STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

P. O. Box 2815

Sacramento, California 95812

September 13, 2010

ARB Staff Rule Review Results

To: Kevin J. Williams, Program Coordinator

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

Telephone Number: (916) 874-4851

e-mail: kjwilliams@airquality.org

From: Alex Krichevsky, (916) 324-6222

e-mail: akrichev@arb.ca.gov

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

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

Rule 101 General Provisions and Definitions

Rule 451 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products

Rule 459 Automotive, Mobile Equipment, and Associated Parts and

Components Coating Operations

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

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

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

and by the Monitoring and Laboratory Division.

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

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

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

the workshop.

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

above.
From: KEVIN J. WILLIAMS

Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 4:56 PM

To: David Yang

Cc: ALETA KENNARD

Subject: FW: EPA comment on Sacramento coating rules

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: Red Category

From: Steckel.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Steckel.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 12:46 PM

To: KEVIN J. WILLIAMS; mguzzett@arb.ca.gov

Cc: Law.Nicole@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: EPA comment on Sacramento coating rules

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

September 09, 2010

Transmittal of EPA Rule Review Comments

To: Kevin Williams, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

kjwilliams@airquality.org

Mike Guzzetta, California Air Resources Board

mguzzett@arb.ca.gov

From: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief

steckel.andrew@epa.gov

Re: SMAQMD Rule 101, General Provisions and Definitions; Rule 451, Surface Coatings of

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products; and Rule 459, Automotive, Mobile Equipment, and

Associated Parts and Components Coating Operations; drafts dated August 16, 2010

We are providing comments based on our preliminary review of the draft rules identified above. Please

direct any questions in this regard to me at (415) 947-4115 or to Nicole Law at (415) 947-4126.

Rule 101 and Rule 451

We have no comments at this time.
Rule 459

In sections 504.2 and 504.3, please include the full title and date of the ASTM methods being specified.
Lyondell Chemical 

3801 West Chester Pike 

Newtown Square, PA 19073 

USA 

dan.pourreau@lyondellbasell.com 

Tel +1 610-359-2411 

Cell +1 610-212-9592 

Fax +1-610-359-2328 

lyondellbasell.com 

August 31, 2010 

David Yang 

Air Quality Engineer 

Rule Development 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916) 874-4847 

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

Dear Mr. Yang, 

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

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

459 and the staff report for these rules. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

information. 

 

 Sincerely, 

 

 

 Daniel B. Pourreau, Ph.D. 

cc: Kevin Williams 
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS. 

Automotive Finishes 

Sherwin-Williams Automotive Finishes 

4440 Warrensville Center Road 

Warrensville Heights, OH 44128 

September 10, 2010 

David Yang 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 

777 12th Street, 3

rd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Re: Comments to proposed rule 459 

Dear Mr. Yang, 

Sherwin-Williams Automotive Finishes supports any reasonable action that will result in 

a measurable benefit to human health and the environment. The following are our 

questions, comments and suggestions to the proposed changes to Rule 459. Thank you 

for the opportunity to comment and we hope you will consider our points. 

Addition of Trunk Interior Coating Category is Unnecessary. 

Sherwin-Williams Automotive Finishes believes the addition of the category "Trunk 

Interior Coating" is unnecessary. We are unaware of any coatings currently being 

marketed that would meet this limited definition. Furthermore this type of application is 

covered by multiple categories such as "Underbody Coating", "Single-Stage Coating", or 

"Color Coat". 

In addition to the redundancy of the category, no other California Air District has added 

or considered adding "Trunk Interior Coating" to the category list making the proposal 

different from the other Mobile Equipment Refinishing rules. One of the main goals of 

the Air Resources Board's Suggested Control Measure was to harmonize the district 

rules making it easier for the coatings companies to do business in the State. 
Because of its redundancy to other categories and it not being included in other district 

rules we recommend that the "Trunk Interior Coating" category be removed from the 

proposal. 

VOC Limit for Solvent Cleaning Operations Needs to be Raised 

The 25-gram per liter limit while technically feasible through the use of acetone or other 

exempt solvents does not result in a very good product. The surface cleaning of a 

vehicle prior to being painted may be the most important step of the process. Surface 

dirt and oil can create adhesion problems, fish eyes, orange peel, or other negative 

effect resulting in an unacceptable finished product. This may require the paint job to be 

redone; releasing excess VOC into the atmosphere that could have been avoided if 

cleaning had been successful. 

While washing a vehicle with soap and water will remove most of the dirt and watersoluble contaminants it does not remove grease and oil. To properly remove grease and 

oil slow evaporating solvents like V. M. & P. Naphtha work best. To work properly as a 

surface cleaner the solvent needs to be able to "wet" the contaminant and not evaporate 

before the solvent and contaminant can be wiped away. While acetone works well at 

wetting a contaminant it evaporates too quickly redepositing the contaminant on the 

vehicle. 

We requests that the limit for solvent cleaning be increased to 160-grams per liter. This 

will allow for cleaning to be properly done possibly resulting in a greater reduction of 

VOC emissions from paint jobs needing to be redone. 

The 25-gram per liter limit on gun and equipment cleaners went into effect on July 1, 

2005 in the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Most formulations at this VOC 

level are made of acetone and glycol ethers and do not work very well. When a spray 

gun is not properly cleaned it will wear out quicker and acetone has a tendency to 

compromise the integrity of the spray gun's valves and seals. Replacement parts are 

fairly inexpensive but a new spray gun has a price range of $100 to $500 depending on 

brand and quality. 
We request the limit on gun and equipment cleaners also be set 160 grams per liter. 

