress'

objective. The Agency thus believes that the commenter has no

basis for complaint that the regulations are inconsistent with

the requirements of substantive due process.

With regard to procedural due process, EPA likewise

disagrees with the commenter’s assertions. As described more

fully elsewhere in this 183-BID, EPA followed the requisite

procedures in connection with the three items the commenter

enumerated: (1) the regulatory negotiation process, (2) the

ranking of products, and (3) the consideration of VOC reactivity. 

In particular, EPA notes that the public, including the

commenter, have had the opportunity to participate throughout the

development of the regulations from the lengthy regulatory

negotiation process through the close of the comment period for

each rule. To the extent that the commenter or others have had

significant comments regarding the decisions reached by the

Agency in connection with the section 183(e) study and report to

Congress, the listing of products, the scheduling of products for

regulation, and the product regulations themselves, EPA will take

such comments into account in the final rules for the appropriate

consumer and commercial product category.
2-189

2.5 REFERENCES

1. Dimitriades, B. Scientific Basis of the VOC Reactivity

Issues Raised by Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990. Journal of Air and Waste Management. 

46:963-970 October 1996. 

2. U.S. EPA. Study of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from

Consumer and Commercial Products: Report to Congress. 

Chapter 4 Criteria for Regulating Products Under Section

183(e); 22 pages. EPA-453/R-94-066-a. March 1995. 

3. U.S. EPA. Study of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from

Consumer and Commercial Products: Aerosol Products and

Packaging Systems. EPA-453/R-94-066-f, March 1995.

4. United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 

Catching our Breath: Next Steps for Reducing Urban Ozone,

OTA-O-412, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,

NTIS # PB90-130451. July 1989. 243 pages. 

5. U.S. EPA. Study of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from

Consumer and Commercial Products: Comprehensive Emissions

Inventory. EPA-453/R-94-066-b, March 1995.

6. Seinfeld, J.H, R. Atkinson, R.L. Berglund, W.L. Chameides,

W.R. Cotton, K.L. Demerjian, J.L. Elston, F. Fehsenfeld,

B.J. Finlayson-Pitts, R.C. Harriss, C.E. Kolb, Jr.,

P.J. Lioy, J.A. Logan, M.J. Prather, A. Russell, and

B. Steigerwald. Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and

Regional Air Pollution. National Research Council, Academy

of Sciences. Washington, DC. International Standard Book

Number 0-309-04631-9. 1992 500 pages.

7. Chameides, W.L., R.W. Lindsay, J. Richardson, and C.S.

Kiang. The Role of Biogenic Hydrocarbons in Urban

Photochemical Smog: Atlanta as a Case Study. Science. 

241:1473-1475. 1988. 

8. Carter, W.P.L. and R. Atkinson. An Experimental Study of

Incremental Hydrocarbon Reactivity. Environmental Science

and Technology. 21:670-679. 1987. 

9. Chameides, W.L., F. Fehsenfeld, M.O. Rodgers, C. Cardelino,

J. Martinez, D. Parrish, W. Lonneman, D.R. Lawson,

R.A. Rasmussen, P. Zimmerman, J. Greenberg, P. Middleton,

and T. Wang. Ozone Precursor Relationships in the Ambient

Atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research. 

97:6037-6055. April 1992. 

10. Milford, J.B., A.G. Russell, and G.J. McRae. A New Approach

to Photochemical Pollution Control: Implications of Spatial

Patterns in Pollutant Responses to Reductions in Nitrogen
2-190

Oxides and Reactive Organic Gas Emissions. Environmental

Science and Technology. 23:1290-1301. 1989. 

11. U.S. EPA. Regional Modeling for Northeast Transport

(ROMNET). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research

Triangle Park, NC. EPA-450/91-002a. 1991 

12. Cardelino C., D. Hartley, M.E. Chang, W.-L. Chang, D.

Haas-Laursen. Georgia Department of Natural Resources,

Emissions and Urban Airshed Modeling Issues for Atlanta,

Georgia, Final Report (GTRC Contract No. 771-390279). June

12, 1995. 

13. Cardelino, C. and W. Chameides. An Observation-Based Model

for Analyzing Ozone Precursor Relationships in the Urban

Atmosphere. Journal of the Air and Waste Management

Association. 45(3):161. 1995. 

14. Blanchard, C. and P.R. Roth. Spatial Mapping of Preferred

Strategies for Reducing Ambient Ozone Concentrations

Nationwide. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/R-94/199. June 

1994. 88 pages. 

15. Johnson, G.M. and S.M. Quigley. A Universal Monitor for

Photochemical Smog. Presented at the 82nd Air and Waste

Association Meeting and Exhibition. Anaheim, CA. Paper

89-29.8. 1989. 

16. Altschuller, A.P. and J.J. Bufalini. Photochemical Aspects

of Air Pollution: a Review. Environmental Science and

Technology. 5:39-64. 1971. 

17. U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related

Photochemical Oxidants. National Center for Environmental

Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711. EPA/600/P-63/004aF. July 1996. 433 pages.

18. Cox, W.M. and S. Chu. Meteorologically Adjusted Ozone

Trends in Urban Areas, a Probabilistic Approach. 

