+(,121/,1(

Citation: 73 Fed. Reg. 15604 2008 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Tue Nov 6 13:48:41 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 59

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971; FRL-8498-6]

RIN 2060-AN69

National Volatile Organic Compound

Emission Standards for Aerosol

Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action promulgates

national emission standards for the

aerosol coatings (aerosol spray paints)

category under section 183(e) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA). The standards

implement section 183(e) of the CAA, as

amended in 1990, which requires the

Administrator to control volatile organic

compounds (VOC) emissions from

certain categories of consumer and

commercial products for purposes of

reducing VOC emissions contributing to

ozone formation and ozone

nonattainment. This regulation

establishes nationwide reactivity-based

standards for aerosol coatings. States

have previously promulgated rules for

the aerosol coatings category based

upon reductions of VOC by mass;

however, EPA has concluded that a

national rule based upon the relative

reactivity approach will achieve more

reduction in ozone formation than may

be achieved by a mass-based approach

for this specific product category. This

rule will better control a product's

contribution to ozone formation by

encouraging the use of less reactive VOC

ingredients, rather than treating all VOC

in a product alike through the

traditional mass-based approach. We are

also revising EPA's regulatory definition

of VOC. This revision is necessary to

include certain compounds that would.

otherwise be exempt in order to account

for the reactive compounds in aerosol

coatings that contribute to ozone

formation. Therefore, certain

compounds that would not be VOC

under the otherwise applicable

definition will count towards the

applicable reactivity limits under this

final regulation. The initial listing of

product categories and schedule for

regulation was published on March 23,

1995 (60 FR 15264). This final action

announces EPA's final decision to list

aerosol coatings for regulation under

Group III of the consumer and

commercial product category for which

regulations are mandated under section

183(e) of the CAA.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is

effective March 24, 2008. The

incorporation by reference of certain

publications listed in the rule is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of March 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a

docket for this action under Docket ID

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971. All

documents in the docket are listed on

the www.regulations.gov Web site.

Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available

(e.g., Confidential Business Information

(CBI) or other information whose

disclosure is restricted by statute).

Certain other material, such as

copyrighted material, will be publicly

available only in hard copy form.

Publicly available docket materials are

available either electronically through

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971, EPA

Headquarters Library, Room 3334 in the

EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.

to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The EPA

Docket Center telephone number is

(202) 566-1744, and the facsimile

number for the EPA Docket Center is

(202) 566-9744. EPA visitors are

required to show photographic

identification and sign the EPA visitor

log. After processing through the X-ray

and magnetometer machines, visitors

will be given an EPA/DC badge that

must be visible at all times.

Informational updates will be

provided via the EPA Web site at

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/

dockets.htmi as they are available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For*

questions about the final rule, contact

Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, U.S. EPA, Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Sector Policies and Programs Division,

Natural Resources and Commerce Group

(E143-03), Research Triangle Park, NC

27711; telephone number (919) 541-

2509; facsimile number (919) 541-3470;

e-mail address: whitfield.kaye@epa.gov.

For information concerning the CAA

section 183(e) consumer and

commercial products program, contact

Mr. Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Sector Policies and Programs Division,

Natural Resources and Commerce Group

(E143-03), Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina 27711, telephone

number: (919) 541-5460, facsimile

number (919) 541-3470, e-mail address:

moore.bruce@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Entities Potentially Affected by This

Action. The entities potentially affected

by this regulation encompass all steps in

aerosol coatings operations. This

includes manufacturers, processors,

wholesale distributors, or importers of

aerosol coatings for sale or distribution

in the United States, or manufacturers,

processors, wholesale distributors, or

importers who supply the entities listed

above with aerosol coatings for sale or

distribution in interstatecommerce in

the United States. The entities

potentially affected by this action

include:

Category NAICS code a Examples of regulated entities

Paint and Coating Manufacturing ................................................. 32551 Manufacturing of lacquers, varnishes, enamels, epoxy coatings,

oil and alkyd vehicle, plastisols, polyurethane, primers, shellacs, stains, water repellant coatings.

All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Production and Preparation 325998 Aerosol can filling, aerosol packaging services.

Manufactu ring.

a North American Industry Classification System http://wwW.census.gov/epcd/wwwnaics.htmL

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. To determine

whether you would be affected by this

action, you should examine the

applicable industry description in

section I.E of the promulgation

preamble. If you have any questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the

appropriate EPA contact listed in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this notice.

Docket. The docket number for the

National Volatile Organic Compounds

Emission Standards for Aerosols

Coating (40 CFR part 59, subpart E) is

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-

0971.

15604

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15604 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition

to being available in the docket, an

electronic copy of the final rule is also

available on the WWW. Following the

Administrator's signature, a copy of the

final rule will be posted on EPA's

Technology Transfer Network (TTN)

policy and guidance page for newly

proposed or promulgated rules at

http://www.epa.gov/ltn/oarpg. The TTN

provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air.

pollution control.

Judicial Review. Under section

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),

judicial review of the final rule is

available only by filing a petition for

review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit by May

23, 2008. Under CAA section 307(b)(2),

the requirements established by this

final action may not be challenged

separately in any civil or criminal

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce

these requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA

further provides that "only an objection

to a rule or procedure which was raised

with reasonable specificity during the

period for public comment (including

any public hearing) may be raised.

during judicial review." This section

also provides a mechanism for EPA to

convene a proceeding for

reconsideration, "if the person raising

the objection can demonstrate to EPA

that it was impracticable to raise such

an objection [within the period for

public comment] or if the grounds for

such objection arose after the period for

public comment (but within the time

specified for judicial review) and if such

objection is of central relevance to the.

outcome of the rule." Any person

seeking to make such a demonstration to

EPA should submit a Petition for

Reconsideration to the Office of the

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with

a copy to both the person(s) listed in the

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Air and

Radiation Law Office, Office of General

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20004.

Organization of This Document. The

information presented in this notice is

organized as follows:

I. Background

A. The Ozone Problem

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

C. Photochemical Reactivity

D. Role of Reactivity in VOC/Ozone

Regulations

E. The Aerosol Coating Industry

H. Summary of the Final Standards and

Changes Since Proposal

A. Applicability of the Standards and

Regulated Entities

B. VOC Regulated Under This Rule

C. Regulatory Limits

D. Compliance Dates

E. Labeling Requirements

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting

G. Variance

H. Test Methods

III. Response to Significant Comments

A. Format of Regulation

B. Downwind Effects and Robustness of

Relative Reactivity Scale

C. Consideration of Other Factors in the

Consideration of Best Available Control

D. Variance, Small Quantity Manufacturers

and Extended Compliance Date

E. Additional Reporting Requirements

IV. Summary of Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

B. Energy Impacts

C. Cost and Economic Impacts

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism -

-F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

and'Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply;

Distribution or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions

to Address Environmental Justice inl

Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations

K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. The Ozone Problem

Ground-level ozone, a major

component of smog, is formed in the

atmosphere by reactions of VOC and

oxides of nitrogen in the presence of

sunlight. The formation of ground-level

ozone is a complex process that is

affected by many variables.

Exposure to ground-level ozone is

associated with a wide variety of human

health effects, as well as agricultural

crop loss, and damage ta forests and

ecosystems. Controlled human -exposure

studies show that acute health effects

are induced by short-term (1 to 2 hour)

exposdres (observed at concentrations

as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)),

generally while individuals are engaged

in moderate or heavy exertion, and by

prolonged (6 to 8 hour) exposures to

ozone (observed at concentrations as

low as 0.08 ppm and possibly lower),

typically while individuals are engaged

in moderate exertion. Transient effects

from acute exposures include

pulmonary inflammation, respiratory

symptoms, effects on exercise

performance, and increased airway

responsiveness. Epidemiological studies

have shown associations between

ambient ozone levels and increased

susceptibility to respiratory infection,

increased hospital admissions and

emergency room irisits. Groups at

increased risk 'of experiencing elevated

exposures include active children,

outdoor workers, and others who

regularly engage in outdoor activities.

Those most susceptible to the effects of

ozone include those with pre-existing

respiratory disease, children, and older

adults. The literature suggests the

possibility that long-term exposures to

ozone may cause chronic health effects

(e.g., structural damage to lung tissue

and accelerated decline in baseline lung.

function).

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

Under section 183(e) of the CAA, EPA

conducted a study of VOC emissions

from the use of consumer and

commercial products to assess their

potential to contribute to levels of ozone

that violate the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone,

and to establish criteria for regulating

VOC emissions from these products.

Section 183(e) of the CAA directed EPA

to list for regulation those categories of

products that account for at least 80

percent of the VOC emissions, on a

reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer

and commercial products in areas that

violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone

nonattainment areas), and to divide the

list of categories to be regulated into

four groups.

EPA published the initial list in the

Federal Register on March 23, 1995 (60

FR 15264). In that notice, EPA stated

that it may amend the list of products

for regulation, and the groups of product

categories listed for regulation, in order

to achieve an effective regulatory

program in accordance with EPA's

discretion under CAA section 183(e).

EPA has revised the list several times..

Most recently, in May 2006, EPA

revised the list to add one product

category, portable fuel containers, and

to remove one product category,

petroleum dry cleaning solvents. See 71

FR 28320 (May 16, 2006). The aerosol

spray paints (aerosol coatings) category

currently is listed for regulation as part

of Group III of the CAA section 183(e)

list.

CAA section 183(e) directs EPA to

regulate consumer and commercial

products using "best available controls"

(BAC). CAA section 183(e)(1)(A) defines

BAC as "the degree of emissions

reduction that the Administrator

15605

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15605 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

determines, on the basis of

technological and economic feasibility,

health, environmental, and energy

impacts, is achievable through the

application of the most effective

equipment, measures, processes,

methods, systems or techniques,

including chemical reformulation,

product or feedstock substitution,

repackaging, and directions for use,

consumption, storage, or disposal."

CAA section 183(e) also provides EPA

with authority to use any system or

systems of regulation that EPA

determines is the most appropriate for

the product category. Under CAA

section 183(e)(4), EPA can impose "any

system or systems of regulation as the

Administrator deems appropriate,

including requirements for registration

and labeling, self-monitoring and

reporting, prohibitions, limitations, or

economic incentives (including

marketable permits and auctions of

emissions rights) concerning the

manufacture, processing, distribution,

use, consumption or disposal of the

product." Under these provisions, EPA

has previously issued national

regulations for architectural coatings,

autobody refinishing coatings, consumer

products, and portable fuel

containers.1 2345

For any category of consumer or

commercial products, the Administrator

may issue control techniques guidelines

(CTG) in lieu of national regulations if

the Administrator determines that such

guidance will be substantially as

effective as a national regulation in

reducing emissions of VOC which

contribute to ozone levels in areas

which violate the NAAQS for ozone. In

many cases, a CTG can be an effective

regulatory approach to reduce "emissions

of VOC in nonattainment areas because

of the nature of the specific product and

the uses of such product. A critical

distinction between a national rule and

a CTG is that a CTG may include

provisions that affect the users of the

products. For other product categories,

such as wood furniture coatings and

shipbuilding coatings, EPA has

previously determined that, under CAA

section 183(e)(3)(C), a CTG would be

"'National Volatile Organic Compound Emission

Standards for Architectural Coatings" 63 FR 48848,

(September 11, 1998). 2 "National Volatile Organic Compound Emission

Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings" 63 FR

48806, (September 11, 1998).

3 "Consumer and Commercial Products: Schedule

for Regulation" 63 FR 48792, (September 11, 1998)

4 National Volatile Organic Compound Emission

Standards for Consumer Products" 63 FR 48819,

(September 11, 1998).

5 "National Volatile Organic Compound Emission

Standards for Portable Fuel Containers" 72 FR

8428, (February 26, 2007).

substantially as effective as a national

rule and, therefore, issued CTGs to

provide guidance to States for

development of appropriate State

regulations. Most recently, EPA

determined that a CTG would be

substantially as effective as a national

rule for three other Group III categories:

Paper, Film and Foil Coating; Metal

Furniture Coating; and Large Appliance

Coating.6

For the category of aerosol coatings,

EPA has determined that a national rule

applicable nationwide is the best system

of regulation to achieve necessary VOC

emission reductions from this type of

product. Aerosol coatings are typically

used in relatively small amounts by

consumers and others on an occasional

basis and at varying times and locations.

Under such circumstances,

reformulation of the VOC content of the

products is a more feasible way to

achieve VOC emission reductions,

rather than through a CTG approach that

would only affect a smaller number of

relatively large users.

Aerosol coatings regulations are

already in place in three States

(California, Oregon, and Washington),

and other States are considering

developing regulations for these

products. For the companies that market

aerosol coatings in different States,

trying to fulfill the differing

requirements of State rules may create

administrative, technical, and marketing

problems. Although Section 183(e) does

not preempt States from having more

stringent State standards, EPA's national

rule is expected to provide some degree

of consistency, predictability, and

administrative ease for the industry. A

national rule also helps States reduce

potential compliance problems

associated with noncompliant coatings

being transported into nonattainment

areas from neighboring areas and

neighboring States. A national rule will

also enable States to obtain needed VOC

emission reductions from this sector in

the near term, without having to expend

their limited resources to develop

similar rules in each State. 7

C. Photochemical Reactivity

There are thousands of individual

species of VOC that can participate in a

series of reactions involving nitrogen

oxides (NOx) and the energy from

6 "Consumer and Commercial Products: Control

Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for

Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Metal Furniture

Coatings; and Large Appliance Coatings" 72 FR

57215, (October 9, 2007).

7 Courts have already approved EPA's creation of

national rules under section 183(e). See, ALARM

Caucus v. EPA, 215 F.3d 61,76 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert.

denied, 532 U.S. 1018 (2001).

sunlight, resulting in the formation of

ozone. The impact of a given species of

VOC on formation of ground-level ozone

is sometimes referred to as its "reactivity." It is generally understood

that not all VOC are equal in their

effects on ground-level ozone formation.

Some VOC react extremely slowly and

changes in their emissions have limited

effects on ozone pollution episodes.

Some VOC form ozone more quickly

than other VOC, or they may form more

ozone than other VOC. Other VOC not

only form ozone themselves, but also act

as catalysts and enhance ozone

formation from other VOC. By

distinguishing between more reactive

and less reactive VOC, however, EPA

concludes that it may be possible to

develop regulations that will -decrease

ozone concentrations further or more

efficiently than by controlling all VOC

equally.

Assigning a value to the reactivity of

a specific VOC species is a complex

undertaking. Reactivity is not simply a

property of the compound itself; it is a

property of both the compound and the

environment in which the compound is

found. Therefore, the reactivity of a

specific VOC varies with VOC:NOx

ratios, meteorological conditions, the

mix of other VOC in the atmosphere,

and the time interval of interest.

Designing an effective regulation that

takes account of these interactions is

difficult. Implementing and enforcing

such a regulation requires an extra

burden for both industry and regulators,

as those impacted by the rule must

characterize and track the full chemical

composition of VOC emissions rather

than only having to track total VOC

content as is required by traditional

mass-based rules. EPA's September 13,

2005, final rule approving a comparable

reactivity-based aerokol coating rule as

part of the California State

Implementation Plan for ozone contains

additional background information on

photochemical reactivity.8 Recently,

EPA issued interim guidance to States

regarding the use of VOC reactivity

information in the development of

ozone control measures. 9

1. What Research Has Been Conducted

on VOC Reactivity?

Much of the initial work on reactivity

scales was funded by the California Air

8 "Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan and Revision to the Definition

of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)-Removal of

VOC Exemptions for California's Aerosol Coating

Products Reactivity-based Regulation" 70 FR 53930,

(September 13, 2005).

9 "Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile

Organic Compounds in Ozone State

Implementation Plans") 70 FR 54046, (September

13, 2005).

15606

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15606 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations 15607

Resources Board (CARB), which was

interested in comparing the reactivity of

emissions from different alternative fuel

vehicles. In the late 1980s, CARB

provided funding to William P. L. Carter

at the University of California to

develop a reactivity scale. Carter

investigated 18 different methods of

ranking the reactivity of individual VOC

in the atmosphere using a single-cell

trajectory model with a state-of-the-art

chemical reaction mechanism.10 Carter

suggested three scales for further

consideration:

i. Maximum Incremental Reactivity

(MIR) scale-an ozone yield scale

derived by adjusting the NOx emissions

in a base case to yield the highest

incremental reactivity of the base

reactive organic gas mixture.

ii. Maximum Ozone Incremental

Reactivity (MOIR) scale-an ozone yield

scale derived by adjusting the NOx

emission in a base case to yield the

highest peak ozone concentration.

iii. Equal Benefit Incremental

Reactivity (EBIR) scale-an ozone yield

scale derived by adjusting the NOx

emissions in a base case scenario so

VOC and NOx reductions are equally

effective in reducing ozone. Carter concluded that, if only one

scale is used for regulatory purposes,

the MIR scale is the most appropriate. 1'

The MIR scale is defined in terms of

environmental conditions where ozone

production is most sensitive to changes

in hydrocarbon emissions and,

therefore, represents conditions where

hydrocarbon controls would be the most

effective. CARB used the MIR scale to

establish fuel-neutral VOC emissions

limits in its low-emitting vehicle and

alternative fuels regulation.12 13

Subsequently, Carter has update.I the

MIR scale several times as the chemical

mechanisms in the model used to derive

the scale have evolved with new

scientific information. CARB

incorporated a 1999 version of the MIR

scale in its own aerosol coatings rule.

The latest revision to the MIR scale was

issued in 2003.

In addition to Carter's work, there

have been other attempts to create

1oCarter, W. P. L. (1994) "Development of ozone reactivity scales for organic gases," J. Air Waste

Manage. Assoc., 44: 881-899.

"a "Initial Statement of Reasons for the California

Aerosol Coatings Regulation, California Air

Resources Board," 2000.

12 California Air Resources Board "Proposed

Regulations for Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean

Fuels-Staff Report and Technical Support

Document," State of California, Air Resources

Board, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812,

August 13, 1990.

13 California Air Resources Board "Proposed

Regulations for Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean

Fuels-Final Statement of Reasons," State of

California, Air Resources Board, July 1991.

reactivity scales. One such effort is the

work of R.G. Derwent and co-workers,

who have published articles on a scale

called the photochemical ozone creation

potential (POCP) scale.' 4 15 This scale

was designed for the emissions and

meteorological conditions prevalent in

Europe. The POCP scale is generally

consistent with that of Carter, although

there are some differences because it

uses a different model, chemical

mechanism, and emission and

meteorological scenarios. Despite these

differences, there is a good correlation

of r

2=0.9 between the results of the

POCP and the MIR scales. 1e

As CARB worked to develop

reactivity-based regulations in

California, EPA began to explore the

implications of applying reactivity

scales in other parts of the country. In

developing its regulations, CARB has

maintained that the MIR scale is the

most appropriate metric for application

in California, but cautioned that its

research has focused on California

atmospheric conditions and that the

suitability of the MIR scale for,

regulatory purposes in other areas has

not been demonstrated. In particular,

specific concerns have been raised

about the suitability of using the MIR

scale in relation to multi-day stagnation

or transport scenarios or over

geographic regions with very different

VOC:NOx ratios than those of

California.