This will allow or the proper cleaning of applications equipment and eliminate the 

expense of frequent replacements. We believe the actual emitted VOC of gun and 

equipment cleaners will be very low since shops are required to carry out gun and 

equipment cleaning operations in a closed system. 

Wording of Prohibition of Possession Should be Amended so it only Affects End Users. 

As currently drafted the third sentence of section 309, "Any person shall not possess at 

any physical location within the District any containers containing coating removers or 

solvents that are not in compliance with Sections 310 or 311 as applicable" could be 

enforced against wholesalers and retailers who are merely warehousing the product 

inside the district for sale and use outside the district. For this reason we recommend 

adding the phrase "This section shall apply only to the end users of coatings material" at 

the end of the section. 

Administrative Requirements Surrounding the use of Tertiary Butyl Acetate are Onerous, 

Duplicative, and Serve no Regulatory Purpose. 

The requirements of 402.1 f. and 402.2 f. are unnecessary for determining compliance 

as the data necessary is included in 402.1 d. and 402.2 d. Furthermore this is an added 

requirement to the SCM and other California District Rules. If an inspector has a need to 

know the exact amount of Tertiary Butyl Acetate in a coating they can refer to the 

Material Safety Data Sheet. For these reasons we request the requirements of 402.1 f. 

and 402.2 f. be removed. 

The requirement of section 403 for the labels to contain the actual content of tertiary 

butyl acetate is outside of National product labeling requirements and different from any 

other district in California. This requirement is impractical as it would require us to label 

products differently in the Sacramento market from anywhere else in the country adding 

significant cost and complication to our operations. There is not a compelling reason for 

requiring this as the tertiary butyl acetate content can be found on the product material 
safety data sheet. For these reasons we request that the labeling requirements for 

tertiary butyl acetate be removed from section 403. 

The record keeping requirements of section 502.6 d. are overly burdensome to end 

users. The decision to use tertiary butyl acetate in a coating is made by the research 

and development teams at the coatings companies. The end user does not have a 

ready means of gathering or reporting whether the coatings they are using contains 

tertiary butyl acetate nor do they have a reason to care. The end user only concern 

should be whether the coating complies and if it works for the job currently being done. 

We request the record keeping requirements specific to tertiary butyl acetate be 

removed. 

Section 403 Labeling Requirements Needs to be Redrafted to Eliminate Confusion. 

In other districts there has been some confusion by end users and regulators as to how 

a label can comply with this provision. To eliminate this confusion we recommend that 

Section 403 be redrafted to state that the coatings container be labeled with the 

applicable use category but the coatings components do not need to be labeled. The 

coatings components, such as reducers and hardeners, are designed to be used in 

multiple coatings. This allows the shop to carry fewer products making the system easier 

to use. Also these components are not coatings as packaged and do not become part of 

the coating until mixed. For these reasons we request Section 403 be redrafted to 

eliminate confusion. 

Section 502.6 a Monthly Purchase Records Requirement to Identify Coating Type 

Creates an Unnecessary Burden. 

The invoices and packing slips provided to the end user do not include the applicable 

use category. To add this to the invoice or packing slip would require significant 

changes to our ERP, Accounting, and point of sales systems at a tremendous cost. It is 

unreasonable to expect the distributors of automotive coatings to make this investment 

in their systems or to expect the end user to manually enter the use categories on their 

own. We request that the requirement of categorizing purchase records be removed. 
Conclusion 

Sherwin-Williams Automotive Finishes appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 

proposed changes to rule 459. While we support the overall intent of the rule adopting 

the Air Resource Board Suggested Control Measure we believe there are some changes 

that need to be made to make the rule easier to comply with and still meet the intent. 

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. If you have any questions or need 

clarification please let me know. 

Sincerely, 

Michael A. Veney, J.D. 

Regulatory Affairs Manager 

Sherwin-Williams Automotive Finishes 

(216) 332-8528 

maveney@sherwin.com 
AkzoNobel 1845 MaxwellT+1 248-637-8532 

Car Refinishes, NA Troy, MI F+1 248-649-3584 

Regulatory Affairs USA www. a kzonobel. com 

48084 

AkzoNobel 

Tomorrow's Answers Today 

David Yang 

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Sent via email to: dyang airquality.orq 

September 16, 2010 

Re: Comments to proposed rule 459 and 101 

Dear Mr. Yang, 

AkzoNobel Car Refinishes, NA (AkzoNobel) supports the comments made by Mr. Michael 

Veney, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Sherwin-Williams Automotive Finishes (dated September 

10, 2010), regarding the proposed changes to Rule 459. Specifically, we are writing this letter 

to emphasize and follow up on the Sherwin Williams comments related to Sections 309 and 

502.6. 

Section 309, Prohibition of Possession 

Specifically, Section 309 should be modified to make it clear that this prohibition does not apply 

to wholesalers, retailers or other distributors. 

Section 502.6, Purchase and Usage Records 

The requirements of Section 502.6 are overly burdensome and do not provide any additional 

benefit the environment. It is important to note that the Section 502.6a requirements that 

purchase records show the coating type would involve significant changes to the enterprise 

management systems used by manufacturers or wholesalers to create invoices and shipping 

documents with this additional information. Further, since there is no regulation limiting the 

amount of material in a given coating category that can be purchased by a facility, there is no 

valid reason to require this information. 