Atmospheric Environment. 27B:425-435. 1993. 

19. U.S. EPA. Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and

Analysis of Ozone Precursors. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment

Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/8-91/215,

NTIS # PB92122795. October 1991. 1991 (c)-(g)

20. U.S. EPA. User’s Guide for the Urban Airshed Model, Volume

I: User’s Manual for the UAM (CB-IV). U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-450/4-90-007A. 
2-191

1990a. 

21. Scheffe, R.D. and R.E. Morris. A Review of the Development

and Application of the Urban Airshed Model. Atmospheric

Environment. 27B:23-29. 1993. 

22. U.S. EPA. User’s Guide for the Urban Airshed Model, Volume

II: User’s Manual for the UAM (CB-IV) Modeling System. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

EPA-450/4-90-007B. 1990b.

23. U.S. EPA. User’s Guide for the Urban Airshed Model,

Volume III: User’s Manual for the Diagnostic Wind Model. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

EPA-450/4-90-007C. 1990c.

24. U.S. EPA. User’s Guide for the Urban Airshed Model,

Volume IV: User’s Manual for the Emissions Preprocessor

System 2.0. Part A: Core FORTRAN System. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC.

EPA-450/4-90-007D(R). 1992b 

25. Tesche, T.W., P.M. Roth, S.D. Reynolds, and F.W. Lurman. 

Scientific Assessment of the Urban Airshed Model (UAM-IV). 

Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute. Washington,

D.C. API Publication Number 4556. 1993.

26. Roth, P.M., C.L. Blanchard, and S.D. Reynolds. The Role of

Grid-Based, Reactive Air Quality Modeling in Policy

Analysis: Perspectives and Implications, as Drawn from a

Case Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory. 

Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/3-89/082. 1990.

27. U.S. EPA. Emission Inventory Improvement Program. Volume

IV. Mobile Sources. Preferred and Alternative Methods. Use

of Locality-Specific Transportation Data for the Development

of Mobile Source Emission Inventories. Research Triangle

Park, NC. EPA-454/R-97-004d. July 1997. 

28. Lewis, D. EPA Science: Casualty of Election Politics. 

Nature. 381:731-732. June 1996.
2-192

7(&+1,&$/ 5(3257 '$7$

3OHDVH UHDG ,QVWUXFWLRQV RQ UHYHUVH EHIRUH FRPSOHWLQJ

 5(3257 12   5(&,3,(17
6 $&&(66,21 12

(3$5

 7,7/( $1' 68%7,7/(  5(3257 '$7(

5HVSRQVH WR &RPPHQWV RQ 6HFWLRQ H 6WXG\ DQG

5HSRUW WR &RQJUHVV

$XJXVW 

 3(5)250,1* 25*$1,=$7,21 &2'(

 $87+256  3(5)250,1* 25*$1,=$7,21 5(3257 12

 3(5)250,1* 25*$1,=$7,21 1$0( $1' $''5(66  352*5$0 (/(0(17 12

86 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\

2IILFH RI $LU 4XDOLW\ 3ODQQLQJ DQG 6WDQGDUGV

(PLVVLRQ 6WDQGDUGV 'LYLVLRQ 0'

&RDWLQJV DQG &RQVXPHU 3URGXFWV *URXS

5HVHDUFK 7ULDQJOH 3DUN 1& 

 &2175$&7*5$17 12

 6321625,1* $*(1&< 1$0( $1' $''5(66  7<3( 2) 5(3257 $1' 3(5,2' &29(5('

86 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF\

2IILFH RI $LU 4XDOLW\ 3ODQQLQJ DQG 6WDQGDUGV )LQDO

(PLVVLRQ 6WDQGDUGV 'LYLVLRQ 0'

&RDWLQJV DQG &RQVXPHU 3URGXFWV *URXS

5HVHDUFK 7ULDQJOH 3DUN 1& 

 6321625,1* $*(1&< &2'(

 6833/(0(17$5< 127(6

 $%675$&7

$ VWXG\ DQG UHSRUW WR &RQJUHVV ZHUH FRPSOHWHG RQ 0DUFK   SXUVXDQW WR VHFWLRQ H RI WKH &OHDQ

$LU $FW 7KLV GRFXPHQW FRQWDLQV VXPPDULHV RI SXEOLF FRPPHQWV RQ WKH VWXG\ DQG UHSRUW DORQJ ZLWK (3$©V

UHVSRQVHV WR WKRVH FRPPHQWV

 .(< :25'6 $1' '2&80(17 $1$/<6,6

D '(6&5,37256 E ,'(17,),(5623(1 (1'(' 7(506 F &26$7, )LHOG*URXS

$LU 3ROOXWLRQ

9RODWLOH 2UJDQLF &RPSRXQGV

&RQVXPHU DQG &RPPHUFLDO 3URGXFWV

 ',675,%87,21 67$7(0(17  12 2) 3$*(6

5HOHDVH 8QOLPLWHG

 6(&85,7< &/$66 5HSRUW

8QFODVVLILHG 

 6(&85,7< &/$66 3DJH

8QFODVVLILHG

 35,&(

(3$ )RUP  5HY  35(9,286 (',7,21 ,6 2%62/(7(