In 1998, EPA participated in the

formation of the Reactivity Research

Working Group (RRWG), which was

organized to help develop an improved

scientific basis for reactivity-related

regulatory policies. 16 All interested

parties were invited to participate. Since

that time, representatives from EPA,

CARB, Environment Canada, States,

academia, and industry have met in

public RRWG meetings to'discuss and

coordinate research that would support

this goal.

The RRWG has organized a series of

research efforts to explore:

i. The sensitivity of ozone to VOC

mass reductions and changes in VOC

composition under a variety of

environmental conditions;

ii. The derivation and evaluation of

reactivity scales using photochemical

14 Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin, S.M. Saunders and

M.J. Pilling (2001) "Characterization of the

Reactivities of Volatile Organic Compounds Using

a Master Chemical Mechanism," J. Air Waste

Management Assoc., 51: 699-707..

"5Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin, S.M. Saunders and

M.J. Pilling (1998) "Photochemical Ozone Creation

Potentials for Organic Compounds in Northwest

Europe Calculated with a Master Chemical

Mechanism," Atmos. Env., 32(14/15):2429-2441.

"'See http://www.narsto.org/section.src?SID=l 0.

airshed models under a variety of

environmental conditions;

iii. The development of emissions

inventory processing tools for exploring

reactivity-based strategies; and

iv. The fate of VOC emissions and

their availability .for atmospheric

reactions.

This research has led to a number of

findings that increase EPA's confidence

in the ability to develop regulatory

approaches that differentiate between

specific VOCon the basis of relative

reactivity. The first two research

objectives listed above were explored in

a series of three parallel modeling

studies that resulted in four reports and

one journal article.17 i819 20 21 EPA

commissioned a review of these reports

to address a series of policy-relevant

science questions. 22 In 2007, an

additional peer review was

commissioned by EPA to assess the

appropriateness of basing a national

aerosol coatings regulation on reactivity.

Generally, the peer reviews suppprt the

appropriateness of the use of the boxmodel based MIR metric nationwide for

the aerosol coatings category. The

results are available in the rulemaking

docket.

The results of the RRWG-organized

study and the subsequent reviews

suggest that there is good correlation

between different relative reactivity

metrics calculated with photochemical

airshed models, regardless of the choice

of model, model domain, scenario, or

averaging times. Moreover, the scales

calculated with photochemical airshed

models correlate relatively well with the

MIR metric derived with a single cell,

one-dimensional box model. Prior to the

17 Carter, W.P.L., G. Tonnesen, and G. Yarwood

(2003) Investigation of.VOC Reactivity Effects Using

Existing Regional Air Quality.Models, Report to

American Chemistry Council, Contract SC-20.0-

UCR-VOC-RRWG, April 17, 2003.

18Hakami, A., M.S. Bergin, and A.G. Russell

(2003) Assessment of the Ozone and Aerosol

Formation Potentials (Reactivities) of Organic

Compounds over the Eastern United States, Final

Report, Prepared for California Air Resources

Board, Contract No. 00-339, January 2003.

19 Hakami, A., M.S. Bergin, and A.G. Russell

(2004a) Ozone Formation Potential of Organic

Compounds in the Eastern United States: A

Comparison of Episodes, Inventories, and Domains,

Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 6748-6759. 20 Hakami, A., M. Arhami, and A.G. Russell

(2004b) Further Analysis of VOC Reactivity Metrics

and Scales, Final Report to the U.S. EPA, Contract

#4D-5751-NAEX, July 2004.

21 Arunachalam S., R. Mathur, A. Holland, M.R.

Lee, D. Olerud, Jr., and H. Jeffries (2003)

Investigation of VOC Reactivity Assessment with

Comprehensive Air Quality Modeling, Prepared for

U.S. EPA, GSA Contract # GS-35F-0067K, Task

Order ID: 4TCG68022755, June 2003. 22 Derwent, R.G. (2004) Evaluation and

Characterization of Reactivity Metrics, Final Draft,

Report to the U.S. EPA, Order No. 4D-5844-NATX,

November 2004.

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15607 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

RRWG-organized studies, little analysis

of the robustness of the box-model

derived MIR metric and its applicability

to environmental conditions outside

California had been conducted.

Although these studies were not

specifically designed to test the

robustness of the box-model derived

MIR metrics, the results suggest that the

MIR metric is relatively robust.

D. Role of Reactivity in VOC/Ozone

Regulations

Historically, EPA's general approach

to regulation of VOC emissions has been

based upon control of total VOC by

mass, without distinguishing between

individual species of VOC. EPA

considered the regulation of VOC by

mass to be the jhost effective and

practical approach based upon the

scientific and technical information

available when EPA developed its VOC

control policy.

EPA issued the first version of its

VOC coiatrol policy in 1971, as part of

EPA's State Implementation Plan (SIP)

prepiration guidance.23 In that

guidance, EPA emphasized the need to

reduce the total mass of VOC emissions,

but also suggested that substitution of

one compound for another might be

useful when it would result in a clearly

evident decrease in reactivity and thus

tend to reduce photochemical oxidant

formation. This latter statementencouraged States to promulgate SIPs

with VOC emission substitution

provisions similar to the Los Angeles

County Air Pollution Control District's

(LACAPCD) Rule 66, which allowed

some VOC that were believed to have

low to moderate reactivity to be

exempted from control. The exempt

status of many of those VOC was

questioned a few years later, when

research results indicated that, although

some of those compounds do not

produce much ozone close to the

source, they may produce significant

amounts of ozone after they are

transported downwind from urban

areas.

In 1977, further research led EPA to

issue a revised VOC policy under the

title "Recommended Policy on Control

of Volatile Organic Compounds," (42 FR

35314, July 8, 1977), offering its own,

more limited, list of exempt organic

compounds. The 1977 policy identified

four compounds that have very low

photochemical reactivity and

determined that their contribution to

ozone formation and accumulation

could be considered negligible. The

23 "Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and

Submittal of Implementation Plans", Appendix B,

36 FR 15495, (August 14, 1971).

policy exempted these "negligibly

reactive" compounds from VOC

emissions limitations in programs

designed to meet the ozone NAAQS.

Since 1977, EPA has added other

compounds to the list of negligibly

reactive compounds based on new

information as it has been developed. In

1992, EPA adopted a formal regulatory

definition of VOC for use in SIPs, which

explicitly excludes compounds that

have been identified as negligibly

reactive [40 CFR 51.100(s)].

To date, EPA has exempted 54

compounds or classes of compounds in

this manner. In effect, EPA's current

VOC exemption policy has generally

resulted in a two bin system in which

most compounds are treated equally as

VOC, and are controlled. A separate

smaller group of compounds are treated

as negligibly reactive, and are exempt

from VOC controls.24 This approach

was intended to encourage the

reduction of emissions of all VOC that

participate in ozone formation. From

one perspective, it appears that this

approach has been relatively successful.

EPA estimates that, between 1970 and

2003, VOC emissions from man-made

sources nationwide declined by 54

percent. This decline in VOC emissions

has helped to decrease average ozone

concentration by 29 percent (based on 1-

hour averages) and 21 percent (based on

8-hour averages) between 1980 and

2003. These reductions occurred even

though, between 1970 and 2003,

population, vehicle miles traveled, and

gross domestic product rose 39 percent,

155 percent anld 176 percent,

respectively.25

On the other hand, some have argued

that a reactivity-based approach for

reducing VOC emissions would be more

effective than the current mass-based

approach. One group of researchers

conducted a detailed modeling study of

the Los Angeles area and concluded

that, compared to the current approach,

a reactivity-based approach could

achieve the same reductions in ozone

concentrations at significantly less cost

or, for a given cost, could achieve a

24 For some analytical purposes, EPA has

distinguished between VOC and "highly reactive"

VOC, such as in the EPA's initial evaluation of

consumer products for regulation. See. "Final

Listing," 63 FR 48792, 48795-6 (Sept. 11, 1998)

(explaining EPA's approach); see also, ALARM

Caucusv. EPA, 215 F. 3d 61, 69-73 (D. C. Cir.

2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1018 (2001) (approving

EPA's approach as meeting the requirements of

CAA section 183(e)).

'

2 5 "Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002

Status and Trends," EPA 454/K-03-001, (August

2003); and "The Ozone Report Measuring Progress

through 2003," EPA 454/K-04-001, (April 2004);

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina.

significantly greater reduction in ozone

concentrations. 26 The traditional

approach to VOC control that focused

on reducing the overall mass of .

emissions may be adequate in some

areas of the country. However, EPA's

recent SIP guidance recognizes that

approaches to VOC control that

differentiate between VOC based on

relative reactivity are likely to be more

effective and efficient under certain

circumstances. 27 In particular,

reactivity-based approaches are likely to

be important in areas for which

aggressive VOC control is a key strategy

for reducing ozone concentrations. Such

areas include:

9 Areas with persistent ozone

nonattainment problems;

e Urbdnized or other NOx-rich areas

where ozone formation is particularly

sensitive to changes in VOC emissions;

* Areas that have already

implemented VOC reasonably available

control technology (RACT) measures and need additional VOC emission

reductions.

In these areas, there are a variety of

possible ways of addressing VOC

reactivity in the SIP development

process, including:

* Developing accurate, speciated VOC

emissions inventories.

* Prioritizing control measures using

reactivity metrics. e Targeting emissions of highlyreactive VOC compounds with specific

control measures. * Encouraging VOC substitution and

composition changes using reactivityweighted emission limits.

The CARB aerosol coatings.rtile is an

example of this last application of the .

concept of reactivity. CARB's reactivitybased rule for aerosol coatings was

designed to encourage the use of

compounds that are less effective at

producing ozone. It contains limits for

aerosol coatings expressed as grams of

ozone formed per gram of product

instead of the more traditional limits

expressed as percent VOC by mass. EPA

approved CARB's aerosol coatings rule

as part of the California SIP for ozone.

EPA's national aergsol coatings rule

builds largely upon CARB's efforts to

regulate this product category using the

relative reactivity approach.

E. The Aerosol Coating Industry

Aerosol coatings include all coatings

that are specially formulated and

2 5

A. Russell, J. Milford, M. S. Bergin, S. McBride,

L. McNair, Y. Yang, W. R. Stockwell, B. Croes,

"Urban Ozone Control and Atmospheric Reactivity

of Organic Gases," Science, 269: 491-495, (1995). 27 "nterim Guidance on Control of Volatile

Organic Compounds in Ozone State

Implementation Plans," 70 FR 54046, September

13, 2005).

15608

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15608 2008
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

pdcka'ged for use in pressurized cans.

They are used by both professional and

do-it-yourself (DIY)-consumers. The DIY

segment accounts for approximately 80

percent of all sales. The remainder of

aerosol coatings is sold for industrial

maintenance and original equipment

manufacturer use. Aerosol coatings are

used for a number of applications

including small domestic coating jobs,

field and construction site marking, and

touch-up of marks and scratches in

paintwork of automobiles, appliances

and machinery. . The aerosol coatings industry

includes the formulators and

manufacturers of the concentrated

product. These manufacturers may

package the product or they may use toll

fillers (processors). These toll fillers

may work not only with the large

manufacturers, but for other coating

manufacturers who do not have the

specialized equipment necessary to fill

aerosol containers. The fillers may then

supply the product to coating dealers,

home supply stores, distributors,

company-owned stores and industrial

customers.

An aerosol consists of a gas in which

liquid or solid substances may be

dispensed. Aerosol coatings are

pressurized coatings that, like other

coatings, consist of pigments and resins

and solvents. However, aerosol coatings

also contain a propellant that dispenses

the product ingredients. A controlled

amount of propellant in the product

vaporizes as it leaves the container

creating the aerosol spray. The

combination of product and propellant

is finely tuned to produce the correct

concentration and spray pattern for an

effective product.

Aerosol coatings can be packaged in

disposable cans for hand-held

applications or for us6'in specialized

equipment in ground traffic/marking

applications. As with other coatings,

aerosol coatings are available in both

solvent-based and water-based

formulations.

In developing the final national rule

for aerosol coatings, EPA has used the

same coating categories, and the same

definitions for those categories,

previously identified by CARB in its

comparable regulation for aerosol

coatings. We believe these categories

adequately categorize the industry and

encompass the range of products

included in our own analysis of this'

category that we conducted in preparing

EPA's Report to Congress (EPA-453/R94-066-A). Use of the same definitions

and categories has the added benefit of

providing regulated entities with

consistency between the CARB and

national rules. The categories of aerosol

coatings regulated in the final rule

include six general categories and 30

specialty categories. Based on a survey

of aerosol coating manufacturers

conducted by CARB in 1997, VOC

emissions from the six general

categories together with the specialty

category of Ground Traffic/Marking

Coatings account for approximately 85

percent of the ozone formed as a result

of the use of aerosol coatings. These

categories are defined in this regulation

and are described in more detail in the

docket to this rulemaking.

There are currently no national

regulations addressing VOC emissions

from aerosol coatings. California,

Oregon and Washington are the only

States that currently regulate aerosol

coating products and Oregon's and

Washington's rules are identical to the

Tier 1 VOC mass-based limits developed

by CARB that became effective in 1996.

Unlike other EPA or State regulations

and previous CARB regulations for

aerosol coatings that regulate VOC

ingredients by mass in the traditional

approach, the current California

regulation for aerosol coatings is

designed to limit the ozone formed from

VOC emissions from aerosol coatings by

establishing limits on the reactivity of

the cumulative VOC ingredients of such

coatings.

II. Summary of the Final Standards and

Changes Since Proposal

This section presents a sumniary of

the major features of the final rule, as

well as a summary of the changes made

to the proposed rule. The reasons for the

changes in the final rule -are explained

in Section III.

A. Applicability of the Standards and

Regulated Entities

The final Aerosol Coatings Reactivity

Rule (ACRR) will apply to

manufacturers, processors, wholesale

distributors, or importers of aerosol

coatings used by both the general

population (i.e., the "Do It Yourself"

market) and industrial applications (e.g.,

at original equipment manufacturers

and other industrial sites). This

regulation will apply to distributors, if

the name of the distributor appears on

the label of the aerosol products.

The final rule includes an exemption

from the limits in Table 1 of the rule for

those manufacturers that make a small

annual volume of aerosol coating

products, i.e., with a total VOC content

by mass of no more than 7,500

kilograms of VOC per year in the

aggregate for all aerosol coating

products. EPA notes that an exemption

under EPA's national rule for aerosol

coatings under section 183(e) does not

alter any requirements under any

applicable State or local regulations.

The regulatory language in this final

rule has been changed from the

proposed rule to clarify the regulated

entity that is responsible for compliance

with each portion of the regulation.

The final rule includes a provision in

section 59:501(f) that allows foreign

manufacturers to qualify for the small

quantity manufacturer exemption in

section 59.501(e). Although foreign

manufacturers are not regulated entities

under this rule, some may choose to

voluntarily become regulated entities in

order to qualify for the small quantity

manufacturer exemption. To qualify, the

foreign manufacturer must (1) meet the

same 7500-kilogram per year VOC mass

limit that domestic small volume

manufacturers must meet; (2) comply

with the same recordkeeping and

reporting requirements that domestic

manufacturers must fulfill; and (3)

comply with certain provisions in 40

CFR 59.501(f)(3), which are similar to

those used in other EPA rules to ensure

that EPA may effectively monitor and

implement this rule with respect to

foreign entities. 28

B. VOC Regulated Under This Rule

This rule regulates emissions of VOC "from aerosol coatings. Because even less

reactive VOC contribute to ozone

formation, we are amending the

regulatory definition of VOC for

purposes of this rule by adding 40 CFR

51.100(s)(7). As provided in that new -

subsection, any organic compound in

the volatile portion of an aerosol coating

is counted towards the product's

reactivity-based limit if it: (1) Has a

reactivity factor (RF) value greater than

that of ethane (0.3), or (2) is used in

amounts greater than 7.3 percent of the

product weight in the product

formulatiofn.

Table 2A currently includes those

organic compounds we know to be used

in aerosol coatings that have an RF

value greater than that of ethane (0.3).

.Under the proposed rule, we had a

single de minimis threshold that

provided that a compound would not be

counted towards the applicable limit,

regardless of its reactivity, if the

compound represented less than 0.1

percent of the product weight. In the

final rule, we have provided a two-part

threshold: (1) A 0.1 percent threshold

for compounds with an RF value greater

than 0.3; and (2) a 7.3 percent threshold

28 See Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives:

Baseline Requirements for Gasoline Produced by

Foreign Refiners, Final Rule, 62 FR 45,533, 45,537-

38 (August 28, 1997).

15609

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15609 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

for compounds with an RF value of 0.3

or less.

The rationale for the 7.3 percerft

threshold is that compounds with an RF

value of 0.3 or less will contribute

minimally to ozone formation from this

product category. We calculated the 7.3

percent figure as follows. We first

determined the maximum RF value for

a compound, which is 22.04 (the default

value for compounds of unknown

reactivity). We then multiplied that

value by 0.1(the proposed percentage

threshold for all organic compounds

irrespective of their RF value), which

resulted in a value of 2.2. To determine

an appropriate percentage threshold for

organic compounds with an RF value of

0.3 or less, we then divided 2.2 by 0.3

(the RF for ethane) which resulted in the

7.3 percent threshold for such

compounds. Therefore, in determining

compliance with the limits of this rule,

this rule does not require inclusion of

de minimis amounts of ingredients

taking into consideration the relative

reactivity of the compound.

As provided in 40 CFR 59.505(e)(2), if

in the future, compounds with an RF

value of 0.3 or less are used in amounts

greater than or equal to 7.3 percent of

a particular aerosol coatings product

formulation, then those compounds will

be counted towards the applicable

limits of this rule at that time.

The emission limits in the rule are

expressed in terms of weight of ozone

generated from the VOC ingredients per

weight of coating material, rather than

the traditional weight of VOC

ingredients per weight (or volume) of

product. EPA has concluded that this

approach will reduce the overall

amount of ozone that results from the

VOC emitted to the atmosphere from

these products, while providing

regulated entities with greater flexibility

to select VOC ingredients for their

products. This approach provides

incentives to regulated entities to use

VOC ingredients that have lower

reactivity and that will therefore

generate less ozone. EPA has revised the list of

compounds in Table 2A in order to

include only those compounds actually

used as ingredients in aerosol coating

products. In addition, EPA has provided

a mechanism to add additional

compounds to the table if a regulated

entity elects to use them as an

ingredient in aerosol coatings.