Section 502.6c should not include a requirement to record that a non-compliant coating was not 

used in a given day. If the requirement is to record the amount used daily, no entry on a given 

day should be sufficient to indicate that none was used. It is duplicative, unnecessary and 

overly burdensome to require the affirmation of a negative assertion. 

Regarding 502.6d, there also is no need for there to be any record keeping requirements 

related to the tertiary butyl acetate (TBAC) content of coatings used. The MSDS for the 

coatings will identify whether or not this compound is present in the products. There are other 

more efficient and suitable methods for determining the amount of the chemical used in a given 

time period if needed. However, AkzoNobel questions why this chemical, considered VOC 

exempt for purposes of this rule, should be treated differently than other similarly exempt 

chemicals. 
AkzoNobel 

In addition to the comments provided by Sherwin Williams, AkzoNobel offers comments 

regarding two additional issues — the use of aerosol cleaners and the status of tertiary butyl 

acetate as a VOC exempt solvent. 

The use of aerosol cleaners 

Both the South Coast AQMD and Yolo-Solano AQMD allow the use of aerosol surface 

cleaners, up to 160 fluid ounces per day. Therefore, AkzoNobel requests that this limited use 

of aerosol surface cleaners be adopted in Rule 459. As stated in Sherwin Williams' comments, 

the effectiveness of the surface cleaner is a key factor in the quality of the finished repair. 

Shops must be able to clean the substrate to remove all potential contaminants. Allowing the 

use of aerosol cleaners will eliminate the need to redo the repair and avoids the use of 

additional VOC containing materials/coatings. 

The status of tertiary butyl acetate as a VOC exempt solvent 

In section 268 of the proposal, tert-butyl acetate is not considered a VOC when contained in an 

automotive coating or automotive coating material. TBAC has been fully exempted as a VOC 

by the U.S. EPA and in the following California Air Pollution Control Districts: San Joaquin, 

Santa Barbara, Yolo-Solano APCD. 

AkzoNobel suggests that the exemption for TBAC should be moved from Rule 459 Section 268 

to Rule 101 Section 204 in order to clarify that the TBAC is VOC exempt and would eliminate 

the need for any futher tracking of use. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to Rules 459 and 101. 

If you have any questions, need clarification, or wish to discuss this further, please contact me 

at the phone number or email address provided below. 

Sincerely, 

la-crAL-c) 

Diane Nash 

Manager, Regulatory Affairs 

AkzoNobel Car Refinishes, NA 

(248) 637-8532 

diane.nash@akzonobel.com 
PPG INDUSTRIES

Automotive and Fleet Finishes

3800 West 143 rd Street, Cleveland, OH 44111

216 671-7152 Fax 216 671-7691 

E-Mail: mkoss@ppg.com

MIKE KOSS

MANAGER, REGULATORY AFFAIRS

AUTOMOTIVE,FLEET, & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FINISHES

September 16, 2010

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Attention: David Yang

Phone: (916) 874-4847

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

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

PARTS AND COMPONENTS COATING OPERATIONS

Mr. Yang:

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

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

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

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

the following definition under section 238:

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

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

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

and corrosion resistance or adhesion of subsequent coatings...

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

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

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

product that meets the same customer performance requirements:

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

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

a primer.

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

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

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

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

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

both coating types is 3.5 lbs/gal.

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

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

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

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

INTERIOR COATING.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

listing TBAC content again on the product label.

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

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

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

and labels is an unneeded, redundant requirement .

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

requirement for product data sheets is sufficient.

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

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

equipment of 25 g/L.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

minimizing their evaporation to the atmosphere is used.”

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

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

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


1 of 3

Performance Coatings

September 17, 2010

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Attention: David Yang (916) 874-4847.

RE: Proposed Revised Rules 101, 451, and 459

Dear Mr. Yang,

DuPont Performance Coatings submits the following comments to the District for

consideration in the revision of the rules referenced above.

Proposed Revised Rule 101: General Provisions and Definitions

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

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

Core Value.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

affordable exempt solvents for use in the industry.

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

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

Barley Mill Plaza 21

P O Box 80021

Wilmington, DE 19880-0021
2 of 3

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

Products

There is inconsistency between the definitions of Pretreatment Wash Primer in

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

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

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

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

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

desired product attributes.

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

parts and Components Coating Operations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in a disposable can for hand-held application.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

less than an entire panel.

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

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

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

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

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

Category only serves to complicate labeling requirements for manufacturers.

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

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

outside of the District.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

propose an allowance for the use of higher VOC material with a volume

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

308.5.

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

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

suggestions.

Sincerely,

Emily L Taylor

Product Stewardship Consultant

DuPont Performance Coatings
Performance Coatings

DuPont Performance Coatings - Refinish

4417 Lancaster Pike

Barley Mill Plaza, 21/1174

Wilmington, DE 19880-0021

January 11, 2011

David Yang

SMAQMD

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Yang,

On behalf of DuPont Performance Coatings – Refinish, we would like to provide

comment to the proposed revisions to Rule 459: Automotive, Mobile

Equipment, and Associated Parts and Components Coating Operations.

We recognize the draft revisions to be the District’s initiative to bring Rule 459 in

line with the CARB SCM for Refinish Coatings. With the exception of the items

discussed below, we generally support the draft as it stands today.

