### 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 Q uality 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 comm ents on Proposed Amended Rules (PAR) 451, 459 and the staff report fo r 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 Califor nia counties, including adjoining Placer, Yolo, Solano, and San Joaquin Counties. We also request that TBAC be exempted for automotive cleaning applications and for coati ngs 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 c oatings 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 hu man health. This is especially true since the cancer risk calculation was based on a r odent tumor endpoint that is no relevance to human health since humans do not produce the protein respons ible for tumor formation. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that TBAC us e 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 AQ MD 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 associat ion with cleaning and gun-flushing with acetone-based cleaners and coatings. We will provide additiona l comments on these two rules once we have the opportunity to ca refully review the staff report which was

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

### released only five days ago. We look forward to worki ng with you on this important rulemaking. Please call me with any questi ons, 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 1 2th 

### 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.comAkzoNobel 1845 Maxwell T +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 12 th Street, 3 rd

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 ti me 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, 

# l a-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

- M ail: 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 A ND PRODUCTS & Rule 459

- AUTOMOTIVE, MOBILE EQUIPMENT, AND ASSOCIATED PARTS AND COMPONENTS COATING OPERATIONS
Mr

. Yang : We recogniz e 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 p roposed draft versions

. W e would like to state the following:
In Rule 451

- SURFACE COATING OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS we find the following definition un der 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 provi de surface etching and corrosion resistance or adhesion of subsequent coatings

... We suspect this coating type definition i s patterned after South Coast AQMD ’s Rule 1107 (45) PRETREATMENT COATING . We ask that if the district chooses to follow the precede nt 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 s olids 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 corros ion 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 tha t meets the definition of ETCHING FILLER

. We propose that the distr ict allows both options for application facilities and coatings manufac turers . 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 P RETREAMENT 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 de finition. Typically , we might ex pect this coating to fall within the UNDERBODY COATING d efinition. In fact, the (264) UNDERBODY COATING definition already includes “the underside of a trunk”. The VOC limit for TR UNK INTERIOR COATI NG is set at 3.5 lbs/gal, for UNDERBODY CO A TING it is 3.6 lbs/gal. We would hope that new district regulations a cr os s t he st ate maintain as much uniformity as possible

. We propose eliminating the TRUNK INTE RIOR COATING defini tion & VOC limit in Rule 459 and merging its requirements into the UND E RBODY COATING definition & VOC limit

. In Rule 459

- AUTOMOTIVE, MOBILE EQUIPMENT, AND ASSOCIATED PARTS AND C OMPONENTS COATING OPERATIONS we find a several reference s to the use of tertiar y butyl acetate (TBAC).
We appreciate the opportunity to use a new formulating tool as the district allows TBAC as an exempt solvent. However, 402.1 f 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 manufact urer to show TBAC content in both Product Data Sheets and labels is an unneeded, redundant requirement .
We pr opose that the section 403 label requirement to show TBAC cont ent 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 a ir district rules recently implemented. We find s etting the limit at this low level forces formulators to use high exempt content products. Acetone & ParChloro Benz oTriFluoride (PCBTF) are typically selected for these types of products, there are only a few formulator options. Acet one cu t s well b u t 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 col lecting the organic compounds and minimizing their evaporation to the atmosphere is used. ”
We propose that the district considers following Bay A rea AQMD’s practical approach to applicator cleaners, setting no limit but requiring efficient devices that min imize 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 applicablesix 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 12 th 

### Street, 3 rd 

### 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 W est Chester Pike Newtown Square, PA 19073 USA dan.pourreau@lyondel l basell.com Te l +1 610

- 359

- 2411 Ce ll +1 610

- 212

- 9592 Fax + 1

- 610

- 359

- 2328 lyondellbasell.com 

### August 15 , 201 1 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 o f tertiary

- butyl acetate (TBAC), Lyondell Chemical Com pany (Lyondell) is pleased to provide the following comments on Proposed Amended Rule (PAR) 459 a nd the staff report for th is rule

. Lyondell support s the e xemption 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 applicati ons 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 i s 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 d o not exist in humans . This is the conclusion of no less than six independent panels of toxicologists convened by NSF International (2003 1 

### and 2005) 2 

### , API (2005), 3 

### TERA (2009), 4 

### EPA OPPTS (2009), 5 

### and PW G (2010). 6 

### Dr. James S. Felton, an expert on genoto xicity and carcinogenicity and

1 NSF International (2003) TBA

- Oral risk Assessment

- E xecutive S um mary 2 NSF International (2005) TBAC

- Oral risk Assessment 3 Sh ipp, AM., McDonald, T., Vanlandingham, C., 2005. Hazard Narrative for Tertiary

- Buty l Alcohol (TBA) CAS Number 75

– 65

– 0, API Pub lication 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 Ch anges in the Kidneys of Rats Assigned to Toxicology and Carcinogenicity Studies of t

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

- 03.Page 2 of 2



### former member of California’ s Cancer Identification C ommittee (CIC) , also recently weighed in on this issue 7 

### 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 OEH HA 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 , no t one regulatory agency or authoritative body has listed TBA or TBAC as potential human car cinogens. 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 guar antees 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 deg reaser than acetone 8 

### 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 auto motive surface cleaning activities and facilities that do not have a spray booth. This will greatly reduce the flammabil ity risks and emissions from cleaning and gun

- flushing with acetone

- based cleaners. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this im portant 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 Pr oces s 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 O 3 /g vs. Acetone MIR = 0.35 g O 3 /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 acetone 1 . 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 ppm 2 . 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 (2003 1 

### 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 SACR A M ENTO M EMOP0LIT

AN 

### 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.
Si ncer el y,

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 Haza rd Assessment (OEHHA) and the California Air Resources Board. OEHHA has determined that TBAc may be a potential human carcinogen. Staff performed a heal th 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 alternat ive 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 s upport of the proposed amendments effective in 6 months.