C. Regulatory Limits

The regulatory limits for the final rule

are a series of reactivity limits for six

general coating categories and 30

specialty categories of specialty

coatings. These reactivity limits are

expressed in terms of grams of ozone

generated per gram of product. The

reactivity of each VOC ingredient is

specified in the table of values included

in the regulation. No changes have been

made to the regulatory limits since

proposal.

D. Compliance Dates

The final rule requires all regulated

entities to comply by January 1, 2009,

for all aerosol coating products, except

those that require registration under the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 40 CFR 136-

136y) (FIFRA), which are not subject to

the requirements of this rule until

January 1, 2010. The rule also includes

a provision that allows regulated

entities to seek a compliance extension

if they have not previously

manufactured, imported, or distributed

in California or elsewhere any aerosol

coating product that complies with

applicable California regulations. This

extension would give the regulated

entity until January 1, 2011, to comply

with the requirements of the final rule.

Beginning on the compliance date, the

regulated erifflties -under this rule will be

required to conduct initial compliance

demonstration calculations for all

coating formulations manufactured or

filled at each of their facilities, and to

maintain compliance demonstration

data for each batch of aerosol coating.

These calculations and the underlying

documents must be maintained for at

least 5 years after the product is

manufactured, processed, distributed, or

imported, and must be submitted to the

EPA upon request. The regulated entity

may use formulation data to make the

compliance calculations; however, EPA

is adopting California Air Resources

Board Method 310 as the underlying test

method (i.e., formulation data must be

verifiable with California Air Resources

Board Method 310, if requested).

Facilities are also allowed to use EPA's

Test Method 311.

EPA has added a provision allowing

the extension of the compliance date for

FIFRA-registered compounds as a

revision to the proposed rule. This

provision was added to the final rule

due to the additional approvals (e.g.,

approval of labels and formulation

changes) that must be obtained for all

FIFRA-registered products.

E. Labeling Requirements

The final rule also includes labeling

requirements to facilitate

implementation and enforcement of the

limits. Labels must clearly identify the

product category or the category code

provided in Table 1, of the regulation,

the limit for that product category, and

the product date code. If the product

date is not obvious from the date code,

an explanation of the code is required

in the initial notification discussed

below. In the final rule, EPA has made

a change to allow a regulated entity to

develop a facility-specific category code

system, if the system is explained in the

initial notification.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting

The final rule includes a requirement

for an Initial Notification from all

regulated entities to EPA at least 90 days

before the compliance date. This

notification will provide basic

information about the regulated entity

as well as contact information for the

certifying official. In addition, this

notification will need to explain the

product date code system used to label

products and the category code system,

if the facility is not using the default

category codes included in Table 1. The

Initial Notification must also include

VOC formulation data for each aerosol

coatings product that is subject to this

rule. The formulation data must provide

the weight fraction (g compound/g

product) for each VOC compound used

in the product in an amount equal to or

greater than 0.1 percent. The

notification must also identify any

volatile organic compound or mixture

that is not currently listed in Table 2A,

2B, or 2C, if that compound or mixture

will be used in an aerosol coatings

formulation. Finally, the notification

must include a statement certifying that

all of the regulated entity's products

will be in compliance with the limits by

the compliance date.

The regulated entity is required to

submit a revised notification if there is

a change in the information in the Initial

Notification, with the exception of

changes to product formulations. The

regulated entity is not required to

submit a revised notification if the VOC

formulations submitted in its Initial

Notification change. The regulated

entity is required to submit a revised

notification if the manufacturer, for

example, adds a new coating category,

changes the product date code system or

batch definition, or begins to use a VOC

that is not listed in Table 2A, 2B, or 2C.

The regulated entity is required to

maintain compliance calculations for

each of its aerosol coatings

formulations. For each batch of a

particular formulation, the regulated

entity must maintain records of the

date(s) the batch was manufactured, the

volume of the batch, and the VOC

formula for the formulation. Records of

these calculations must be maintained

for 5 years after the product is

manufactured, processed, distributed for

15610

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15610 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

wholesale, or imported for sale or

distribution in interstate commerce in

the United States. The regulated entity

must supply this information to EPA

within 60 days of a written request. The

final rule includes the addition of a

provision that allows for manufacturers

or importers to accept the responsibility

for recordkeeping and reporting

requirements that would otherwise be

required of their distributors.

The promulgated rule requires that

every 3 years, beginning with calendar

year 2011, each regulated entity must

submit a triennial report. The triennial

report would provide updated VOC

formulation data and, for each VOC

formulation, the total mass of each

individual VOC or mixture used as

ingredients in the aerosol coatings

manufactured, imported, or distributed

that year. This information must be

provided only for the second year of the

reporting cycle, which in the case of the

first report would be information from

2010. Subsequent reports will be

required at three year intervals. In other

words, a report containing data-from

2013 will be due in 2014, a report

containing data from.2016 will be due

in 2017, and so forth. EPA intends to

provide mechanisms for regulated

entities to provide this information

through the electronic submission

facilities being expanded under the

National Emissions Inventory (NEI)

program and will provide additional

information and guidance to regulated

entities bpfore the first report is due.

This report has been added to the final

rule to address concerns raised during

the public comment period, as

explained in section III.E of this

preamble.

The final rule requires those small

manufacturers who qualify for

exemption from the limits of Table 1 of

subpart E to make an annual report to

EPA providing necessary information

and documentation to establish that the

products made by the entity should be

exempt.

EPA notes that the contents of any.

reports, including the VOC composition

of the coatings subject to this rule, are "emissions data" under section 114 of

the CAA and EPA's regulatory

definition of such term in 40 CFR part

2. As such, this information must be

available to the public regardless of

whether EPA obtains the information

through a reporting requirement or

through a specific request to the

regulated entity. Therefore, such

information is not eligible for treatment

as "confidential business information"

under 40 CFR 59.516 of this rule.

G. Variance

The final rule allows regulated

entities to submit a written application

to EPA requesting a temporary variance

if, for reasons beyond their reasonable

control, they cannot comply with the

requirements of the rule. An approved

variance order would specify a final

compliance date and a condition that

imposes increments of progress

necessary to assure timely compliance.

A variance would end immediately if

the regulated entity failed to comply

with any term or condition of the

variance. The Administrator will

provide special consideration to

variance requests from regulated

entities, particularly small businesses

that have not marketed their products in

areas subject to State regulations for

these products prior to this rulemaking.

EPA notes that a variance under EPA's

national rule for aerosol coatings under

section 183(e) does not alter any

requirements under any applicable State

or local regulations. No changes were

made to this section since the proposal.

H. Test Methods

Although regulated entities may use

formulation data to demonstrate

compliance with the reactivity limits,

EPA concludes it is also necessary to

have test methods in place that can be

used to verify the accuracy of the

formulation data. Therefore, we have

included two test methods that may be

used by regulated entities or EPA to

determine compliance with the

reactivity limits. In those cases where

the formulation data and test data are

not in agreement, data collected using

the approved test methods will prevail.

Regulated entities or regulatory agencies

may use either California Air Resources

Board Method 310-Determination of

Volatile Organic Compounds in

Consumer Products and Reactive

Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating

Products, or EPA Method 311-Analysis

of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds

in Paints and Coatings in Paints and

Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas

Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,

appendix A) to determine the reactive

organic compound content of an aerosol

coating. California Air Resources Board

Method 310 includes some test

procedures that are not required to

determine the VOC content of aerosol

coatings; for example, California Air

Resources Board Method 310

incorporates EPA Method 24 for

determining the VOC content of a

coating. We have identified those

sections of California Air Resources

Board Method 310 that are not required

for compliance demonstration purposes

in the regulation. EPA Method 311-

Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant

Compounds in Paints and Coatings by

Direct Injection into a Gas

Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,

appendix A) was originally developed

for liquid coatings, so it does not

include provisions for the collection of

the propellant portion of an aerosol

coating. Therefore, those choosing to

use EPA Method 311-Analysis of

Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection

into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part

63, appendix A) must separate the

aerosol propellant from the coating

using either ASTM D3063-94 or ASTM

D 3074-94. There were no changes to

the test methods in the final rule.

III. Response to Significant Connents

During the public comment period,

we received a total of 18 comment

letter's. Of these, seven were brief letters

in support of the proposed regulation. A

summary of the most significant

comments is presented below. A

summary of all comments received on

this rule, as well as complete responses

to each of these comments, are

presented in the docket (EPA-HQOAR-2006-0971).

A. Format of Regulation

Several commenters discussed the use

of'a reactivity-based rule versus a massbased rule. Two commenters fully

supported the reactivity-based rule,

While five commenters raised some

concerns over some aspects of this

approach.

The commenters supporting the rule

generally supported the use of a

reactivity-based approach both

nationally and in California. One

commenter stated that EPA did a good

job in evaluating the reactivity

regulation in California and the

feasibility of making it apply

nationwide, calling it a "bold step

forward in the arena of air quality

regulations." Another commenter stated .

that "[tihe rule is an important

advancement in the use of reactivitybased emissions regulations for VOC."

The commenter provided the following

points in support of this rule and the

future use of reactivity-based VOC

emission limits in other consumer

product and coating standards:

1. Reactivity-based VOC emission

regulations are more appropriate and

effective for addressing the environmental concern of interest, ozone formation

potential.

2. This national proposed rule is based on an established CARB regulation for aerosol

coatings which has already been approved by

EPA and in use for several years.

15611

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15611 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

3. Reactivity-based VOC emission

regulations provide product formulators with

more options for meeting environmental

performance standards while providing

technically feasible product performance,

and stimulating future product development

enhancements.

4. There is evidence that lower mass-based

VOC limits in some products may be leading

to the increased use of more photochemicall3

reactive VOC, eliminating some of the

anticipated environmental benefit (ozone

reduction) of these regulations, and possibly

increasing the actual ozone formation

potential of the products themselves.

This commenter also stated that the

reactivity-based approach is consistent

with EPA's September 2005 "Interim

Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic

Compounds in Ozone State

Implementation Plans," which

specifically "encourages States to

consider reent scientific information

on the photochemical reactivity of

volatile organic compounds in the

development of state implementation

plans designed to meet the national

ambient air quality standards for ozone

[70 FR 54046-54051; September 13,

2005]."

The commenter concluded that

reactivity-based VOC standards should

not be considered "only as a

supplement to mass-based approaches,

but as a scientifically valid and

appropriate means for controlling ozone

formation." The commenter also stated

that in its approval of the CARB

regulation, EPA appropriately stated

that the reactivity-based rule will

improve the SIP in part by "creating an

incentive for the use of solvents with

relatively low contribution to ozone

formation [70 FR 1642]." The

commenter further stated that some

VOC mass-based limits in the previous

version of CARB's aerosol coatings rule

"presented particularly difficult

reformulation challenges" for product

manufacturers [70 FR 1642]. The

commenter stated that EPA correctly

noted that CARB's regulation will

preserve the air quality benefits of its

previous rule, while at the same time

allowing manufacturers greater

flexibility in reformulating their

products, by replacing existing massbased VOC limits for aerosol spray

coatings with reactivity-based limits

that are designed to achieve equivalent

air qualitybenefits [70 FR 1642]. The

commenter concluded that expanding

this aerosol coating regulation to the res

of the United States expands the'

benefits of this working reactivity-based

VOC regulation to other areas of the

United States where ozone formation is

a concern, while allowing aerosol

coating manufacturers to develop single

formulations for the entire United

States.

Several commenters raised concerns

over some aspects of an approach based

on reactivity. These commenters stated

that a reactivity-based approach may

have merit, but only if EPA first

addresses numerous "unanswered

questions" about the potential adverse

impact of such an approach on other

equally, if not more, important

components of air quality management

programs, such as the effect on ambient

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) levels and

air toxics. The commenters also raised

the issues of downwind ozone impacts

and enforceability. One commenter

provided an extensive history of the

evolution of EPA's use of reactivity,

noting that EPA is not obligated to issue

a reactivity-based regulation, stating that

the required reactivity-based portion of

EPA's obligation under § 183(e) was

fulfilled during the listing process. The

commenter questioned whether EPA

had adequately addressed all possible

impacts of a reactivity-based approach

before proceeding with the proposal.

Some commenters advocated that

EPA should issue a mass-based rule,

rather than one based on reactivity. The

commenters pointed to the uncertainty

of the use of a reactivity-based

approach, including concerns over the

toxicity of pollutants that are used as

*substitutes, the potential interrelationship with PM2.5 issues,

downwind ozone and enforceability

concerns. The comnienters concluded

that, given these concerns, and the fact

that a fully implemented rule only

yields a benefit equivalent to a 19

percent reduction of VOC, that EPA may

be "better served to establish a National

rule based on the 1996 CARB rule

amended with 2002 mass-based limits

known to be feasible." The commenters

stated that this is the approach used by

two other States, Oregon and

Washington, that have aerosol coating

rules. One commenter further stated that

because these limits would be feasible

for all manufacturers, the small

manufacturer exemption, the extended

compliance date, and the variance

provisions would all be unnecessary.

Therefore, the commenter concluded

that a mass-based approach would

achieve the most reductions and would

allow EPA time to conduct the required

investigations to address issues and not

"rely on expectations that may not hold

t to be true." One commenter stated that

"EPA appears to have neglected to

consider an approach that combines

mass-based and reactivity-based

components."

EPA considered these comments, but

we still conclude that the reactivitybased approach for this rule is

appropriate. Under CAA section 183(e),

EPA is charged with developing

regulations that implement BAC for the

purposes of decreasing ground-level'

ozone formation. For aerosol coatings,

EPA has determined that the proposed

reactivity-based regulation remains

BAC. The reactivity-based limits are

based on those adopted in CARB's

reactivity-based rule and are desigped to

achieve a comparable decrease in ozone

formation that would have been

achieved by CARB's 2002 mass-based

limits, which are lower than CARB's

1996 mass-based limits. Moreover,

while some of CARB's 2002 mass-based

limits are now considered unfeasible

and are not in force, the reactivity-based

limits are now in effect and many

manufacturers are producing and selling

compliant products. Oregon and'

Washington have adopted CARB's 1996

mass-based limits. However, even if

these limits were lowered for some

categories to the 2002 limits, where

deemed feasible, this hybrid approach

proposed by the commenters would not

achieve the same level of ozone

decrease that the reactivity-based limits

will. Furthermore, it is not clear that

manufacturers who are not currently

subject to the CARB reactivity-based

limits would have any more or less

difficulty meeting the hybrid mass

limits than they would meeting the

reactivity-based limits in the proposed

rule. In other words, any mass-based

rule would also likely include

provisions for small businessestand

other variances.

The determination of BAC depends

on EPA's determination that the

proposed relative reactivity factors can

be used to reasonably predict the

changes in the ozone formation that will

occur due to changes in the emissions

from this source category. After

thoughtful consideration of the available

research, EPA has concluded that this

determination is justified. EPA has

followed and contributed to the

development of the science underlying

reactivity-based regulations since such

an approach was considered in the early

1990s. EPA's position on the

acceptability of reactivity scales has

evolved along with the science. The

most recent results of research

performed under the RRWG, cited in

section I of this preamble, provide

evidence that the relative reactivity

factors in the proposed rule are

reasonably robust over a wide variety of

environmental conditions. Concerns

about the potential for increased ozone

downwind are addressed in a separate

section below.

15612

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15612 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

Although recent research suggests that

other reactivity scales may more

accurately represent the behavior of

ozone in current air quality models, it

is not clear that emission limits based

on these scales would be achievable or

that the use of a different scale would

lead to significantly different ozone

decreases from this source category.

Furthermore, emission limits based on a

different scale than that used by CARB

would lead to increased costs to

comply. Therefore, EPA has determined

that use of the proposed relative

reactivity factors is reasonable and will

lead to net decreases of ground-level

ozone. The consideration of fine particle

formation, toxics exposures, and

stratospheric ozone depletion are

addressed below in a separate section,

as are concerns about the complexity of

enforcement.

One commenter disagreed with EPA's

statement in the preamble that this

regulation was needed because there are

areas of the country that need VOC

substitution strategies to address

nonattainment issues. The commenter

argued that there are many

opportunities to reduce VOC mass by

implementing readily available and

proven programs "before embarking into

VOC substitution." The commenter

continued that most nonattainment

areas around the country have not taken

aggressive steps to limit VOC. Therefore,

the commenter contended that there are

significant reductions that can be

obtained from programs, such as

implementing RACT or updating

decades-old RACT programs, fuel

strategies, and other area source

regulations like consumer products,

architectural coatings, and Stage I vapor

recovery.

EPA disagrees with this conmenter.

Several of the commenters on the

proposed rule inaccurately portray the

choice between mass-based emission

limits and reactivity-based emission

limits as a choice between emission

reductions and emission substitutions.

For aerosol coating products, any new

emission limitation, whether it is massbased or reactivity-based, will be

achieved by reformulating the product,

thereby changing the composition of the

associated emissions. With a reactivitybased limit, the reformulation will be

guided by relative reactivity factors that

will encourage manufacturers to use

lower reactivity compounds and will

limit the overall ozone formation

associated with the product. All VOC

components with an RF value greater

than 0.3 are included in the calculation.

With a mass-based limit, manufacturers

may shift to more powerful solvents,

some of which may often be higher in.

reactivity, and which cumulatively may

contribute more to ozone formation.

There is no explicit limit on the ozone

formation associated with the product.

The precise impacts (on ozone, fine

particles, air taxics, or other

environmental endpoints of concern) of

either reactivity-based or mass-based

emission limits are difficult to predict

given the reformulations that may be

used to achieve the limits. However,

reactivity-based limits derived using a

reasonable set of relative reactivity

factors provide the appropriate

incentives to shift formulations to

compounds with lower reactivity, and

limit the overall ozone contribution of

the regulated products.

The commenter's assertion that

reactivity-based regulations should not

be pursued until other mass-based VOC

control measures, including RACT, have

been implemented or strengthened is

not a factor in the decision of how EPA

fulfills its obligations under CAA

section 183(e) to implement best

available controls. However, EPA does

believe that traditional mass-based VOC

control measures continue to be

effective tools for addressing VOC

contributions to ozone nonattainment

problems in many situations and that

reactivity-based control measures are

most useful where mass-based controls

have reached the limits of technological

feasibility. In'the case of aerosol

coatings, EPA has determined that it is

possible to use reactivity-based limits to

go beyond what is achievable with

mass-based limits, and therefore, has

found reactivity-based limits to be BAC

for this product category.

B. Downwind Effects and Robustness of

Relative Reactivity Scale

Several commenters discussed the

state of the science of reactivity and

whether EPA's statements about the

science of reactivity were correct. Some

conmenters questioned EPA's statement

that the expected realistic changes in

the formulation of aerosol products are

unlikely to result in noticeable increases

in ozone downwind of the source,

stating that EPA does not know this to

be the case. The commenters asserted

that this issue is important "for the

simple factthat ozone nonattainment

areas in the Northeastern United States

have the highest recorded ozone values

downwind of urban centers, and this

effort has the potential to increase ozone

in the very place where ozone

reductions are most needed,

confounding the ozone attainment plans

that are being developed by the states."