DEFINITIONS

The new definition for Spot Repair included in the current draft is spacially

limiting, and does not take into consideration the variety of vehicles requiring this

process. The Rule is applicable to many types of vehicles and mobile

equipment...some larger than others. We believe that the definition of spot repair

as stated in the BAAQMD’s Rule 45 provides a better description of the actual

process:

8-45-236 Spot Repair: Repair of an area on a motor vehicle, piece of mobile equipment, or

associated parts or components of less than an entire panel

We would request that the Sac Metro District include this definition of Spot Repair

in Rule 459.

SOLVENT CLEANING OPERATIONS AND STORAGE REQUIREMENTS

We are prepared to comply with the District’s reduction in VOC content for

general cleaning operations to 25 g/L. However, we would request that the

District consider the legitimate need for a higher VOC limit for more challenging

cleaning tasks, such as the removal of road tar, grease and bugs.

As you may know, a move to lower VOC content for color coating has initiated a

switch to waterborne coatings from solvent borne coatings for that coating

category. What you may not be aware of is the additional requirements for
– 2 – October 5, 2011

surface cleanliness that this technology demands. Prepared surfaces must be

clean and absolutely oil-free, as every bit of oil-based contamination landing on

the wet film will cause large paint surface craters requiring repainting. The result

of the contamination is often not apparent until the color coat has been applied.

Failure to achieve a sufficiently clean surface prior to application of the first coats

of paint can result in the need to re-do the entire job, resulting in the use of more

material and the emission of additional VOCs. To avoid this, proper cleaning is

essential. Low VOC cleaning solvents are not effective in the removal of this

initial contamination, i.e., road tar, grease and bugs. A higher VOC containing

product is indicated, and would require the use of a lower volume of product to

do the job effectively.

The BAAQMD recognized this need, and included volume use restrictions on

higher VOC containing cleaners for specific cleaning processes, i.e., BAAQMD

Rule 8-45-308.5:

Usage of solvent used as bug and tar remover is limited as follows:

a. 20 gallons in any consecutive 12-month period for facilities and

operations with 400 gallons or more of coating usage per year;

b. 15 gallons in any consecutive 12-month period for facilities and

operations with 150 gallons or more of coating usage per year; and

c. 10 gallons in any consecutive 12-month period for facilities and

operations with less than 150 gallons of coating usage per year.

(Amended 11/2/94; 12/3/08)

As our cleaning products are not targeted to the consumer segment, and are

designed for industrial use by trained professional painters, we would request

that they remain distinct in their regulation. As opposed to applying the

consumer product limit, we would request that the District consider a volume use

restriction for this higher VOC material in line with that implemented in the Bay

Area.

PRODUCT DATA SHEET; LABELING REQUIREMENTS; PURCHASE AND

USAGE RECORDS

Based on earlier implementation of revised rules, manufacturers have made

required changes to product labels and data sheets at a relatively significant cost.

The labeling and product data sheet requirements spelled out in this proposed

revision would require additional changes, at additional costs.

Consider that for a coatings manufacturer supplying materials into the state of

California, implementation of the proposed requirement for the specific labeling of

product containing TBAc would mean that there would need to be a specific label

and a specific data sheet created for the SacMetro District to meet the

compliance requirement six months after the rule’s adoption. Consider also that

this same manufacturer would now have to create a supply chain management

process to segregate materials destined for SacMetro from other materials
– 3 – October 5, 2011

entering California. As many manufacturers utilize a distribution network, we

may not have direct knowledge of all products entering the District. (Some major

distributors use ‘hubs’ to which we ship material).

Product labels we produce include a listing of product components. If any

material is included in a product at 1% or greater (or 0.1%, if considered a

carcinogen), that component is listed. Further, product material safety data

sheets are available at distribution points, via our Performance Coatings Portal,

or through a telephone call to 1-800-3-DUPONT.

Consider that a product label is a secondary hazard communications document,

and should alert product end-users to the presence of a known hazard, along

with a recommendation to reduce exposure to that hazard. Aside from listing

the component as an ingredient in the product what value is added by the

inclusion of this information? Product labels are overcrowded as they currently

exist. The primary source of hazard communication information to the end-user is

not the product label or product data sheet, but is the product Material Safety

Data Sheet. The District should consult these documents for concentration levels

of TBAc.

Further, to pass this tracking requirement on to product end-users (Section

502.6) is unnecessarily burdensome. Collectively, these seem to be extreme

measures to track the amount of TBAc in products. If the District is interested in

tracking the disclosable amount of TBAc in products, why not conduct a survey

with product manufacturers?

We extend our gratitude in advance for your consideration of these comments,

and look forward to continuing to work with the District on this rule development.

Kind regards,

Emily L Taylor

US Reg/PS Consultant

DuPont Performance Coatings
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

P. O. Box 2815

Sacramento, California 95812

August 16, 2011

ARB Staff Rule Review Results

To: Kevin J. Williams, Program Coordinator

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

Telephone Number: (916) 874-4851

e-mail: kjwilliams@airquality.org

From: Alex Krichevsky, (916) 324-6222

e-mail: akrichev@arb.ca.gov

The following proposed rule, which is scheduled for a public hearing to be held by your

District Board on August 25, 2011, was received by us on July 25, 2011, for our review:

Rule 459 Automotive, Truck and Heavy Equipment Refinishing Operations

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

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

The rule was examined by the Stationary Source Division, and by the Monitoring and

Laboratory Division.

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

above.
Lyondell Chemical

3801 West Chester Pike

Newtown Square, PA 19073

USA

dan.pourreau@lyondellbasell.com

Tel +1 610-359-2411

Cell +1 610-212-9592

Fax +1-610-359-2328

lyondellbasell.com

August 15, 2011

David Yang 

Air Quality Engineer

Rule Development 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 874-4847

Re: Comments on Proposed Amended Rule 459 and Staff Report.

Dear Mr. Yang,

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

Company (Lyondell) is pleased to provide the following comments on Proposed Amended 

Rule (PAR) 459 and the staff report for this rule. 

Lyondell supports the exemption of TBAC in rule 459 for automotive coatings, including 

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

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

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

automotive cleaning applications and for facilities that do not have a spray booth because 

the risk assessment conducted by staff is based on an “interim” cancer risk factor that has 

not been sanctioned by California’s Scientific Review Panel and is not relevant to human 

risk assessment. 

The “interim” cancer risk factor for TBAC SMAQMD staff used to estimate a cancer risk to 

humans was first proposed in 2000 by OEHHA staff and is based on another “interim” risk 

factor for its metabolite tert-butanol (TBA). This risk factor is based on an endpoint (male 

rat kidney tumors) that is caused by two non-genotoxic modes of action (alpha-2u globulin 

and chronic progressive nephropathies) that do not exist in humans. This is the 

conclusion of no less than six independent panels of toxicologists convened by NSF 

International (20031 and 2005)2, API (2005),3 TERA (2009),4 EPA OPPTS (2009),5 and 

PWG (2010).6 Dr. James S. Felton, an expert on genotoxicity and carcinogenicity and 

 

1 NSF International (2003) TBA - Oral risk Assessment - Executive Summary

2 NSF International (2005) TBAC - Oral risk Assessment 

3

Shipp, AM., McDonald, T., Vanlandingham, C., 2005. Hazard Narrative for Tertiary-Butyl Alcohol (TBA) CAS 

Number 75–65–0, API Publication 4743.

4 TERA (2009) Independent Peer Consultation for TBAC Assessment

5

http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvis/hazchar/75-65-0_t%20butyl%20alcohol_December2009.pdf

6 Hard, G., Cohen, S., Regan, K., Pletcher, J., Bruner, R. (2010). Pathology Working Group Review of Selected 

Histopathologic Changes in the Kidneys of Rats Assigned to Toxicology and Carcinogenicity Studies of t-Butyl 

Alcohol in F344/N Rats NTP Study No. 05142-03.
Page 2 of 2

former member of California’s Cancer Identification Committee (CIC), also recently 

weighed in on this issue7 and agreed with the other panel’s conclusions. There is now a

clear scientific consensus that neither TBA not TBAC are genotoxic nor potential human 

carcinogens. 

Furthermore, OEHHA has still not proposed to list either compound as TACs or 

Proposition 65 carcinogens in the 16 years since the publication of the chronic TBA study 

conducted by NTP in 1995. Nor has OEHHA staff asked the Scientific Review Panel to 

review and sanction their risk assessment and factors for TBA or TBAC as is required for 

listing new TACs. Finally, not one regulatory agency or authoritative body has listed TBA 

or TBAC as potential human carcinogens. It is, therefore, unnecessarily costly and 

counterproductive to continue to regulate TBAC as if it were a carcinogen when it clearly 

is not. 

In addition, banning the use of TBAC for surface preparation almost guarantees that 

acetone-based cleaners will be used instead. This will greatly increase flammability risks 

in autobody shops since the flash point of acetone is 40 degrees lower than that of TBAC

and many solvents in use today. TBAC is also a much better degreaser than acetone8

and it produces half as much ozone when emitted.

9

 Therefore, less TBAC would be used 

to clean surfaces resulting in lower emissions and less ozone produced from those 

emissions. Continuing to limit the exemption of TBAC is not health protective and places 

workers at greater risk of serious injury and death. It also would result in greater solvent 

emissions and higher ozone levels than if it is exempted.

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

automotive surface cleaning activities and facilities that do not have a spray booth. This 

will greatly reduce the flammability risks and emissions from cleaning and gun-flushing 

with acetone-based cleaners. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this

important rule. 

Sincerely,

Daniel B. Pourreau, Ph.D.

cc: Kevin Williams.

 

7 Report and Letter from Dr. James S. Felton to Dr. George Alexeeff, OEHHA Interim Director, May 10, 2011.

8

Process Cleaning Magazine, Tertiary Butyl Acetate (TBAC): A Technical Overview and Regulatory Update of the 

latest VOC-Exempt Solvent, D. Pourreau, Jan/Feb 2006 issue.

9 TBAC MIR = 0.17 g O3/g vs. Acetone MIR = 0.35 g O3/g. SAPRC 2007, W. P. L. Carter.
Agenda Item #12

1

Staff Responses to Written Comments from Lyondell Chemical Company

(August 15, 2011)

Comment #1 Lyondell supports the exemption of tertiary butyl acetate (TBAc) in Rule

459 for automotive coatings, including thinners and reducers.

Staff Response: Thank you for your support of this proposed exemption.

Comment #2 We request that TBAc be exempted for automotive cleaning applications

and for facilities that do not have a spray booth because the risk

assessment conducted by Staff is based on an “interim” cancer risk factor

that has not been sanctioned by California’s Scientific Review Panel and

is not relevant to human risk assessment.

Staff Response: Staff relied on the published toxicity evaluations from experts Office of

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and California Air

Resources Board (CARB). OEHHA determined that TBAc may be a

potential carcinogen and has derived an interim cancer risk factor to help

assess the human health impacts. OEHHA continues to maintain that

sufficient evidence has not been presented to show that the tumors

produced in the rodent tumor studies are not relevant to humans.