The commenters also stated that

increased ozone downwind from urban

centers could result in more impacts to

agricultural and forested areas of the

country.

One commenter further stated that the

statements made in the preamble related

to future ozone levels seem to be based

on expectations rather than

demonstrations based on modeling

efforts. The commenter encouraged

EPA, given the potential for further

tightening of the current ozone NAAQS,

to perform studies demonstrating that

there would be no increase in

downwind ozone "so that the

implementation of this rule does not

worsen ozone nonattainment problems

found in the Northeastern United

States."

EPA recognizes the commenters'

concerns about downwind ozone

formation but has concluded that the

VOC reformulations resulting from this

reactivity-based regulation will reduce

overall ozone formation and exposure.

First, any enhancements of downwind

ozone caused by upwind substitution of

larger amounts of less reactive VOC are

expected to be smaller than the

concurrent reductions of upwind ozone.

Carter et al. (2003), in modeling largescale VOC substitution scenarios, found

larger local ozone reductions and

smaller downwind ozone increases.

Similarly, Arunachalam et al. (2003)

found that "high-versus-low reactivity

substitution" is "an effective strategy for

reducing high levels of ozone,"

especially in, or downwind of, urban

areas. In a modeling exercise conducted

to inform this rulemaking, Luecken

(2007; see docket) substituted lower

reactivity VOC for higher reactivity VOC

in the Chicago area and found the

resulting downwind ozone disbenefits

to be much smaller than the upwind

ozone benefits. In general, upwind

ozone reductions are expected to occur

in or near densely populated urban

areas, where ozone levels are highest,

thus reducing overall population

exposure. Second, downwind areas,

particularly remote, rural, or suburban

areas, are likely to be NOx-limited

(Sillman, 1999; AQCD, 2006), thus

restricting ozone formation from small

additional amounts of upwind

anthropogenic VOC. The

implementation of other regulations

such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule

will likely reduce NOx further in such

areas. Third, in downwind areas that

may be VOC-limited, the simultaneous

VOC substitutions occurring in these

areas may counterbalance, to some

extent, the introduction of VOC from

upwind. Fourth, the reductions in

upwind reactivity and ozone formation

are likely to reduce the.direct transport

of ozone and ozone precursors such as

aldehydes downwind from urban areas.

I 15613

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15613 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

EPA agrees that modelihg can be

useful for demonstrating the impacts of

regulatory changes. While EPA did not

perform nationwide modeling specific

to this regulation, the three studies cited

above support the EPA's contention that

downwind ozone increases are likely to

be small, especially compared to

upwind ozone reductions. Thus, while

additional modeling will continue to

shed light on VOC reactivity, there is an

adequate basis for proceeding with this

reactivity-based regulation. As the

science evolves, EPA will continue to

invest and participate in research into

VOC chemistry and the use of reactivity

measures.

One commenter stated that, while

reactivity-based approaches may

provide significant benefits "where the

science is sufficiently robust to ensure

that the expected benefits are achieved

in practice," the commenter stated that,

based on the proposal, "it is not clear

that EPA has adequately addressed all

the relevant technical issues or that this

reactivity-based regulation is

appropriate at this time." The

commenter notes that EPA must

adequately (and accurately) account for

the differences in the various

environmental conditions (and resulting

variations in VOC behavior) throughout

the United States. The commenter stated

that the complexity of the interactions

of VOC in the ambient air makes it

extremely difficult to accurately predict

the actual VOC forming capacity of a

chemical compound. The commenter

stated that "assuming an essentially

uniform "reactivity" for a compound

used in any coating product anywhere

in the country presents the potential for

an inaccurate assessment of the actual

VOC-related effects of the product

nationwide." The commenter further

stated that "EPA's half-hearted assertion

in the proposed rule that its scientific

understanding of VOC reactivity has

evolved sufficiently to allow it to

reliably and accurately predict the

behavior of individual species of VOC

in a regulatory context is far from

unequivocal."

Another commenter had a different

position and asserted that:

Controlling VOC emissions from coatings

and consumer-products based on photochemical reactivity is a scientifically

sound and appropriate means of addressing ozone formation potential. There can be enormous differences in the capacity of

various VOC to react in the atmosphere to

form tropospheric ozone. As reflected in

EPA's proposal, scientific research shows

that photochemical reactivity has a more direct correlation to the ozone-forming

potential (i.e., potential air quality impacts) of VOC emissions than does a simple massbased measure of emissions. The impact of

mass-based VOC emissions reductions on ozone formation potential is uncertain and can vary greatly depending on the VOC

substitution decisions made to meet specific mass limits. Reactivity-based VOC emissions

limits, by considering the rate and

mechanism of photo oxidation in the

troposphere, are reflective of the actual

processes that lead to ozone formation.

Relative photochemical reactivity thus

provides a more rigorous scientific approach

to assessing an individual compound's

potential contribution to ozone accumulation

than does consideration of its mass alone.

Accordingly, this commenter

concluded that EPA's approach is

scientifically sound and represents a

significant step forward in aerosol

coatings regulation.

EPA recognizes the concerns raised by

the commenters, but agrees with the

latter commenter. EPA acknowledges

the difficulty in assessing reactivity in

widely different environmental

conditions. As noted in the proposal, a

compound's reactivity can depend on

the VOC:NOx ratio, meteorological

conditions, and the mix of other VOC.

Many different methods have been

suggested for measuring the reactivity of

individual compounds. EPA has chosen

the MIR scale, which is an ozone yield

scale derived by adjusting the NOx

emissions in a base case simulation to

yield the highest incremental reactivity

of the base reactive organic gas mixture.

These are environmental conditions

where ozone production is most

sensitive to changes in VOC emissions

and, therefore, where VOC controls

would be most effective. These tend to

reflect conditions in or near urban areas

where VOC emissions are most likely to

produce ozone, and thus EPA has

determined the MIR scale is the most

appropriate for regulatory purposes (see

also Carter, 1994). Research conducted

under the auspices of the RRWG has

shown good correlation between the

MIR scale and other reactivity scales,

including those coi iputed with

photochemical airshed models. Also,

this research has supported the

nationwide applicability of reactivity

scales, and peer reviews of the RRWG

reports have specifically supported the

use of the MIR scale for a nationwide

aerosol coatings regulation (see docket).

For more detail, refer to the proposal (72

FR 38952). As noted above, EPA will

continue to invest and participate in

research into VOC chemistry and the

use of reactivity measures.

C. Consideration of Other Factors in the

Consideration of Best Available Controls

Several commenters presented

arguments for numerous factors that

should be included in EPA's

determination of BAC for aerosol

coatings. These factors include the

potential impact on ambient PM levels,

the potential for increase in emissions of

certain hazardous air pollutants (HAP),

and potential stratospheric ozone

impacts. In addition, one commenter

stated that EPA should consider the

impact of the rule on agricultural and

forest areas. The commenters concerned with

contribution to PM levels were

primarily concerned about the aerosol

fraction of measured ambient PM2.

5 . The

commenters stated that EPA should

consider "negative co-effects" of the

rule on fine particulate matter, because

the substitution with compounds with

low reactivities could increase the mass

of emissions of low reactive

compounds, which could impact both

primary and secondary ozone formation.

The commenter stated that this would

be even more important in the near

future, as the PM2.

5 NAAQS is revised

and given the fact that PM2.

5

nonattainment is coincident with ozone

nonattainment in many areas in the

country. The commenter concluded that

EPA must examine the impacts of

increasing low reactive VOC on PM2 .

5

before establishing a regulatory

framework that encourages substitution.

Several commenters were concerned

that EPA did not consider the toxicity

of compounds when establishing BAC

for this category. Some commenters

identified several examples of HAP,

including benzene and diisocyanates,

with relatively low reactivity factors and

noted that EPA overlooked the fact that

all VOC are not equal when it comes to

their individual toxic potential. The

commenters stated that toxicity should

be considered in setting emission limits,

with one commenter suggesting that

EPA consider a substitution protocol for

VOC that includes -"low to high"

toxicity in addition to "low to high"

reactivity.

Another commenter also noted that

the table of reactivity factors also

includes compounds that have been

banned under Title VI of the CAA

because they are considered

stratospheric ozone depletors.

EPA has addressed the impacts of the

factors mentioned by the commenters in

the final rule to the extent allowed by

the CAA.

With respect to the commenter's

concerns about HAP emissions from

aerosol coatings, EPA notes that section

183(e) only provides the EPA with

authority to regulate VOC emissions

from consumer and commercial

products for purposes of reducing ozone

nonattainment. Other provisions of the

Act, such as section 112, provide the

statutory mechanism for reduction of

15614

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15614 2008
Federal ,RKgister / Vot.= 7, No. 57 / Monday,..March 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

HAP emissions. Thus, although EPA

shares the concerns of the commenter

about unnecessary exposure to HAPs,

the EPA does not have authority like

that of the State of California to restrict

or ban the use of specific HAPs as

ingredients in aerosol coatings.

Nevertheless, EPA believes that

sufficiently stringent limits can have the

beneficial effect of reducing the use of

certain HAPs such as toluene and

benzene. Because these compounds are

highly reactive, the limits of the final

rule will serve to restrict the use of these

compounds as ingredients in aerosol

coatings as a practical matter.

With respect to the comment

concerning compounds that are banned

under Title VI, EPA is clarifying that the

compounds included in 72 FR 38951 are

not a list of compounds "approved" for

use in aerosol coatings. On the contrary,

it is merely a list of compounds for

which relative reactivity factors have

been derived. Therefore, if a compound

had been banned by Title VI, or banned

for use for any other reason, they cannot

be used as ingredients in aerosol

coatings.

However, EPA has revisited the

decision to include an exhaustive list of

compounds in Table 2A. Based on

concerns raised by commenters and an

internal review at EPA, we have revised

Table 2A. That table currently includes

those organic compounds we know to

be used in aerosol coatings products :

that: (1) Have an RF value greater than

that of ethane (0.3), and (2) are used in

amounts greater than 7.3 percent of the

product weight. This changes the role of

Table 2A from a listing of available

reactivity factor (RF) values to a table

defining the compounds that have

defined RF factors for this rule.

If a regulated entity identifies a

compound or mixture of compounds

that is not on Table 2A, 2B, or 2C, the

regulated entity can still use the

compound or mixture as an ingredient,

as follows:

(1) The regulated entity can inform

EPA that it intends to use the compound

and request that the compound be

added to Table 2A, 2B, or 2C, pursuant

to the procedures in section 59.511(j) of

the final rule. However, if the

compound has a reactivity factor that is

less than 0.30 g 03/g VOC, and the

compound is less than or equal to 7.3

percent by weight in any of your

products, the regulated entity can use an

RF equal to zero in all calculations. Any'

requests submitted to EPA on or before

June 1, 2008 will be considered, and if

appropriate, incorporated into the

appropriate Table on or before January

1, 2009.

(2) If the compound does not have an

established reactivity factor listed in

Table 2A, 2B, or 2C, the compound can

be used, provided an RF of 22.04 g 03/

g compound is used in all calculations

for that compound. This value, which is

equal to the highest RF identified to

date, was selected to ensure that the

environment is protected while

additions to the list are being

considered.

In the proposed regulation, we

proposed to eliminate all of the

exemptions fron the definition of VOC

listed in the first clause subparagraphs

of § 5 1.100(s). This inadvertently

included certain inorganic compounds

'listed in § 51.100(s) that are not VOC.

On further review, EPA concluded that

there is no need to eliminate the

exemption for organic compounds that

have an RF value of 0.3 or less and that

represent less than 7.3 percent of a

given product formulation.

However, if a regulated entity intends

to use an organic compound that is not

.Jisted in Table 2A in the final rule as an ingredient in an aerosol coating; then

the regulated entity is required to notify

EPA via its Initial Notification or an

update to that notification. EPA will

then add such compounds and their

reactivity factors to Table 2A. Until

listed in Table 2A, such compounds

may be used in aerosol coating products

but are assigned the default reactivity

factor of 22.04 g O3/g comp.ound. , --... ' Several commenters also provided

input on the question raised in. the -

proposal preamble related to a voluntary

program for the reduction of HAP. The

commenters were all opposed to an

additional program, citing existing

programs and requirements that already

address the inclusion of toxic materials

in coatings. For example, the Federal

Hazardous Substance Act (FHSA),

which requires specific labeling of

products that it classifies as "hazardous

substances." The FHSA includes any

products containing methylene chloride

on that list.

EPA is not establishing a voluntary

HAP reduction program at this time.

Existing programs appear to be

sufficient to help ensure that the

unwanted outcome of increased toxicity

of aerosol coating products does not

occur. EPA reserves the right to revisit

the potential for such a program, for this

or another reactivity-based rulemaking,

at a later date.

D. Variance, Small Quantity

Manufacturers, Extended Compliance

Date

Several commenters expressed

concern about both the need for, and

equity of, the three provisions in the

proposed rule that either extended the

compliance date or provided an

exemption from the rule. These

provisions were the variance provisions

in the rule, the exemption for small

quantity manufacturers, and the

extended compliance date for regulated

entities that have not previously

marketed coatings compliant with

CARB's reactivity based rules.

A few commenters were concerned

about the potential for unfair economic

advantage created by the small quantity

manufacturer exemption. One

commenter stated that the exemption for

small manufacturers provides a

competitive advantage that they could "readily use" to expand market share.

Some commenters believed that the

small quantity exemptions should be

available to regulated entities of all sizes

and be based on the size of the batch.

This commenter gave the example of a

coating supplier that provided most

coating in bulk, but would supply a

small quantity of matching paint in

aerosol cans for exact match touch-ups.

Another commenter stated that they

were unable to support a proposal that

specifically exempts manufacturers of

certain products from regulatory

requirements unless the exemption was

available to all manufacturers of that

type of product. The latter commenter

was concerned with the anti-trust

ramifications of providing such an

exemption, since it could create a

beneficial climate for one manufacturer,

but not another.

Some commenters expressed concern

that EPA overstated the emission

reductions in the rule, given the number

of sources that would potentially take

advantage of the exemption, variances,

and extensions. One commenter stated

that the small quantity manufacturer

exemption, in particular, would have a

substantial impact on the VOC emission

reductions achieved by the rule and

cautioned that EPA should closely

monitor the impacts of these provisions

on the overall rule efficacy.

EPA does not agree that the

exemption and variance provisions are

likely to have a significant impact on

the'overall effectiveness of this rule.

EPA has tailored the small quantity

manufacturer exemption to provide

relief only to those particularly small

entities that would otherwise bear

particularly high costs for compliance

relative to the small amount of products

they produce and, therefore, the small

amount of total VOC emissions from

such products. The variance provision

is, likewise, narrowly tailored and

provides only temporary variance from

the limits of the rule. Each of these

provisions is targeted to small subsets of

15615

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15615 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57fMoh'day, March 24, 20087Rules andifulatiom

regulated entities that would otherwise

be disproportionately impacted by this

rule.

The two-year compliance extension

for facilities that have not previously

manufactured coatings compliant with

CARB coating limits is provided to

ensure that facilities have adequate time

to reformulate products to meet the rule.

If a regulated entity has not previously

developed compliant products, it may

take longer (i.e., beyond January 1,

2009) to reformulate and market a new

product. However, because EPA

estimates that well over 85 percent of

the aerosol coatings in the United States

have already been reformulated to meet

the California limits, we do not expect

many facilities to qualify for this

provision. Similarly, EPA does not

anticipate that a large number of

regulated entities will need to request a

variance under this rule. In California,

only one variance request was ever

requested for the comparable CARB

aerosol coating rule.

EPA established the small quantity

manufacturer exemption with the

primary focus of assisting small

businesseg that may make only a small

quantity of aerosol coatings. Because

small businesses do not always do

business across the country, EPA

concluded that it was possible that some

may not have previously been subject to

the reactivity-based requirements in

California. While we have included the

costs of developing reformulated

products in the cost assessment of this

rule, we also recognize that the average

cost (i.e., cost on a "per can" basis)

could be higher for a company

producing a smaller product line.

Recognizing this, we established this

provision to exempt those most likely to

experience the highest per-can

reformulation costs.

EPA also does not concur with the

commenter's concerns that the small

quantity manufacturer exemption

creates an unfair competitive advantage

or antitrust issues. The total mass of

VOC per exemption (7500 kg) represents

less than 0.01 percent of the total VOC

used in aerosol coatings (based on the

1990 survey). Even adjusting for

emission reductions that have occurred

since 1990, the mass for this exemption

would remain well below one percent of

the market. We disagree that this small

fraction of the total aerosol coating

market could give anyone a competitive

advantage. Further, a significant

expansion in a small quantity

manufacturer's market share would

likely result in the manufacturer no

longer qualifying for the exemption.

Finally, EPA also does not agree that

creation of the exemption for small

quantity manufacturers creates an

anitrust issue. Such- issues generally

arise where members of an industry

collude to create unfair market

advantage, as by agreeing not to

compete on prices for their respective

products. EPA, in its capacity as

government regulator, can promulgate

regulations with features such as

exemptions for certain members of an

industry without violation of the

applicable statutes and regulations

pertaining to antitrust issues. Moreover,

EPA is obligated to take the specific

concerns of small entities into account

in the regulatory process and, where

appropriate, to provide mechanisms

such as exemptions in order to mitigate

disproportionate and unnecessary

impacts upon small businesses. In the

case of this regulation, EPA has

determined that it is appropriate to

provide an exemption of this type

because it will permit the

implementation of a rule that will

achieve significant VOC emission

reductions across the industry as a

whole and the percentage of emissions

reductions that will be foregone by

virtue of the exemption are anticipated

to be de minimis.

As discussed in the air impacts

section of this preamble, we do not

expect any of these provisions to have

a significant impact on overall VOC

emission reductions that will result

from the rule, largely due to the small

number of regulated entities that we

expect to qualify for these exemptions.

Therefore, EPA has concluded that all

exemptions should remain in the rule,

as proposed. We have made some

changes to the regulatory language,

particularly with respect to the small

quantity manufacturer, to ensure that

the provisions are clear.

One commenter asked EPA to clarify

whether an importer's products are

exempt as specified under the small

quantity manufacturer exemption in

§ 59.501(e). First, EPA notes that the

small quantity manufacturer exemption

is only available to manufacturers.

Second, in response to this comment,

EPA has added a provision in § 59.501(f)

that specifies how foreign

manufacturers may qualify for the small

quantity manufacturer exemption.