CARB used the interim factor when evaluating the potential impacts of

using TBAc in specific applications, as documented in the Environmental

Impact Assessment of Tertiary Butyl Acetate. CARB also used this factor

to determine the potential cancer risk at nearby receptors if TBAc was

exempt from automotive coating operations. Staff followed a similar

methodology to analyze the potential impacts of TBAc in Rule 459 and

set restrictions to minimize the adverse impacts. Staff is not proposing

changes to the limited exemption for TBAc.

Comment #3 The “interim” cancer risk factor for TBAc which was used to estimate a

cancer risk to human was proposed by OEHHA in 2000 and is based on

another “interim” risk factor for tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA). The risk factor

is based on an endpoint that is caused by two non-genotoxic modes of

action that do not exist in humans. This is a conclusion of no less than

six independent panels of toxicologists. Recently, an expert on

genotoxicity and carcinogenicity weighed in on this issue and agreed with

the other panel’s conclusions. There is now a clear scientific consensus

that neither TBA nor TBAc are genotoxic nor potential human

carcinogens.

Staff Response: See Staff’s response to comment #2. Staff has contacted OEHHA

regarding the conclusions of these panels. According to OEHHA staff,

these panels have not provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that

the rodent tumor studies are not relevant to humans. Therefore, OEHHA

still considers TBAc to be a potential carcinogen.
Agenda Item #12

2

Comment #4 OEHHA has not proposed to list either compound as TACs or Proposition

65 carcinogens and has not ask the Scientific Review Panel to review

and sanction their risk assessment and factors for TBA or TBAc. Not one

regulatory agency or authoritative body has listed TBA or TBAc as

potential human carcinogens.

Staff Response: The process for determining whether a substance should be listed as a

TAC is initiated by CARB. In addition to cancer risk factors and other

health effects, the evaluation includes an assessment of exposure of the

public to the substance. The California Scientific Review Panel on Toxic

Air Contaminants provides peer review of this process. The

determination process often takes several years to complete.

State law requires potential TACs to be prioritized. Because TBAc is not

used in great quantities in California, its priority has been lower than

other, higher use substances to which the public has greater exposure.

Because of limited state resources, few substances have been evaluated

in recent years for listing as TACs, the last two being secondhand

tobacco smoke and diesel particulate.

Comment #5 Banning the use of TBAc for surface preparation almost guarantees that

acetone-based cleaners will be used instead. This will greatly increase

flammability risks in autobody shops.

Staff Response: Staff has not proposed to exempt TBAc as a VOC when used as a

cleanup solvent because cleaning operations are usually performed in

open areas and not within a spray booth. Staff performed a health risk

assessment and determined that emissions of TBAc used outside of a

spray booth will likely exceed the District’s acceptable cancer risk

threshold of 10 in a million.

Surface preparation and cleaning products that meet the proposed limit of

25 g/l VOC grams are not limited to cleaners with high acetone content.

Other cleaning products are available that contain as much as 90% water,

mixed with acetone and other additives, or water mixed with additives that

contain no acetone at all. These products have been recommended by

coating manufacturers as effective wax, oil and grease removers.

Surface preparation and cleaning materials for automotive refinishing are

already required to meet the proposed limit of 25 g/l VOC, without a TBAc

exemption, in several districts, including Bay Area, Imperial County, San

Diego County, San Luis Obispo County, and South Coast. Nonetheless,

some autobody shops will use acetone to comply with the proposed limit.

Staff has reviewed the flammability issues regarding the increased use of

acetone1. Acetone has the same flammability rating (National Fire

Protection Agency rating of 3) as TBAc and conventional solvents that it

would replace (toluene, xylene, isopropanol alcohol, and butyl acetate).

Acetone has a lower flashpoint when compared to other solvents;

1

Final Environmental Impact Report for the Sacramento Regional Non-Attainment Area 8-Hour Ozone

Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, SMAQMD, December 2008, p. 3-49 – 3-51.
Agenda Item #12

3

however, acetone vapors cannot cause an explosion unless the vapor

concentration exceeds 26,000 ppm2. Operating under guidelines of

working with flammable materials in well-ventilated areas, as prescribed

by the fire department codes, it would be difficult to achieve such

concentrated streams of acetone vapors. Therefore, reformulating with

acetone is not expected to increase explosion hazards compared to other

solvents, including TBAc.

Comment #6 TBAc is a much better degreaser than acetone and it produces half as

much ozone when emitted.

Staff Response: Both TBAc and acetone were added to EPA’s list of exempt compounds

because EPA determined that they meet the criteria for compounds that

negligibly contribute to the formation of ozone. For a discussion of

available degreasing products, see Staff’s response to Comment #5.

2

“Material Safety Data Sheet for Acetone”, Sciencelab.com, Inc., November 1, 2010.
lyondellbasell 

III II 

August 25, 2011 

Board of Directors 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

777.12th Street, 3rd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Re: Lyondell Comments on Proposed Amended Rule 459 and Staff Report, 

Dear Board Members, 

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

Company (Lyondell) is pleased to provide the following comments on Proposed Amended 

Rule (PAR) 459 and the staff report for this rule. 

Lyondell supports the exemption of TBAC in rule 459 for automotive, mobile equipment, 

and associated parts and components coating operations. VOC-exempt TBAC is used 

safely in low-VOC automotive coatings and cleaners in 49 states and over 25 California 

counties, including adjoining Placer, Yolo, Solano, and San Joaquin Counties. 