E. Additional Reporting Requirements

Numerous commenters provided

input on the need, or lack of need, for

additional reporting requirements, in

general, and the annual reporting of

formulation data, in particular. Some

commenters contended that no

additional periodic reporting was

warranted, while others stated their

belief that the rule is not enforceable

without additional reporting.

One comnter argued that more

detailed records, including formulation

data, must be mandated by this rule.

This commenter said that it would be

unreasonable for EPA not to provide for

adequate data reporting that would

allow for meaningful oversight and

enforcement of the rule, stating that

formulation data are critical to this

assessment. The commenter does not

believe that the proposed approach (i.e.,

the regulated entity responding to an

EPA request for data) is sufficient. The

commenter stated that EPA must

include reporting requirements in the

rule that will ensure it can quickly and

effectively verify compliance and

intervene appropriately where a

violation occurs. Other commenters

supported gathering additional

information, with one stating that they

believe that without full electronic

reporting of all formulation data, the

burden on EPA's compliance and

enforcement staff would be too great

and that any effective enforcement

would be impossible.

Other commenters strongly disagreed

that additional reporting is warranted.

These commenters pointed to the

requirements to supply information to

EPA on the types of products they

manufacture, as well as contact

information. They contended that the

requirement to supply the more detailed

information, including formulation data

for the volatile components in their

products, is unnecessary. When EPA

chose to make a compliance review,

there were provisions in the proposed

rule that gave EPA the ability to obtain

the specific information, as needed. The

commenters encouraged EPA to

maintain the provisions related to

reporting requirements as they were

proposed.

EPA appreciates the comments

received on this topic from all sides and

understands both positions. When EPA

is establishing the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements for a rule, we

have the responsibility to balance the

burden imposed by the requirements

with the need for a rule that is

implementable as a practical matter. We

must ensure that the information

needed to implement the rule is

available, while ensuring that we do not

require industry to gather and submit

information that will never be used.

This rulemaking, the first national VOC

rule incorporating reactivity-based

limits, raises additional concerns about

the types of information that should be

gathered. Based on a thoughtful review

of the comments and our own review,

we have concluded that there are two

156166

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15616 2008
Federal .ogister / Vpl 73j No. 57 / Monday,: Marh .24, 2008/Rules and .Regulations

basic needs for information: (1)

Information that allows EPA (and

others) to ensure that the requirements

are being met, and (2) information that

allows EPA (and others) to assess

whether the reactivity-based approach is

xesulting in the ozone reductions we

have determined, based on information

we have analyzed to date, should occur.

Each of these basic information needs

warrant a different approach.

EPA has revised the reporting

requirements of the final rule to ensure

that adequate information is available.

EPA concurs with the commenters who

believe that we have an obligation to

ensure that our new approach to

regulating some VOC sources through

the use of reactivity-based limits is

working. In the final rule, EPA has

included a requirement for regulated

entities to provide information about the

VOC composition of their products in

their Initial Notifications and to update

this information every three years,

beginning with data for calendar year

2010, along with information about the

quantities of individual VOC species in

each formulation manufactured,

imported, or distributed in the reporting

year. This triennial reporting will enable

EPA to better assess the efficacy of the

reactivity-based approach, including the

manner in which the program's

requirements are being achieved. For

example, the information will enable us

to ascertain how manufacturers are

responding to the regulation, what the

impact of.the rule is on the aerosol

coatings category, and whether the rule

has any unintended consequences or impacts. The information will also

enable us to compare the changes in

VOC emissions under a mass-based

approach as compared to a reactivitybased approach. EPA intends to

integrate the triennial report into the

expanded electronic reporting processes

being developed for the National

Emissions Inventory. EPA will provide

additional information and-guidance to

regulated entities prior to the first

required triennial report due in 2011.

This information will be sent to

regulated entities, based on contact

information submitted in their Initial

Notifications.

"IV. Summary of Impacts

This section presents a summary of

the impacts expected as a result of this

rule. To ensure that the impacts are not

underestimated, we followed an

approach that would provide

conservative estimates for each impact.

For environmental impacts, we ensured

that our estimated positive impacts (i.e.,

emission reduction) were not overstated

(i.e., we state positive impacts

conservatively low). For cost and

economic impacts, we ensured.that our

estimated impacts were not understated

(i.e., we state cost and economic

impacts conservatively high). This

approach ensures that conclusions

drawn on the overall impact on

facilities, including small businesses,

are based on conservative assumptions.

A. Environmental Impacts.

In accordance with section 183(e),

EPA has evaluated what regulatory

approach would constitute "best

available controls" for this product

category, taking into account the

considerations noted in the statute. EPA

has evaluated the incremental increase

or decrease in air-pollution, water

pollution, and solid waste reduction

that would result from implementing

the final standards.

1. Air Pollution Impacts

The final rule will reduce the amount

of ozone generated from the use of

aerosol coatings. Because most States

will use the VOC emission reductions

resulting from this rule in their ozone

SIP planning, we have calculated the

reductions associated with the rule in

terms of mass VOC emissions and we

.will refer to a reduction in mass VOC

emissions when discussing the impacts

of the final regulation. EPA concludes

this is appropriate because the reactivity

limits were designed to ensure that the

ozone reductions that would be - ,

achieved by the limits were equivalent:

to the mass VOC redficti'is that would'i

have been achieved by the GARB 200Z.

mass-based VOC limits. However,

because the limits actually reduce the

amount of ozone generated from the

VOC used in aerosol coatings rather

than VOC content by mass, the VOC

reductions that we refer to are more

accurately described as an "equivalent

reduction in VOC emissions." We will

use the term "reduction" in subsequent

discussions. Additional information on

the method used to calculate the air

impacts of the rule are included in the

impacts calculation memorandum

contained in the docket to this

rulemaking.

EPA has estimated that this rule will

reduce nationwide emissions of VOC

from the use of aerosol coatings by an

estimated 17,130 tons (15,570 Mg) from

the 1990 baseline. This represents a 19.4

percent reduction from the 1990

baseline of 88,300 tons (80,270 Mg) of

VOC emissions from the product

category. While we believe that the

above numbers accurately assess the

impacts of the final rule for SIP credit

purposes, we recognize that significant

reductions have already occurred as the

result of the implementation of the

CARB aerosol coatings regulations.

Because many manufacturers sell

"CARB compliant" coatings across the

country, some of these VOC emission

reductions have already been achieved

outside of California. We estimate that

approximately 18 percent of the total

products sold are not currently

compliant with this rule's limits.

Therefore, we estimate that this rule

will result in additional VOC reductions

equivalent to 3,100 tons per year (i.e., 18

percent of 17,130 tons per year).

The reduction of 3,100 tons per year

of VOC emissions represents new

reductiorts. However, for ozone SIP

purposes, we are providing States that

do not currently have aerosol coating

regulations in place full credit for the

19.4 percent reduction from the 1990

baseline. This 19.4 percent reduction is

equivalent to a 0.114 pound of VOC

reduction per capita.

Although we have not quantified the

anticipated impacts of this rule on HAP

emissions, EPA expects-that the final

rule will reduce emissions of toluene

and xylene, two highly reactive toxic

and volatile compounds. Toluene and

xylene are hazardous air pollutants that

manufacturers have historically used

extensively in some aerosol coating

formulations. However, both of these

compounds are also highly reactive

VOC. Therefore, it will be difficult for

regulated entities to continue to use

these compounds in significant

concentrations and still meet the

reactivity limits in the final rule. EPA

maintains that a regulation based upon

VOC reactivity, rather than VOC mass,

will provide a significant incentive for

regulated entities to cease or re'luce use

of toluene and xylene in their products.

Due to the reduction in equivalent

VOC emissions and ozone formation

and the anticipated reduction in

hazardous air pollutant emissions, we

believe the rule will improve human

health and the environment.

2. Water and Solid Waste Impacts

There are no adverse solid waste

impacts anticipated from the

compliance with this rule. Companies

can continue to sell and distribute .

coatings that do not meet the applicable

limits after the compliance date, as long

as those coatings were manufactured

before the compliance date. Therefore,

the industry does not have to dispose of

aerosol cans containing noncompliant

product, which would result in an

increase in solid waste. It is possible

that the rule will actually result in a

reduction in solid waste, as more

concentrated higher solids coatings may

be used as an option for meeting the

.15617

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15617 2008
Federal Register/ Vol. 73, N6. 57/Moniday, March 24, 2008/Riles and:iR gudM -owY

regulatory limits. This will result in

fewer containers requiring disposal

when the same volume of solids is

applied by product users.

There are no anticipated adverse

water impacts from this rulemaking.

B. Energy Impacts

There are no adverse energy impacts

anticipated from compliance with this

rule. EPA expects that regulated entities

will comply through product

reformulation, which will not

significantly alter energy impacts. The

rule does not include add-on controls or

other measures that would add to

energy usage or other impacts.

C. Cost and Economic Impacts

There are four types of facilities that

will be impacted by the final rule. These

include the aerosol coating

manufacturers, aerosol coating

processors, and aerosol coating

wholesale distributors, and importers of

aerosol coatings. For some products, the

manufacturer is also the filler and

distributor, while for other products the

manufacturing process, the filling

process, and the distribution may be

done by three separate companies. The

primary focus of our cost and economic

analysis is the aerogol coating

manufacturers as we anticipate that the

costs to the fillers, distributors, or

importers will be minimal.

For the aerosol coating manufacturer,

we evaluated three components in

determining the total cost of the final

rule. These three components include

the cost of the raw materials that the

manufacturer will use to formulate

coatings that comply with the regulatory

limits, the cost of research and

development efforts that will be

necessary to develop compliant

formulations, and the cost of the

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements associated with the rule.

These costs are explained in more detail

in the proposed rule.2 9 The only change

to this rule since proposal that could

impact the cost analysis from the

proposed rule is the addition of

triennial reporting, as discussed

elsewhere. However, the estimated

increase in burden from this increased

reporting did not affect the average

reporting and recordkeeping burden on

a per can basis. Therefore, there was no

change in the economic assessment.

If all of the cans of aerosol coating

product subject to the rule required

reformulation, the total nationwide cost

of the final rule-would be $20,360,521.

2 9 "National Volatile Organic Compound

Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings: Proposed

Rule" 72 FR 38951 (uly 16, 2007).

However, we know that significant

progress has -lready been- made in

reformulating aerosol coatings to meet

the promulgated limits. Even before

CARB's regulation became effective, its

survey data showed that for 10 coating

categories, 100 percent of the coatings

were complying with the limits in 1997.

For the remaining categories, all but two

had complying market shares greater

than 20 percent in 1997. With CARB's

2002 reactivity-based regulation in

place, EPA anticipates that the number

of coatings already meeting the limits

has increased significantly.

V. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this

action is a "significant regulatory

action" because it raises novel legal or

policy issues. Accordingly, EPA

submitted this action to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review under EO 12866 and any

changes made in response to OMB

recommendations have been

documented in the docket for this

action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this final rule have been

submitted for approval to the OMB

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information

Collection Request (ICR) document

prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA

ICR number 2266.02.

The information collection

requirements are based on

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements. These recordkeeping and

reporting requirements are specifically

authorized by CAA section 114 and

section 183(e). All information

submitted to EPA for which a claim of

confidentiality is made is safeguarded

according to EPA policies set forth in 40

CFR part 2, subpart B, as appropriate.

The content of the reports required by

this rule will not be eligible for

treatment as confidential business

information.

The promulgated standards would

require regulated entities to submit an

initial notification and other reports as

outlined in section H.F.

We estimate that about 62 regulated

entities are subject to the promulgated

standards. New and existing regulated

entities would have no capital costs

associated with the information

collection requirements in the

promulgated standards.

The estimated recordkeeping and

reporting burden in the third year after

the effective date of the promulgated

rule is estimated to be 15,818 labor

hours at a cost of $1.0 million. This.

estimate includes the cost of reporting,:

including reading instructions,

information gathering, preparation of

initial and supplemental reports,

triennial reporting of formulation data,

and variance or compliance extension

applications. Recordkeeping cost

estimates include reading instructions,

planning activities, calculation of

reactivity, and maintenance of batch

information. The average hours and cost

per regulated entity in the third year

would be 197 hours and $16,400. About

62 facilities would respond per year.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose,

or provide information to or for a

Federal Agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information;-adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA's regulations in 40

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements under the

Administrative Procedure Act or any

other statute unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of this rule on small entities, small

entity is defined as: (1) A small business

as defined by the Small Business

Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental

jurisdiction that is a government of a

city, county, town, school district, or

15 61l6

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15618 2008
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

special district with a population of less

than 50,000; and (3) a small

organization that is any not-for-profit

enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of this regulatory action, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The small entities directly regulated by

this final rule are manufacturers,

wholesale distributors, and importers of

aerosol coating products. We have

determined that up to 40 out of a total

of 60 entities (or 67%) could experience

a cost-to-sales ratio increase of up to

1.42 percent. This ratio does not include

revenues from other products that small

regulated entities may sell. In addition,

significant progress has already been

made in reformulating aerosol coatings

to meet previously promulgated CARB

emission limits. Both of these factors

would significantly reduce the cost-tosales ratio. Consequently it is very

unlikely that the cost-to-sales ratio for

any small entity would exceed 1

percent. Thus, a significant impact is

not expected for a substantial number of

small entities.

Although this final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

EPA has made efforts to reduce the

potential impact of the-regulation. These

efforts include active participation in

National Small Business Environmental

Assistance Program (SBEAP) meetings,

and in follow-up meetings with SBEAP

States in Region 5. As a result, several

States provided information to small

businesses regarding the rule. The final

rule includes several provisions

designed to minimize the potential

adverse impacts on small businesses.

They include a small quantity

manufacturer exemption, a compliance

extension for entities that have not

previously developed CARB-compliant

aerosol coatings formulations, and a

variance provision.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104-4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with "Federal mandates" that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with- significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the Tegulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this

regulatory action does not contain a'

Federal mandate that may result in

expenditures of $100 million or more

for State, local, or tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or the private sector in

any one year. Thus, this action is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition,

we have determined that this regulatory

action contains no regulatory -

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments

because they contain no regulatory

requirements that apply to such

governments or impose obligations

upon them. Therefore, this action is not

subject to the requirements of section

203 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order (EO) 13132, entitled

"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications." "Policies that have

federalism implications" is defined in

the EO to include regulations that have

"substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government."

The regulatory action does not have

federalism implications. The action

does not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in EO 13132. The CAA

establishes the relationship between the

Federal Government and the States, and

this action does not impact that

relationship. Thus, EO 13132 does not

apply to this regulatory action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Executive Order (EO) 13175, entitled

"Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely input by

Tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have Tribal

implications." "Policies that have tribal

implications" is defined in the EQ to

include regulations that have

"substantial direct effects on one or

more Indian tribes, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes."

This final action does not have Tribal

implications as defined by EO 13175.

The final regulatory action does not

have a substantial direct effect on one or

more Indian tribes, in that this action

imposes no regulatory burdens on

Tribes. Furthermore, the action does not

affect the relationship or distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule

(TAR) establish the relationship of the

Federal Government and Tribes in

implementing the CAA. Because the

rule does not have Tribal implications,

EO 13175 does not apply.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

and Safety Risks

Executive Order (EO) 13045,

"Protection of Children from

Environmental Health and Safety Risks"

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to

any rule that (1) is determined to be

"economically significant" as defined

under EO 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

section 5-501 of the EO directs the EPA

to evaluate the environmental health or

15619

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15619 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

safety effects of the planned rule on

children, and explain why the planned

regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably

feasible alternatives considered by the

EPA.

This regulatory action is not subject to

EO 13045 because it is not an

economically significant regulatory

action as defined by EO 12866. In

addition, EPA interprets EO 13045 as

applying only to those regulatory

actions that are based on health and

safety risks, such that the analysis

required under section 5-501 of the EO

has the potential to influence the

regulations. This regulatory action is not

subject to EO 13045 because it does not

include regulatory requirements based

on health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

This rule is not a "significant energy

action" as defined in Executive Order

(EO) 13211, "Actions Concerning

Regulations That Significantly Affect

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is

not likely to have a significant adverse

effect on the supply, distribution, or use

of energy. Further, we have concluded

that this rule is not likely to have any

adverse energy effects.

L National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule, section

12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113,

Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS) in its regulatory

activities, unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. The VCS are

technical standards (e.g., materials

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that

are developed or adopted by VCS

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to

provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the EPA does not

use availabld and applicable VCS.

This final rule involves technical

standards. EPA cites the following

standards in this rule.*Califomia Air

Resources Board Method 310-

Determination of VOC in Consumer

Products and Reactive Organic

Compounds in Aerosol Coating

Products; EPA Method 311-Analysis of

Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in

Painits and Coatings by Direct Injection

into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part

63, appendix A), in conjunction with

American Society of Testing and -

Materials (ASTM) Method D3063-94 or

D3074-94 for analysis of the propellant

portion of the coating; South Coast Air

Quality Management District

(SCAQMD) Method 318-95,

Determination of Weight Percent

Elemental Metal in Coatings by X-ray

Diffraction, July, 1996, for metal

content; and ASTM D523-89

(Reapproved 1999), Standard Test

Method for Specular Gloss for specular

gloss of flat and nonflat coatings.

EPA Method 311-Analysis of

Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in

Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection

into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part

63, appendix A) also is a compilation of

voluntary consensus standards. The

following are incorporated by reference

in EPA Method 311-Analysis of

Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in

Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection

into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part

63, appendix A): ASTM D1979-91,

ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4457-85,

ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and

ASTM PS9-94.

Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA

conducted searches to identify

voluntary consensus standards in

addition to these methods. No

applicable voluntary consensus

standards were identified.

For the methods required by the rule,

a source may apply to EPA for

permission to use alternative test

methods or alternative monitoring

requirements in place of any required

testing methods, performance

specifications, or procedures under

§§ 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the

General Provisions.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal

Actions to Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal

executive policy on environmental

justice. Its main provision directs

federal agencies, to the greatest extent

practicable and permitted by law, to

make environmental justice part of their

mission by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate, disproportionately high

and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs,

policies, and activities on minority

populations and low-income

populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this final

rule will not have disproportionately

high and adverse human health or

environmental effects on minority or

low-income populations because it

increases the level of environmental

protection for all affected populations

without having any disproportionately

high and adverse human health or

environmental effects on any

population, including any minority or

low-income populations. Further, it

establishes national emission standards

for VOC in aerosol coatings.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of.the United States. The EPA will

submit a report containing the final rule

amendment and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the

Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of this final

rule amendment in the Federal Register.

The final rule amendment is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2). This final rule is effective on

March 24, 2008.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Intergovernmental relations, Lead,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile

organic compound, Consumer products,

Aerosol products, Aerosol *coatings,

Consumer and commercial products.

40 CFR Part 59

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: November 15, 2007.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

m Forthe reasons set out in the

preamble, parts 51 and 59 of title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations are

amended as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for part 51

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-

7671q.

m 2. Section 51.100 is amended by

adding paragraph (s)(7) to read as

follows:

15620

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15620 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

§ 51.100 Definitions. * * * . * *

(s) * * *

(7) For the purposes of determining

compliance with EPA's aerosol coatings

reactivity based regulation (as described

in 40 CFR part 59-National Volatile

Organic Compound Emission Standards

for Consumer and Commercial

Products) any organic compound in the

volatile portion of an aerosol coating is

counted towards the product's

reactivity-based limit, as provided in

part 59, subpart E. Therefore, the

compounds that are used in aerosol

coating products and that are identified

in paragraph (s) of this section as

negligibly reactive and excluded from

EPA's definition of VOC are to be

counted towards a product's reactivity

limit for the purposes of determining

compliance with EPA's aerosol coatings

reactivity-based national regulation, as

provided in part 59, subpart E. * * * * *

PART 59-[AMENDED]

* 3. The authority citation for part 59

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 751lb(e).

* 4. Subpart E is added to read as

follows:

Subpart E-National Volatile Organic

Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol

Coatings

Sec.

59.500 What is the purpose of this subpart?

59.501 Am I subject to this subpart?

59.502 When do I have to comply with this

subpart?

59.503 What definitions apply to this

subpart?

59.504 What limits must I meet?

59.505 How do I demonstrate compliance

with the reactivity limits?

59.506 How do I demonstrate compliance if

I manufacture multi-component.kits?

59.507 What are the labeling requirements

for aerosol coatings?

59.508 What test methods must I use?

59.509 Can I get a variance?

59.510 What records am I required to

maintain?

59.511 What notifications and reports must

I submit?

59.512 Addresses of EPA regional offices.

59.513 State authority.

59.514 Circumvention.

59.515 Incorporations by reference.

59.516 Availability of information and

confidentiality

Table 1 to Subpart E of Part 59-ProductWeighted Reactivity Limits by Coating

Category

Table 2A to Subpart E of Part 59-Reactivity

Factors

Table 2B to Subpart E of Part 59-Reactivity

Factors for Aliphatic Hydrocarbon

Solvent Mixtures

Table 2C to Subpart E of Part 59-Reactivity

Factors for Aromatic Hydrocarbon

Solvent Mixtures

Subpart E-National Volatile Organic

Compound Emission Standards for

Aerosol Coatings

§5g.500 What Is the purpose of this

subpart?

This subpart establishes the productweighted reactivity (PWR) limits

regulated entities must meet in order to

comply with the national rule for

volatile organic compounds (VOC)

emitted from aerosol coatings. This

subpart also establishes labeling,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements for regulated entities.

§59.501 Am I subject to this subpart?

(a) The regulated entities for an

aerosol coating product are the

manufacturer or importer of an aerosol

coating product and a distributor of an

aerosol coating product if named on the

label. Distributors whose names do not

appear on the label for the product are

not regulated entities. Distributors

include retailers whose names appear

on the label for the product. If your

name appears on the label, you are a

regulated entity.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph

(e) of this section, the responsibilities of

each regulated entity are detailed in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this

section.

(1CIf you are a manufacturer or - importer, you are the-regulated entity'

responsible for ensuring that all aerosol

coatings manufactured or imported by

you meet the PWR limits presented in

§ 59.504, even if your name is not on the

label.

(2) If you are a distributor named on

the label, you are the regulated entity

responsible for compliance with all

sections of this subpart except for the

limits presented in § 59.504. If you are

a distributor that has specified

formulations to be used by a

manufacturer, then you are responsible

for compliance with all sections of this subat (3sIf there is no distributor named on

the label, then the manufacturer or

importer is the regulated entity

responsible for compliance with all

sections of this subpart.

(4) If you are a manufacturer or importer, you can choose to certify that

you will provide any or all of the

recordikeeping and reporting

requirements of §§ 59.510 and 59.511 by

following the procedures of § 59.511(g)

and (h).

(c) Except as provided in paragraph

(e) of this section, the provisions of this

subpart apply to aerosol coatings

manufactufed on or after January 1,

2009, for sale or distribution in the

United States. Aerosol coatings that are

registered under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C.

136-136y) (FIFRA). For FIFRA

registered aerosol coatings, the

provisions of this subpart apply to

aerosol coatings manufactured on or

after January 1, 2010, for sale or

distribution in the United States.

(d) You are not a regulated entity

under this subpart for the aerosol

coatings products that you manufacture

(in or outside of the United States) that

are exclusively for sale outside the

United States.

(e) If you meet the definition of small

quantity manufacturer for a given year,

the products you manufacture in that

year are not subject to the PWR limits

presented in § 59.504 or the labeling

requirements of § 59.507. To qualify for

this exemption, small aerosol coating

manufacturers must comply with the

applicable recordkeeping and reporting

requirements in §§ 59.510 and 59.511.

(f) If you are a person who

manufactures or processes aerosol

coatings outside of the United States,

you may qualify for the small quantity

manufacturer exemption in paragraph

(e) of this section if you meet the

requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)

through (f)(3) of this section.

(1) The total VOC by mass included

in all aerosol coatings you manufacture,

at all facilities, in a given calendar year,

in the aggregate, is less than 7,500

kilograms.

(2) You comply with the

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements in §§ 59.510 and 59.511.

(3) You commit to and comply with

the requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(i)

through (f)(3)(vii) of this section.

(i) You must provide an initial

notification no later than 90 days before

the compliance date, or at least 90 days

before you start manufacturing aerosol

coating products that are sold in the

United States. This initial notification

must state that you are a foreign

manufacturer that is intending to qualify

for the small quantity manufacturer

exemption in paragraph (e) of this

section, provide all of the information

specified in § 59.511(b), and provide all

the information in paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(A)

and (f)(3)(i)(B) of this section.

(A) The name, address, telephone

number, and e-mail address of an agent

located in the United States who will

serve as your point of contact for

communications with EPA.

(B) The address of each of your

facilities that is manufacturing aerosol

coatings for sale in the United States.

15621

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15621 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

(ii) You must notify the Administrator

of any changes in the information

provided in your initial notification

within 30 days following the change.

(iii) The agent identified above must

maintain a copy of the compliance

records specified in § 59.510(b). Those

records must be kept by the agent such

that the agent will be able to provide the

written report which must be submitted

upon 60 days notice under § 59.511(d)

and able to make those records available

for inspection and review under

§ 59.511(e).

(iv) You must give any EPA inspector

or auditor full, complete, and immediate

access to your facilities and records to

conduct inspections and audits of your

manufacturing facilities.

(v) You must agree that United States

substantive and procedural law shall

apply to any civil or criminal

enforcement action against you under

this subpart, and that the forum for any

civil or criminal enforcement action

under this subpart shall be governed by

the CAA, including the EPA

administrative forum where allowed

under the CAA.

(vi) Any person certifying any

notification, report, or other

communication from you to EPA must

state in the certification that United

States substantive and procedural law

shall apply to any-civil or criminal

enforcement action against him or her

under this subpart, and that the forum

for any civil or criminal enforcement

action under this section shall be

governed by the CAA, including the

EPA administrative forum where

allowed under the CAA.

(vii) All reports and other

communications with EPA must be in

English. To the extent that you provide

any documents as part of any report or

other communication with EPA, an

English language translation of that

document must be provided with the

report or communication.

§ 59.502 When do I have to comply with

this subpart?

(a) Except as provided in § 59.509 and

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,

you must be in compliance with all

provisions of this subpart by January 1,

2009.

(b) The Administrator will consider

issuance of a special compliance

extension that extends the date of

compliance until January 1, 2011, to

regulated entities that have never

manufactured, imported, or distributed

aerosol coatings for sale or distribution

in California that are in compliance

with California's Regulation for

Reducing Ozone Formed From Aerosol

Coating Product Emissions, Title 17,

California Code of Regulations, sections

94520-94528. In order to be considered

for an extension of the compliance date,

you must submit a special compliance

extension application to the EPA

Administrator no later than 90 days

before the compliance date or within 90

days before the date that you first

manufacture aerosol coatings,

whichever is later. This application

must contain the information in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this

section. If a regulated entity remains

unable to comply with the limits of this

rule by January 1, 2011, the regulated

entity may seek a variance in

accordance with § 59.509.

(1) Company name;

(2) A signed certification by a

responsible company official that the

regulated entity has not at any time

manufactured, imported, or distributed

for sale or distribution in California any

product in any category listed in Table

1 of this subpart that complies with

California's Regulation for Reducing

Ozone Formed From Aerosol Coating

Product Emissions, Title 17, California

Code of Regulations, sections 94520-

94528;

(3) A statement that the regulated

entity will, to the extent possible within

its reasonable control, take appropriate

action to achieve compliance with this

subpart by January 1, 2011;

(4) A list of the product categories in

Table 1 of this subpart that the regulated

entity manufactures, imports, or

distributes; and,

(5) Name, title, address, telephone, email address, and signature of the

certifying company official.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, the compliance date

for aerosol coatings that are registered

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide

and Rodeiticide Act (7 U.S.C-136-136y)

(FIFRA) ig January 1, 2010.

§59.503 What definitions apply to this

subpart?

The following terms are defined for

the purposes of this subpart only.

Administrator means the

Administrator of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

or an authorized representative.

Aerosol Coating Product means a

pressurized coating product containing

pigments or resins that is dispensed by

means of a propellant and is packaged

in a disposable can for hand-held

application, or for use in specialized

equipment for ground traffic/marking

applications. For the purpose of this

regulation, applicable aerosol coatings

categories are listed in Table 1 of this

subpart.

Art Fixative or Sealant means a clear

coating, including art varnish, workable

art fixative and ceramic coating, which

is designed and labeled exclusively for

application to paintings, pencil, chalk,

or pastel drawings, ceramic art pieces or

other closely related art uses, in order to

provide a final protective coating or to

fix preliminary stages of artwork while

providing a workable surface for

subsequent revisions.

ASTM means the American Society

for Testing and Materials.

Autobody Primer means an

automotive primer or primer surfacer

coating designed and labeled

exclusively to be applied to a vehicle

body substrate for the purposes of

corrosion resistance and building a

repair area to -a condition in which, after

drying, it can be sanded to a smooth

surface.

Automotive Bumper and Trim

Product means a product, including

adhesion promoters and chip sealants,

designed and labeled exclusively to

repair and refinish automotive bumpers

and plastic trim parts.

Aviation Propeller Coating means a

coating designed and labeled

exclusively to provide abrasion

resistance and corrosion protection for

aircraft propellers.

Aviation or Marine Primer means a

coating designed and labeled

exclusively to meet federal specification

TT-P-1757.

Clear Coating means a coating which

is colorless, containing resins but no

pigments except flatting agents, and is

designed and labeled to form a

transparent or translucent solid film.

Coating Solids means the nonvolatile

portion of an aerosol coating product,

consisting of the film-forming

ingredients, including pigments and

resins.

Commercial Application means the

use of aerosol coating products in the

production of goods, or the providing of

services for profit, including touch-up

and repair.

Corrosion Resistant Brass, Bronze, or

Copper Coating means a clear coating

designed and labeled exclusively to

prevent tarnish and corrosion of

uncoated brass, bronze, or copper metal

surfaces.

Distributor means any person who

purchases or is supplied aerosol coating

product for the purposes of resale or

distribution in commerce. Retailers who

fall within this definition are

distributors. Importers are not

distributors.

Enamel means a coating which cures

by chemical cross-linking of its base

resin and is not resoluble in its original

solvent.

15622

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15622 2008
Federal ,R~gister/ Vol. 73, No.. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008 /Rules and Regulations

Engine Paint means a coating

designed and labeled exclusively to coat

engines and their components.

Exact Match Finish, Engine Paint

means a coating which meets all of the

following criteria:

(1) The product is designed and

labeled exclusively to exactly match the

color of an original, factory-applied

engine paint;

(2) The product is labeled with the

manufacturer's name for which they

were formulated; and

(3) The product is labeled with one of

the following:

(i) The original equipment

manufacturer's (O.E.M.) color code

number;

(ii) The color name; or

(iii) Other designation identifying the

specific O.E.M. color to the purchaser.

Exact Malch Finish, Automotive

means a topcoat which meets all of the

following criteria:

(1) The product is designed and

labeled exclusively to exactly match the

color of an original, factory-applied

automotive coating during the touch-up

of automobile finishes;

(2) The product is labeled with the

manufacturer's name for which they

were formulated; and

(3) The product is labeled with one of

the following:

(i) The original equipment

manufacturer's (O.E.M.) color code

number;

(ii) The color name; or (iii) Other designation identifying the

specific O.E.M. color to the purchaser.

Notwithstanding the foregoing,

automotive clear coatings designed and

labeled exclusively for use over

automotive exact match finishes to

replicate the original factory-applied

finish shall be considered to be

automotive exact match finishes.

Exact Match Finish, Industrial means

a coating which meets all of the

following criteria:

(1) The product is designed and

labeled exclusively to exactly match the

color of an original, factory-applied

industrial coating during the touch-up

of manufactured products;

(2) The product is labeled with the

manufacturer's name for which they

were formulated; and

(3) The product is labeled with one of

the following:

(i) O.E.M. color code number;

(ii) The color name; or (iii) Other designation identifying the

specific O.E.M. color to the purchaser.

Flat Paint Products means a coating

which, when fully dry, registers

specular gloss less than or equal to 15

on an 850 gloss meter, or less than or

equal to 5 on a 600 gloss meter, or which

is labeled as a flat coating.

Flatting Agent means a compound

added to a coating to reduce the gloss

of the coating without adding color to

the coating.

Floral Spray means a coating designed

and labeled exclusively for use on fresh

flowers, dried flowers, or other items in

a floral arrangement for the purposes of

coloring, preserving or protecting their

appeara *nce.

Formulation Data, unless otherwise

specified, means the recipe used to

formulate or manufacture a coating

product in terms of the weight fraction

(g compoundlg product) of each

individual VOC in the product.

Fluorescent Coating means a coating

labeled as such, which converts

absorbed incident tight energy into

emitted light of a different hue.

Glass Coating means a coating

designed and labeled exclusively for use

on glass or other transparent material to

create a soft, translucent light effect, or

to create a tinted or darkened color

while retaining transparency.

Ground Traffic/Marking Coating

means a coating designed and labeled

exclusively to be applied to dirt, gravel,

grass, conciete, asphalt, warehouse

floors, or parking lots. Such coatings

must be in a container equipped with a

valve and spray head designed to direct

the spray toward the surface when the

can is held in an inverted vertical

position.

High Temperature Coating means a

coating, excluding engine paint, which

is designed and labeled exclusively 'f6r

use on substrates which will, in normal

use, be subjected to temperatures in

excess of 400 OF.

Hobby/Model/Craft Coating means a

coating which is designed and labeled

exclusively for hobby applications and

is sold in aerosol containers of 6 ounces

by weight or less.

Importer means any person who

brings an aerosol coating product that

was manufactured, filled, or packaged at

a location outside of the United States

into the United States for sale or

distribution in the United States.

Ingredient means a component of an

aerosol coating product.

Impurity means an individual

chemical compound present in a raw

material which is incorporated in the

final aerosol coatings formulation, if the

compound is present in amounts below

the following in the raw material:

(1) For individual compounds that are

carcinogens each compound must be

present in an amount less than 0.1

percent by weight;

(2) For all other compounds present

in a raw material, a compound must be

present in an amount less than 1 percent

by weight.

Lacquer means a thermoplastic filmforming material dissolved in organic

solvent, which dries primarily by

solvent evaporation, and is resoluble in

its original solvent.

Manufacturer means any person who

manufactures or processes an aerosol

coating product for sale or distribution

within the United States. Manufacturers

include:

(1) Processors who blend and mix

aerosol coatings;

(2) Contract fillers who develop

formulas and package these

formulations under a distributor's name;

and

(3) Contract fillers who manufacture

products using formulations provided

by a distributor.

Marine Spar Varnish means a coating

designed and labeled exclusively to

provide a protective sealant for marine

wood products.

Metallic Coating means a topcoatwhich contains at least 0.5 percent by

weight elemental metallic pigment in

the formulation, including propellant,

and is labeled as "metallic," or with the

name of a specific metallic finish such

as "gold," "silver," or "bronze."

Multi-Component Kit means an

aerosol spray paint system which

requires the application of more than

one component (e.g. foundation coat

and topcoat), where both components

are sold together in one package.

Nonflat Paint Product means a coating

which, when fully dry, registers a

specular gloss greater than 15 on an 850

gloss meter or greater than five on a 600

gloss meter.

Ozone means a colorless gas with a

pungent odor, having the molecular

form 03.

Person means an individual,

corporation, partnership, association;

state, any agency, department, or

instrumentality of the United States,

and any officer, agent, or employee

thereof.

Photograph Coating means a coating

designed and labeled exclusively to be

applied to finished photographs to

allow corrective retouching, protection

of the image, changes in gloss level, or

to cover fingerprints.

Pleasure Craft means privately owned

vessels used for noncommercial

purposes. -

Pleasure Craft Finish Primer!

Surfacer/Undercoater means a coating

designed and labeled exclusively to be

applied prior to the application of a

pleasure craft topcoat for the purpose of

corrosion resistance and adhesion of the

topcoat, and which promotes a uniform

surface by filling in surface

imperfections.

15623

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15623 2008
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57/ Monday, March 24, 2008/ Rules andigulationsl

Pleasure Craft Topcoat means a

coating designed and labeled

exclusively to be applied to a pleasure

craft as a final coat above the waterline

and below the waterline when stored

out of water. This category does not

include clear coatings.

Polyolefin Adhesion Promoter means

a coating designed and labeled

exclusively to be applied to a polyolefin

or polyolefin copolymer surface of

automotive body parts, bumpers, or trim

parts to provide a bond between the

surface and subsequent coats.

Primer means a coating labeled as

such, which is designed to be applied to

a surface to provide a bond between that

surface and subsequent coats.

Product-Weighted Reactivity (PWR)

Limit means the maximum allowed "product-weighted reactivity," as

calculated in § 59.505, of an aerosol

coating product that is subject to the

limits specified in § 59.504 for a specific

category, expressed as grams of ozone

per gram (9 03/g of product).

Propellant means a liquefied or

compressed gas that is used in whole or

in part, such as a co-solvent, to expel a

liquid or any other material from the

same self-pressuriied container or from

a separate container.

Reactivity Factor {RF) is a measure of

the change in mass of ozone formed by

adding a gram of a VOC to the ambient

atmosphere, expressed to hundredths of

a gram (g 03/g VOC). The RF values for

individual compounds and hydrocarbon

solvent mixtures are specified in Tables

2A, 2B, and 2C of this subpart.

Retailer means any person who sells,

supplies, or offers aerosol coating

products for sale directly to consumers.

Retailers who fall within the definition

of "distributor" in this section are

distributors.