TBAC is not a Toxic Air Contaminant or Prop 65 listed chemical. It is also not on any list 

of toxics nationwide or in Canada where it also VOC exempt. Therefore, Lyondell 

requests that the AQMD remove the prohibition of use of TBAC for surface preparation 

and for coatings applied outside a spray booth since it is clear that TBAC does not pose a 

heath risk to humans especially when standard industrial hygiene practices are followed, 

as they are in this industry. 

The risk assessment for TBAC which is included in the staff report is based on an 

"interim" and precautionary risk factor proposed by OEHHA in 2000 before many of the 

toxicological studies were conducted. This risk factor was never sanctioned by 

California's Scientific Review Panel and has now been shown to be based on a rodent 

endpoint that does not exist in humans. This is the conclusion of no less than six 

independent panels of toxicologists convened by NSF International (20031 and 2005)2

, 

API (2005),3 TERA (2009),4 EPA OPPTS (2009),5 and PWG (2010). This is also the 

expert opinion? of Dr. James S. Felton, an expert on genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, and 

NSF International (2003) TBA - Oral risk Assessment - Executive Summary 

2 NSF International (2005) TBAC - Oral risk Assessment 

3 Shipp, AM., McDonald, T., Vanlandingham, C., 2005. Hazard Narrative for Tertiary-Butyl Alcohol (TBA) CAS 

Number 75-65-0, API Publication 4743. 

4 TERA (2009) Independent Peer Consultation for TBAC Assessment 

5 http://www.epa.govichernrtk/hpvis/hazchar/75-65-0 t%20butyl%20alcohol December2009.pdf 

6 Hard, G., Cohen, S., Regan, K., Pletcher, J., Bruner, R. (2010). Pathology Working Group Review of Selected 

Histopathologic Changes in the Kidneys of Rats Assigned to Toxicology and Carcinogenicity Studies of t-Butyl 

Alcohol in F344/N Rats NTP Study No. 05142-03. 

7 Report and Letter from Dr. James S. Felton to Dr. George Alexeeff, OEHHA Interim Director, May 10,2011. 

Lyondell Chemical Tel +1 610-359-2411 

3801 West Chester Pike Cell +1 610-212-9592 

Newtown Square, PA 19073 Fax +1-610-359-2328 

USA lyondellbasell.com 

dan.pourreaugyondellbasell.com 
a former member of California's Cancer Identification Committee (CIC). There is now a 

clear scientific consensus that TBAC is neither toxic nor a potential human carcinogen. 

Therefore, it is unnecessarily costly and counterproductive to regulate TBAC as if it were 

toxic when it clearly is not. 

In addition, prohibiting the use of TBAC for surface preparation and in facilities that do not 

have a spray booth almost guarantees that acetone-based cleaners will be used instead. 

This will greatly increase the flammability risks in autobody shops since the flash point of 

acetone is 40 degrees lower than that of TBAC and many solvents in use today. It will 

also place small businesses at a competitive disadvantage and expose their workers to 

greater flammability risks than those working for larger businesses that can afford spray 

booths. Therefore, prohibiting the use of TBAC in these operations and facilities is not 

health protective and places workers at greater risk of serious injury and death. 

In summary, Lyondell respectfully requests that the Board approve the exemption of 

TBAC in rule 459 and remove the prohibition of use for surface preparation and for 

facilities that do not have a spray booth. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on 

this important rule. 

Sincerely, 

Daniel B. Pourreau, Ph.D. 

Page 2 of 2 
0 

6

6.0• AmericanCoatings 

see • 

August 15, 2011 

David Yang 

Air Quality Engineer 

Rule Development 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916) 874-4847 

SACRAMENTO 

M

EMOP0LITAN 

AUG 2 4 2011 

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT 

DISTRICT 

Re: Comments on Proposed Amended Rule 459 and Staff Report. 

Dear Mr. Yang, 

The American Coatings Association (ACA), as the pre-eminent trade association representing the paint 

and coatings industry in the United States, is pleased to provide the following comments on Proposed 

Amended Rule (PAR) 459 and the staff report for this rule. 

ACA supports the exemption of TBAC in rule 459 for automotive coatings, including 

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

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

and San Joaquin Counties. 

ACA also respectfully asserts that TBAC should be exempted as a solvent for automotive refinish 

cleaning applications and for use in facilities that do not have a spray booth. ACA takes issue with the 

validity of the risk assessment cited in the proposed rule seeking further restrictions, as it has not been 

adequately and independently reviewed, and runs counter to other published cancer risk assessments 

that have concluded TBAC and/or its metabolites do not present a cancer or mutagenicity risk. 

In addition to the widespread safe use of TBAC in automotive refinish operations, banning its use for 

surface preparation would invariably require the use of acetone-based cleaners instead. This will greatly 

increase flammability risks in autobody shops since the flash point of acetone is 40 degrees lower than 

that of TBAC and many solvents in use today. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important rule. 

Sincerely, 

John Hopewell 

Asst. Director, Environmental Affairs 

1500 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W. • WASHINGTON, DC 20005 • T 202.462.6272 • F 202.462.8.549 • www.paintorg 
From: KEVIN J. WILLIAMS

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:56 PM

To: ALETA KENNARD; David Yang

Subject: FW: EPA comments on Sacramento 459

From: Steckel.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Steckel.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:44 PM

To: KEVIN J. WILLIAMS; mguzzett@arb.ca.gov

Cc: Borgia.Adrianne@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: EPA comments on Sacramento 459

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

August 24, 2011

Transmittal of EPA Rule Review Comments

To: Kevin Williams, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

kjwilliams@airquality.org

Mike Guzzetta, California Air Resources Board

mguzzett@arb.ca.gov

From: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief

steckel.andrew@epa.gov

Re: Rule 459, (Automotive Mobile Equipment and Associated Parts and Components), draft dated 7-

25-11

We are providing comments based on our preliminary review of the draft rule identified above. If the

potential approvability issues are adequately addressed before submittal of this rule to EPA, we would

likely propose to approve the rule as a SIP revision. Please direct any questions in this regard to me at

(415) 947-4115 or to Adrianne Borgia at (415) 972-3576.

Potential Approvability Issues

1. In Section 301.2, The VOC limit for pretreatment coating of 780 g/l is less stringent than the limit

of 660 g/l in the CARB SCM for Automotive Coatings (approved October 20, 2005)

2. In Section 301.2, The VOC limit for underbody coating of 540 g/l is less stringent than the limit of

430 g/l in the SCM.

3. LVLP spray equipment is not listed as approved application equipment in the SCM, although the

SCM does discuss procedures to approve alternative methods.
4. The list of material required in Section 502.2 is less stringent than the SCM, which requires the

records be maintained and available "at all times, on site." Although Section 502.4 requires a

Product Data Sheet be kept on site, the Product Data Sheet may not contain the same

information as the List of Materials.

5. The daily records of coating types when an emission control system is used specified in Section

502.6-b is not as stringent as the SCM, which also requires "daily records of key system

operating parameters" including, but not limited to temperature, pressure drops and air flow

rates.

Additional Recommendations

1. For completeness, consider referencing the recordkeeping requirement for Tertiary butyl acetate

described in section 502.6c, after the statement in Section 273, such as, "Tertiary butyl acetate is

not considered a volatile organic compound for the purposes of complying with the standards

specified in Section 302 when contained in an automotive coating or automotive coating

component that is applied only in a spray booth but is still considered a volatile organic compound

for the purpose of recordkeeping as indicated in Section 502.6c."

2. For clarity, consider revising Section 501 such as, "Any person claiming a prohibition of sale

exemption specified in Section 308."

3. Consistent with EPA's Little Bluebook, please indicate the EPA approved version for the ASTM

test methods sited in Section 504 as listed in 40 CFR section 60.17 and 59.108. The approved

version of ASTM D4457 referenced in Section 504.3 is 1985 (ASTM D4457-85) and that of ASTM

1613 referenced in Section 504.2 is 1996 (ASTM 1613-96). Although the EPA has not

incorporated by reference ASTM D2832 referenced in Section 504.8, the latest version is 2011

(ASTM D2832-92(2011)).

4. In Section 504.3, consider adding SCAQMD Test Method 303-91, "Determination of Exempt

Compounds," August, 1996.



1 

Public Hearing Oral Comments for Rule 459 

August 25, 2011 

Nancy Doig, Greenberg Traurig (representing Lyondell Basell) 

Comment: As the letter from Lyondell noted, in addition to the six panels, there is also an 

expert opinion letter by Dr. James Felton, an expert on carcinogenicity and 

genotoxicity at UC Davis cancer control center, that concluded tertiary butyl 

acetate (TBAc) is not a carcinogen or genotoxic. We support the proposed 

amendments to the rule but we would like the exemption for TBAc to be allowed 

outside of the spray booth. 

Response: Staff relied on the published toxicity evaluations from experts at the California 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the California 

Air Resources Board. OEHHA has determined that TBAc may be a potential 

human carcinogen. Staff performed a health risk assessment and determined 

that potential emissions of TBAc used outside of a spray booth may exceed the 

District’s acceptable cancer risk threshold. Therefore, Staff is proposing to 

exempt TBAc as a VOC when used in coatings that are applied only within a 

spray booth. 

Josh Cox, Jerry’s Paint 

Comment: I strongly agree with the amendments consistent with the SCM. I do not support 

the exemption for vintage vehicles. We had great success in areas that have 

changed to the new coatings. I know you guys don’t have the authority to do it, 

but I suggest that the whole state go with the SCM yesterday. I don’t see the 

adoption of the SCM sending anyone out of business. I am more concerned if 

the SCM was not adopted because it will put people, who we hire for the SCM, 

out of work. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. 

David Harshbarger, Mac’s Distributing 

Comment: I really was opposed to the SCM in the beginning when it was first in 

development. I was worried that the technology wasn’t there and the cost to 

shops would be huge to make that conversion. After the SCM was in place in 

SCAQMD, I visited those converted shops and the new coatings worked very 

well. Since the rule was coming down the pipe, we encouraged our shops to 

convert. Approximately 90% of our shops have converted. The costs to the 

shops were virtually nothing. If they had a paint system, we replaced the paint 

system for free. The new coating only needed a hand held dryer that cost $70 

and a new spray gun for water coating. We support the adoption of the SCM 

effective in six months and not the alternative option, effective in two years. 
2 

Response: Thank you for your comment in support of the proposed amendments effective in 

6 months. 

Kevin Holly, Shop Owner 

Comment: I agree with the proposed rule. I do not agree with the alternative rule. The 

alternative rule will pose problems for both the shops and the District in trying to 

determine which products can be used. 

Response: Thank you for your comment in support of the proposed amendments effective in 

6 months.