Retail Outlet means any establishment

where consumer products are sold,

supplied, or offered for sale, directly to

consumers.

Shellac Sealer means a clear or

pigmented coating formulated solely

with the resinous secretion of the lac

beetle (Laccifer lacca), thinned with

alcohol, and formulated to dry by

evaporation without a chemical

reaction.

Slip-Resistant Coating means a

coating designed and labeled

exclusively as such, which is

formulated with synthetic grit and used

as a safety coating.

Small qreqntity mnii ufacturer means a

manufacturer whose total VOC by mass

included in all aerosol coatings

manufactured at all facilities in a given

calendar year, in the aggregate, is less

than 7,500 kilograms.

Spatter Coating/Multicolor Coating

means a coating labeled exclusively as

such wherein spots, globules, or spatters

of contrasting colors appear on or

within the surface of a contrasting or

similar background.

Stain means a coating which is

designed and labeled to change the

color of a surface but not conceal the

surface.

United States means the United States

of America, including the District of

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,

American Samoa, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands.

Vinyl/Fabric/Leather/Polycarbonate

Coating means a coating designed and

labeled exclusively to coat vinyl, fabric,

leather, or polycarbonate substrates Or to

coat flexible substrates including rubber

or thermoplastic substrates.

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

means any organic compound as

defined in § 51.100(s) of this chapter. As

provided in 40 CFR 51.100(s)(7),

exemptions from the definition of VOC

in 40 CFR 51.100(s) for certain

compounds that are used in aerosol

coatings are inapplicable for purposes of

this subpart.

Webbing/Veiling Coating means a

coating designed and labeled

exclusively to provide a stranded to

spider webbed appearance when

applied.

Weight Fraction means the weight of

an ingredient divided by the total net

weight of the product, expressed to

thousandths of a-gram of ingredient per

gram of product (excluding container

and packaging).

Weld-Through Primer means a coating

designed and labeled exclusively to

provide a bridging or conducting effect

for corrosion protection following

welding.

Wood Stain means a coating which is

formulated to change the color of a

wood surface but not conceal the

surface.

Wood Touch-Up/Repair/Restoration

means a coating designed and labeled

exclusively to provide an exact color or

WRF = RFi x WF Equation I

sheen match on finished wood

products.

Working Day means any day from

Monday through Friday, inclusive,

except for days that are Federal

holidays.

§ 59.504 What limits must I meet?

(a) Except as provided in § 59.509,

each aerosol coating product you

manufacture, distribute or import for

sale or use in the United States must

meet the PWR limits presented in Table

1 of this subpart. These limits apply to

the final aerosol coating, including the

propellant. The PWR limits specified in

Table I of this subpart are also

applicable to any aerosol coating

product that is assembled by adding

bulk coating to aerosol containers of

propellant.

(b) If a product can be included in

both a general coating category and a

specialty coating category and the

product meets all of the criteria of the

specialty coating category, then the

specialty coating limit will apply

instead of the general coating limit,

unless the product is a high temperature

coating. High-temperature coatings that

contain at least 0.5 percent by weight of

an elemental metallic pigment in the

formulation, including propellant, are

subject to the limit specified for metallic

coatings.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, if anywhere on the

container of any aerosol coating product

subject to the limits in Table 1 of this

subpart, or on any sticker or label

affixed to such product, or in any sales

or advertising literature, the

manufacturer, importer or distributor of

the product makes any representation

that the product may be used as, or is

suitable for use as a product for which

a lower limit is specified, then the

lowest applicable limit will apply.

§ 59.505 How do I demonstrate compliance

with the reactivity limits?

(a) To demonstrate compliance with

the PWR limits presented in Table 1 of

this subpart, you must calculate the

PWR for each coating as described in

paragraphs (a)(1) through (2) of this

section:

(1) Calculate the weighted reactivity

factor (WRF) for each propellant and

coating component using Equation 1:

I r'l I I f 1 rll I IF I .... .

15624

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15624 2008
Federal , ister / Vol.. 73i No. 57 / Monday, March .24, 2008 / Rules astd Regulations

Where:

WRF-= weighted reactivity factor of

component i, g 03/g component i.

RFi = reactivity factor of component i, g 03/ (2) Calculate the PWR of each product

Wg component i, from Table 2A, 2B, or 2C. using Equation 2:

WFi = weight fraction of component i in the

product,

PWRp = (WRF), + (WRF)2 + ... + (WRF). Equation 2

Where:

PWRp =-PWR for product P, g 03/g product.

WRF1 = weighted reactivity factor for

component 1, g 03/g component.

WRF 2 = weighted reactivity factor for

component 2, g 03/g component.

WRF, = weighted reactivity factor for

component n, g 03/g component.

(b) In calculating the PWR, you must

follow the guidelines in paragraphs

(b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.

(1) Any ingredient which does not

contain carbon is assigned a RF value of

0.

(2) Any aerosol coating solid,

including but not limited to resins,

pigments, fillers, plasticizers, and

extenders is assigned a RF of 0. These

items do not have to be identified

individually in the calculation.

(3) All individual compounds present

in the coating in an amount equal to or

exceeding 0.1 percent will be

considered ingredients regardless of

whether or not the ingredient is

reported to the manufacturer.

(4) All individual compounds present

in the coating in an amount less than 0.1

percenf'will be assigned an AF value of

0. (5) Any component that is a VOC but

is not listed in Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of

this subpart is assigned an RF value as

detailed in paragraph (e) of-this section.

(c) You may use either formulation

data (including information for both the

liquid and propellant phases), California

Air Resources Board Method 310-

Determination of Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC) in Consumer

Products and Reactive Organic

Compounds in Aerosol Coating

Products (May 5, 2005) (incorporated by

reference in 59.515), or EPA's Method

311-Analysis of Hazardous Air

Pollutant Compounds in Paints and

Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas

Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,

appendix A), to calculate the PWR.

However, if there are inconsistencies

between the formulation data and the

California Air Resources Board Method

310 (May 5,2005) (incorporated by

reference in 59.515), or EPA Method

311-Analysis of Hazardous Air

Pollutant Compounds in Paints and

Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas

Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,

appendix A) results, the Californfa Air

Resources Board Method 310 (May 5,

2005) (incorporated by referencqe in

59.515), or EPA Method 311-Analysis

of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds

in Paints and Coatings by Direct

Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40

CFR part 63, appendix A) results will

govern.

(d) If you manufacture a coating

containing either an aromatic or

aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent mixture,

you must use the appropriate RF for that

mixture provided in Table 2B or 2C of

this subpart when calculating the PWR

using formulation data. However, when

calculating the PWR for a coating

containing these mixtures using data

from California Air Resources Board

Method 310 (May 5, 2005) (incorporated

by reference in 59.515), or EPA Method

311-Analysis of Hazardous Air

Pollutant Compounds in Paints and

Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas

Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,

appendix A), you must identify the

individual compounds that are present

in the solvent mixture and use the

weight fraction of those individual

compounds and their RF from Table 2A

of this subpart in the calculation.

(e) If a VOC is used in a product but

not listed in Table 2A of this subpart,

the Reactivity Factor (RF) is assigned

according to paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2),

(e)(3) or (e)(4) of this section.

(1) If the VOC is not listed in Table

2A of this subpart, but has an RF greater

than 0.3, the regulated entity may

petition EPA to add the VOC to Table

2A, as described in.§ 59.511(j). Based on

these petitions, EPA will periodically

update the appropriate table. Once an

RF for a VOC is listed on the

appropriate table, that RF will be used

for that VOC for the purposes of this

rule. As provided in § 59.511(j), any

petitions submitted to EPA on or before

June 1, 2008, will be considered, and if

appropriate, incorporated into Table 2A

on or before January 1, 2009.

(2) If the VOC is used in a product but

not listed in Table 2A of this regulation,

and has an RF less than or equal to 0.3,

and will be used at a level greater than

or equal to 7.3 weight percent (g of

compound/g product) in any of the

regulated entity's formulations, the

regulated entity may petition EPA as

described in § 59.511(j). Based on these

petitions, EPA will periodically update

the appropriate table. Once an RF for a

VOC is listed on the appropriate table,

that RF will be used for that VOC for the

purposes of this rule. As provided in

§ 59.511(j), any petition submitted to

EPA on or before June 1, 2008 will be

considered, and if appropriate,

incorporated into Table ZA on or before

January 1, 2009.

(3) If a compound has an RF less than

or equal to 0.3, and will not be used at

a level greater than or equal to 7.3

weight percent (g of compound/g

product) in any of the regulated entity's

formulations, the RF to be used in all

calculations by that entity for this

subpart is 0.

(4) Except as provided in paragraph

(e)(1), (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section, if

a VOC is not listed in Table 2A of this

subpart, it is assigned a default RF factor

of 22.04 g 03/g VOC. As described in

§ 59.511(j), regulated entities may

petition the Administrator to add a

compound or mixture to Table 2A, 2B,

or 2C of this subpart.

(f) In calculating the PWR value for a

coating containing an aromatic

hydrocarbon solvent with a boiling

range different from the ranges specified

in Table 2C of this subpart, you must

assign an RF as described in paragraphs

(f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section:

(1) If the solvent boiling point is lower

than or equal to 420 degrees F, then you

must use the RF inTable 2C of this

subpart specified for bin 23;

.(2) If the solvent boiling point is

* higher than 420 degrees F, then you

must use the RF specified in Table 2C

of this subpart for bin 24.

(g) For.purposes of compliance with

the PWR limits, all compounds listed in

Tables 2A, 2B, or 2C that are used in the

aerosol coating products must be

included in the calculation. This

includes compounds that may otherwise

be exempted from the definition of VOC

in § 59.100(s).

§ 59.506 How do I demonstrate compliance

if I manufacture multi-component kits?

(a) If you manufacture multicomponent kits as defined in § 59.503,

then the Kit PWR must not exceed the

Total Reactivity Limit.

(b) You must calculate the Kit PWR

and the Total Reactivity Limit as

follows:

(1) KIT PWR = (PWR(I) x Wl) +

(PWR(2 ) X W 2 ) +. ... + (PWR(,) x W.)

15625

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15625 2008
Federal.Reg"ister/ Vol. 73, No. 57/MaldayL March 24, 2608/Rules and'ftIuatio! __

(2) Total Reactivity Limit = (RL1 x WI)

+ (Rb2 x W 2 ) +..+ (RL. x Wn).

(3) Kit PWR < Total Reactivity Limit.

Where:

W = the weight of the product contents

(excluding container).

RL = the PWR Limit specified in Table 1 of

this subpart.

Subscript 1 denotes the first component

product in the kit:

Subscript 2 denotes the second component

product in the kit.

Subscript n denotes any additional

component product.

§ 59.507 What are the labeling

requirements for aerosol coatings?

(a) The labels of all aerosol products

manufactured on and after the.

applicable compliance date listed in

§ 59.502 must contain the information

listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of

this section.

(1) The aerosol coating category code

for the coating, based on the category

definitions in § 59.503. This code can be

the default category code shown in

Table 1 of this subpart or a companyspecific code, if that code is explained

as required by § 59.511(a);

(2) The applicable PWR limit for the

product specified in Table 1 of this

subpart;

(3) The day, month, and year on

which the product was manufactured,

or a code indicating such date;

(4) The name and a contact address

for the manufacturer, distributor, or

importer that is the regulated entity

under this subpart:.

(b) The label on the -product must be

displayed in such a manner that it is

readily observable without removing or

disassembling any portion of the

product container or packaging. The

information may be displayed on the

bottom of the container as long as it is

clearly legible without removing any

product packaging.

§ 59.508 What test methods must I use?

(a) Except as provided in § 59.505(c),

you must use the procedures in

California Air Resource Board Method

310-Determination of Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC) in Consumer

Products and Reactive Organic

Compounds in Aerosol Coating

Products (May 5, 2005) (incorporated by

reference in § 59.515) or EPA's Method

311-Analysis of Hazardous Air

Pollutant Compounds in Paints and

Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas

Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,

appendix A) to determine the speciated

ingredients and weight percentage of

each ingredient of each aerosol coating

product. EPA Method 311-Analysis of

Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in

Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection

into a Gas thomatgrph (40 CFR,.art

63, appendix A) must be used in

conjunction with ASTM Meth6d

D3063-94 or D3074-94 for analysis of

the propellant portion of the coating.

Those choosing to use California Air

Resources Board Method 310 (May 5,

2005) (incorporated by reference in

§ 59.515) must follow the procedures

specified in section 5.0 of that method

with the exception of section 5.3.1,

which requires the analysis of the VOC

content of the coating. For the purposes

of this subpart, you are not required to

determine the VOC content of the

aerosol coating. For both California Air

Resources Board Method 310 (May 5,

2005) (incorporated by reference in

§ 59.515) and EPA Method 311-

Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant

Compounds in Paints and Coatings by

Direct Injection into a Gas

Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,

appendix A), you.must have a listing of

the VOC ingredients in the coating

before conducting the analysis.

(b) To determine the metal content of

metallic aerosol coating products, you

must use South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD)

Method 318-95, Determination of

Weight Percent Elemental Metal in

Coatings by X-ray Diffraction, July,

1996, in 40 CFR part 59 (incorporated

by reference in § 59.515).

To determine, the specular gloss.of flat

and nonflat coatings you must use

ASTM Method D523-89 (Reapproved

1999), Standard Test Method for

Specular Gloss, in 40,CFR part 59

(incorporated by reference in § 59.515).

§ 59.509 Can I get a variance?

(a) Any regulated entity that cannot

comply with the requirements of this

subpart because of circumstances

beyond its reasonable control may apply

in writing to the Administrator for a

temporary variance. The variance

application must include the

information specified in paragraphs

(a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.

(1) The specific products for which

the variance is sought.

. (2) The specific provisions of the

subpart for which the variance is

sought. 

I

(3) The specific grounds upon which

the variance is sought.

(4) The proposed date(s) by which the

regulated entity will achieve

compliance with the provisions of this

subpart. This date must be no later than

3 years after the issuance of a variance.

(5) A compliance plan detailing the.

method(s) by which the regulated entity

will achieve compliance with the

provisions of this subpart.

(b) Within 30 days of receipt of the

original application and within 30 days

of receipt of any supplementary

information that is submitted, the

Administrator will send a regulated

entity written notification of whether

the application contains sufficient

information to make a determination. If

an application is incomplete, the

Administrator will specify the

information needed to complete the

application, and provide the

opportunity for the regulated entity to

submit written supplementary

information or arguments to the

Administrator to enable further action

on the application. The regulated entity

must submit this information to the

Administrator within 30 days of being

notified that its application is

incomplete.

(c) Within 60 days of receipt of

sufficient information to evaluate the

application, the Administrator will send

a regulated entity written notification of

approval or disapproval of a variance

application. This 60-day period will

begin after the regulated entity has been

sent written notification that its

application is complete.

(d) The Administrator will issue a

variance if the criteria specified in

paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this

section are met to the satisfaction of the

Administrator.

(1) Complying with the provisions of

this subpart would not be

technologically or economically

feasible.

(2) The compliance plan proposed by

the applicant can reasonably be

implemented and will achieve

compliance as expeditiously as possible.

(e) A variance must specify dates by

which the regulated entity will achieve

increments of progress towards

compliance, and will specify a final

compliance date by which the regulated

entity will achieve compliance, with this

subpart.

(f) A variance will cease to be

effective upon failure of the party to

whom the variance was issued to

comply with any term or condition of

the variance.

§59.510 What records am I required to

maintain?

(a) If you are the regulated entity

identified in § 59.501(a) as being

responsible for recordkeeping for a

product, and no other person has

certified that they will fulfill your

recordkeeping responsibilities as

provided in § 59.511(g), you must

comply with paragraphs (a)(1) through

(a)(5) of this section:

i' ' ..... . i Ill I ...... I i i "" . i I II IS I "I I ........ T .... ..... . . .. T -

15MEP2

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15626 2008
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations

(1) All records must be maintained on

and after the applicable compliance date

listed in § 59.502. -

(2) You are required to maintain

records of the following at the location

specified in § 59.511(b)(4) for each

product subject to the PWR limits in

Table 1 of this subpart: The product

category, all product calculations, the

PWR, and the weight fraction of all

ingredients including: Water, total

solids, each VOC, and any other

compounds assigned a RF of zero as

specified in § 59.505. Solids do not have

to be listed individually in these

records. If an individual VOC is present

in an amount less than 0.1 percent by

weight, then it does not need to be

reported as an ingredient. An impurity

that meets the definition provided in

§ 59.503.does not have to be reported as

an ingredient. For each batch of each

product subject to the PWR limits, you

must maintain records of the date the

batch was manufactured, the volume of

the batch, the recipe used for

formulating the batch, and the number

of cans manufactured in each batch and

each formulation.

(3) You must maintain a copy of each

notification and report that you submit

to comply with this subpart, the

documentation supporting each

notification, and a copy of the label for

each product.

(4) If you claim the exemption under

§ 59.501(e), you must maintain a copy of

the initial report and each -annual report

that you submit to EPA, and the

documentation supporting such report.

(5) You must maintain all records

required by this subpart for a minimum

of 5 years. The records must be in a

form suitable and readily available for

inspection and review.

(b) By providing the written

certification to the Administrator in

accordance with § 59.511(g), the

certifying manufacturer accepts

responsibility for. compliance with the

recordkeeping requirements of this

section with respect to any products

covered by the written certification, as

detailed in the written certification.

Failure to maintain the required records

may result in enforcement action by

EPA against the certifying manufacturer

in accordance with the enforcement

provisions applicable to violation of

these provisions by regulated entities. If

the certifying manufacturer revokes its

certification, as allowed by § 59.511(h),

the regulated entity must assume

responsibility for maintaining all

records required by this section.

§ 59.*511 What notifications and reports must I submit?

(a) If you are the regulated entity

identified in § 59;501(a) and (b) as being

responsible for notifications and

reporting for a product, and no other

person has certified that they will fulfill

your notification and reporting

responsibilities as provided in

paragraph (g) of this section, you are

responsible for all notifications and

reports included in this section. If no

distributor is named on the label, the

manufacturer or importer of the aerosol

coating is responsible for all

requirements of this section, even if not

- listed on the label.

(b) You must submit an initial

notification no later than 90 days before

the compliance date, or at least 90 days

before the date that you first

manufacture, distribute, or import

aerosol coatings, whichever is later. The

initial notification must include the

information in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(b)(11} of this section.

(1) Company name;

(2) Name, title, address, telephone

number, e-mail address and signature of

certifying company official;

(3) A list of the product categories

from Table 1 of this subpart that you

manufacture, import, or distribute;

(4) The street address of each of your

facilities in~the United States that is

manufacturing, packaging, or importing

aerosol coatings that are subject to the

provisions of this subpart, and the street

address where compliance records are

maintained for each site, if different;

(5) A description of date coding

systems, clearly explaining how the date

of manufacture is marked on each sales

unit;

(6) An explanation of the product

category codes that will be used on all

required labels, or a statement that the

default category codes in Table 1 of this

subpart will be used;

(7) For each product category, an

explanation of how the manufacturer,

distributor, or importer will define a

batch for the purpose of the

recordkeeping requirements;

* (8) A list of any compounds or

mixtures that will be used in aerosol

coatings that are not included in Table

2A, 2B, or 2C of this subpart;

(9) For each product category, VOC

formulation data for each formulation

that you anticipate manufacturing,

importing, or distributing for calendar

year 2009 or for the first year that.

includes your compliance date, if

different than 2009. If a regulated entity

can certify that the reporting is being

completed by another regulated entity

for any product, no second report is

required. The formulation data must

include the weight fraction (g

compound/g product) for each VOC

ingredient used in the product in an

amount greater than or equal to 0.1

percent. The formulation data must also

include the information in either '

paragraph (b)(9)(i) or (b)(9)(ii) of this

section for each VOC ingredient

reported.

(i) For compounds listed in Table 2A

of this regulation, the chemical name,

CAS number, and the applicable

reactivity factor; or (ii) For hydrocarbon solvent mixtures

listed in either 2B or 2C or thissubpart,

the trade name, solvent mixture

manufacturer, bin number, and the

applicable reactivity factor.

(10) For each product formulation, a

list of the unique product codes by

Universal Product Code (UPC), or other

unique identifier; and

(11) A statement certifying that all

products manufactured by the company

that are subject to the limits in Table 1

of this subpart will be in compliance

with those limits.

(c) If you change any information

included in the initial notification

required by paragraph (b) of this section,

including the list of aerosol categories,

contact information, records location,

the category or date coding system, or

the list required under paragraph (b)(8)

of this section, you must notify the

Administrator of such changes within

30 days following the change. You are

also required to notify the Administrator

within 30 days of the date that you

begin using an organic compound in

any of your aerosol coating products if

that compound has an RF less than or

equal to 0.3, and is used at a level

greater than or equal to 7.3 weight

percent (g of compound/g product) in

any of your formulations. You are not

required to notify the Administrator

within 30 days of changes to the

information provided as required by

paragraph (b)(9) of this section. Changes

in formulation are to be reported in the

triennial reporting required by

paragraph (i) of this section. (d) Upon 60 days written notice, you

must submit to the Administrator a

written report with all the information

in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of

this section for each product you

manufacture, distribute, or import under

your name or another company's name.

(1) The brand name of the product;

(2) A copy of the product label;

(3) The owner of the trademark or

brand names;

(4) The product category as defined in

§ 59.503; . (5) For each product, formulation data

for each formulation that manufactured,

imported, or distributed in the

15627

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15627 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

requested time period. The formulation

data must include the weight fraction (g

compound/g product) for each VOC

ingredient used in the product in an

amount greater than or equal to 0.1

percent, plus the weight fraction of all

other ingredients including: Water, total

solids, and any other compounds

assigned an RF of zero. The formulation

data must also include the information

in either paragraph (d)(5)(i) or (ii) of this

section.

(i) For compounds listed in Table 2A

of this subpart, the chemical name, CAS

number, and the applicable reactivity

factor.

(ii) For hydrocarbon solvent mixtures

listed in either 2B or 2C or this table, the

trade name, solvent mixture

manufacturer, bin number, and the

applicable reactivity factor.

(e) If you claim the exemption under

§ 59.501(e), you must submit an initial

notification no later than 90 days before

the compliance date or at least 90 days

before the date that you first

manufacture aerosol coatings,

whichever is later. The initial

notification must include the

information in paragraphs (e)(1) through

(e)(6) of this section.

(1) Company name;

(2) Name, title, number, address,

telephone number, e-mail address, and

signature of certifying company official;

(3) A list of the product categories

from Table 1 of this subpart that you

manufacture;

(4) The total amount of product you

manufacture in each category and the

total VOC mass content of such

products for the preceding calendar

year;

(5) The street address of each of your

facilities in the United States that is

manufacturing aerosol coatings that are subject to the provisions of this subpart

and the street address where

compliance records are maintained for

each site, if different; and

(6) A list of the States in which you

sell or otherwise distribute the products

you manufacture.

(f) If you claim the exemption under

§ 59.501(e), you must file an annual

report for each year in which you claim

an exemption from the limits of this

subpart. Such annual report must be

filed by March 1 of the year following

the year in which you manufactured the

products. The annual report shall

include the same information required

in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(6) of this

section.

(g) If you are a manufacturer,

importer, or distributor who chooses to

certify that you will maintain records

for a regulated entity for all or part of

the purposes of § 59.510 and this

section, you must submit a report to the

appropriate Regional Office listed in

§ 59.512. This report must include the

information contained in (g)(1) though

(g)(4) of this section.

(1) Name and address of certifying

entity;

(2) Name and address(es) of the

regulated entity for which you are

accepting responsibility;

(3) Description of specific

requirements in § 59.510 and this

section for which you are assuming

responsibility and explanation of how

all required information under this

subpart will be maintained and

submitted, as required, by you or the

regulated entity; and

(4) Signature of responsible official for

the company.

(h) An entity that has provided

certification under paragraph (g) of this

section (the "certifying entity") may

revoke the -written certification by

sending a written statement to the

appropriate Regional Office listed in

§ 59.512 and to the regulated entity for

which the certifying had accepted

responsibility, giving a minimum of 90

days notice that the certifying entity is

rescinding acceptance of responsibility

for compliance with the requirements

outlined in the certification letter. Upon

expiration of the notice period, the

regulated entity must assume

responsibility for all applicable

requirements.

(i) As a regulated entity in accordance

with paragraph (a) of this section, you

must provide the information requested

in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(4) of this

section every three years beginning in

2011 for reporting year 2010. The report

.shall be submitted by March 31 of the

year following the reporting year to the

appropriate Regional Office listed in

§ 59.512. The first report is due March

31, 2011, for calendar year 2010.

(1) All identification information

included in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and

(b)(4) of this section;

(2) For each product category, VOC

formulation data for each formulation

that was manufactured, imported, or

distributed in the reporting year. The

formulation data must include the

weight fraction (g compound/g product)

for each VOC ingredient used in the

product in an amount equal to or greater

than 0.1 percent. If a regulated entity

can certify that the reporting is being

completed by another regulated entity

for any product, no second report is

required. The formulation data must

include the information in either

paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ji) of this

section for each VOC present in an

amount greater than or equal to 0.1

percent.

(i) For compofinds listed in Table 2A

of this subpart, the chemical name, CAS

number, and the applicable reactivity

factor; or

(ii) For hydrocarbon solvent mixtures

listed in either 2B or 2C of this subpart,

the trade name, solvent mixture

manufacturer, bin number, and the

applicable reactivity factor.

(3) For each formulation, the total

mass of each individual VOC species

present in an amount greater than or

equal to 0.1 percent of the formulation,

that was manufactured, imported, or

distributed in the reporting year; and

(4) For each formulation, a list of the

individual product codes by UPC or

other unique identifier.

(j) If a regulated entity identifies a

VOC that is needed for an aerosol

formulation that is not listed in Tables

2A, 2B, or 2C of this subpart, it is

assigned a default RF factor of 22.04 g

O3/g VOC. Regulated entities may

petition the Administrator to add a

compound to Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of this

subpart. Petitions must include the

chemical name, CAS number, a

statement certifying the intent to use the

compound in an aerosol coatings

product, and adequate information for

the Administrator to evaluate the

reactivity of the compound and assign a

RF value consistent with the values for

the other compounds listed in Table 2A

of this subpart. Any requests submitted

to EPA on or before June 1, 2008 will

be considered and, if appropriate,

incorporated into Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of

this subpart on or before January 1,

2009.

§59.512 Addresses of EPA regional offices.

All requests (including variance

requests), reports, submittals, and other

communications to the Administrator

pursuant to this regulation shall be

submitted to the Regional Office of the

EPA which serves the State or territory

for the address that is listed on the

aerosol coating product in question.

These areas are indicated in the

following list of EPA Regional Offices.

EPA Region I (Connecticut, Maine,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

Rhode Island, Vermont), Director,

Office of Environmental Stewardship,

Mailcode: SAA, JFK Building, Boston,

MA 02203.

EPA Region H (New Jersey, New York,

Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands), Director,

Division of Enforcement and

Compliance Assistance, 290

Broadway, New York, NY 10007-

1866.

EPA Region IlI (Delaware, District of

Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,

Virginia, West Virginia), Air

15628

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15628 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

Protection Division, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103.

EPA Region IV (Alabama, Florida,

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee),

Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics,

Management Division, 345 Courtland

Street, NE., Atlanta, GA 30365.

EPA Region V (Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,

Wisconsin), Director, Air and

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson

Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507.

EPA Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana,

New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas),

Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics

Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

TX 75202-2733.

EPA Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,

Nebraska), Director, Air and Toxics

Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue,

Kansas City, KS 66101.

EPA Region VIII (Colorado; Montana,

North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,

Wyoming), Director, Air and Toxics

Division, 999 18th Street, 1 Denver

Place, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado

80202-2405.

EPA Region IX (American Samoa,

Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii,

Nevada), Director, Air Division, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

EPA Region X (Alaska, Oregon Idaho,

Washington); Director, Air and Toxics

Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

WA 98101.

§59.513 State authority.

The provisions in this regulation will

.not be construed in any manner to

preclude any State or political

subdivision thereof from:

(a) Adopting and enforcing any

emission standard or limitation

applicable to a manufacturer, distributor

or importer of aerosol coatings or

components in addition to the

requirements of this subpart.

(b) Requiring the manufacturer,

distributor or importer of aerosol

coatings or components to obtain

permits, licenses, or approvals prior-to

initiating construction, modification, or

operation of a facility for manufacturing

an aerosol coating or component.

§ 59.514 Circumvention.

Each manufacturer, distributor, and

importer of an aerosol coating or

component subject to the provisions of

this subpart must not alter, destroy, or

falsify any record or report, to conceal

what would otherwise be

noncompliance with this subpart. Such

concealment includes, but is not limited

to, refusing to provide the Administrator

access to all required records and datecoding information, misstating the PWR

content of a coating or component

batch, or altering the results of any

required tests to determine the PWR.

§ 59.515 Incorporations by reference.

(a) The following material is

incorporated by reference (IBR) in the

paragraphs noted in § 59.508. These

incorporations by reference were

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These

materials are incorporated as they exist

on the date of approval, and notice of

any changes in these materials will be

published in the Federal Register.

(1) California Air Resources Board

Method 3-0--Determination of Volatile

Organic Compounds (VOC) in

Consumer Products and Reactive

Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating

Products (May 5, 2005), IBR approved

for § 59.508.

(2) South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD) Test

Method 318-95, Determination of

Weight Percent Elemental Metal in

Coatings by X-ray Diffraction, (July,

1996), IBR approved for § 59.508.

(3) ASTM Method D523-89

(Reapproved 1999), Standard Test

Method for Specular Gloss, IBR

approved for § 59.508.

(b) You may obtain and inspect the

materials at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, U.S.

EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC; the EPA Library, 109 T.W.

Alexander Drive, U.S. EPA, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina; you may

inspect the materials at the National

Archives and Records Administration

(NARA). For information on the

availability of this material at NARA,

call 202-741-6030, or go to http://

www.archives.gov/federaLregister/

code_ofjfederaltregulations/

ibrlocations.html.

§59.516 Availability of information and

confidentiality.

(a) Availability of information. The

availability to the public of information

provided to or otherwise obtained by

the Administrator under this part shall

be governed by part 2 of this chapter.

(b) Confidentiality. All confidential

business information entitled to

protection under section 114(o) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) that must be

submitted or maintained by each

regulated entity pursuant to this subpart

shall be treated in accordance with 40

CFR part 2, subpart B.-

(c) Reports and Applications. The

content of all reports and applications

required to be submitted to the Agency

under § 59.511, § 59.509, or § 59.502 are

not entitled to protection under Section

114(c) of the CAA.

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART E OF PART 59.-PRODUCT-WEIGHTED REACTIVITY LIMITS BY COATING CATEGORY

[g O3/g product]

Coating category Category code a Reactivity limit

Clear Coatings ............................................................................................................... Flat Coatings ..................................................................................................................

Fluorescent Coatings .....................................................................................................

Metallic Coatings ..................................... : ................................................................

Non-Flat Coatings ........................................................................................................

Primers ...............................................................................................................

Ground Traffic/Marking ..................................................................................................

Art Fixatives or Sealants ................................................................................................

Auto body primers ..........................................................................................................

Automotive Bumper and Trim Products .........................................................................

Aviation or Marine Primers ............................................................................................

Aviation Propellor Coatings ...... ........................................................................... .

Corrosion Resistant Brass, Bronze, or Copper Coatings ..............................................

Exact Match Finish- Engine Enamel ............................................................................

Exact Match Finish- Automotive ...................................................................................

Exact Match Finish-Industrial ......................................................................................

Floral Sprays ..................................................................................................................

Glass Coatings ..............................................................................................................

CCP

FCP

FLP

MCP

NFP

PCP

GTM

AFS

ABP

ABT

AMP

APC

CRB

EEE

EFA

EFI

FSP

GCP

1.50

1.20

1.75

1.90

1.40

1.20

1.20

1.80

1.55

1,75

2.00

2.50

1.80

1.70

1.50

2.05

.1.70

1.40

15629

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15629 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 57/Monday, March 24, 2008/Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART E OF PART 59.-PRODUCT-WEIGHTED REACTIVITY LIMITS BY COATING CATEGORY-Continued

[g 03/g product]

Coating category Category code Reactivity limit

High Tem perature Coatings ........................................................................................... HTC 1.85

Hobby/M odel/Craft Coatings, Enam el ............................................................................ HM E 1.45

Hobby/Model/Craft Coatings, Lacquer .................................. HML 2.70

Hobby/M odel/Craft Coatings, Clear or M etallic ............................................................. HM C 1.60

M arine Spar Varnishes .................................................................................................. M SV 0.90

Photograph Coatings ..................................................................................................... PHC 1.00

Pleasure Craft Prim ers, Surfacers or Undercoaters ..................................................... PCS 1.05

Pleasure Craft Topcoats ................................................................................................ PCT 0.60

Poyolefin Adhesion Prom oters ...................................................................................... PAP 2.50

Shellac Sealers, Clear ................................................................................................... SSC 1.00

Shellac Sealers, Pigm ented ................................................................. : ........................ SSP 0.95

Slip-Resistant Coatings .................................................................................................. SRC 2.45

Spatter/M ulticolor Coatings ............................................................................................ SM C 1.05

Vinyl/Fabric/Leather/Polycarbonate Coatings ................................................................ VFL 1.55

W ebbing/Veiling Coatings .............................................................................................. W FC 0.85

Weld-Through Primers ...................................... WTP 1.00

W ood Stains ......................................................................... ........................................ W SP 1.40

Wood Touch-up/Repair or Restoration Coatings ........................................................... WTR 1.50

a Regulated entities may use these category codes or define their own in accordance with § 59.511 (b)(6).

TABLE 2A TO SUBPART E OF PART 59.-REACTIVTY FACTORS

Compound CAS No. Reactivity

factor

1-Butanol .................................................................................................................................................................. 71--, 6-3 3.34

1,2,4-Trim ethylbenzene ........................................................................................................................................... 95-63-6 7.18

2-Butanol (s-Butyl alcohol) ...................................................................................................................................... 78-92-2 1.60

2-Butoxy-1 -Ethanol (Ethylene glycol m onobutyl ether) ........................................................................................... 111-76-2 1.67

2-Propoxyethanol (ethylene glycol m onopropyl ether) ............................................................................................ 2807-30-9 3.52

Acetone (Propanone) ............................................................................................................................................... 67-64-1 0.43

Am yl acetate (Pentyl ethanoate, pentyl acetate) .................................................................................................... 628-63-7 0.96

Butane ............................................................. * ........................................................................................................ 106-97-8 1.33

Butyl acetate, n ........................................................................................................................................................ 123-86-4 0.89

Cyclohexanone .............................................................. ...................................................................................... - 108-94-1 1.61

Di (2-ethylhexyl phthalate) ....................................................................................................................................... 117-81-7 .......................

Diacetone alcohol .................................................................................................................................................... -123-42-2 0.68

Diethanolam ine ........................................................................................................................................................ 111-42-2 4.05

Diisobutyl ketone ....................................................................................................................................................... 108-83-8 2.94

Dimethyl ether ................................................ . .............................................. 115-10-6 0.93

Ethanol ..................................................................................................................................................................... 64-17-5 1.69

Ethyl acetate ........................................................................................................................................................... 141-78-6 0.64

Ethyl benzene : ..................................................................................... .................................................................... 100-41-4 2.79

Ethyl-3-Ethoxypropionate. ......................................................................................................................................... 763-69-9 3.61

Ethylene glycol m onoethyl ether acetate (2-Ethoxyethyl acetate) ......................................................................... 111-15-9 1.9

Heptane ................................................................................................................................................................... 142-82-5 1.28

Hexane ...................................................................................................................................................................... 110- 54-3 1.45

Isobutane ................................................................................................................................................................. 75-28-6 1.35

Isobutanol ................................................................................................................................................................ 78-83-1 2.24

Isobutyl Acetate ....................................................................................................................................................... 110-19-0 0.67

Isohexane Isom ers .................................................................................................................................................. 107-83-5 1.80

Isopropyl alcohol (2-Propanol) ................................................................................................................................. 67-63-0 0.71

M ethanol .................................................................................................................................................................. 67-56- 1 0.71

M ethyl am yl ketone .................................................................................................................................................. 110-43-0 2.80

M ethyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) ................... : ....................................................................................................... 78-93-3 1.49

M ethyl isobutyl ketone ............................................................................................................................................. 108-10- 1 4.31

M ethyl n-Propyl Ketone (2-Pentanone) ................................................................................................................... 107-8 7-9 3.07

N,N-Dim ethylethanolam ine ...................................................................................................................................... 108-01-0 4.76

N-Butyl alcohol (Butanol) ......................................................................................................................................... 71-36-3 3.34

Pentane ....................................................................................................................................... : ............................ 109-66-0 1.54

Propane ................................................................................................ : ................................................................... 74-98-6 0.56

Propylene glycol ...................................................................................................................................................... 57-55-6 2.75

Propylene glycol m onom ethyl ether acetate ........................................................................................................... 108-65-6 1.71

Texanol (1,3 Pentanediol, 2,2,4-trim ethyl, 1-isobutyrate) ....................................................................................... 25265-77-4 0.89

Toluene .................................................................................................................................................................... 108-88-3 3.97

Vinyl Chloride .......................................................................................................................................................... 75-01-4 2.92

Xylene, m eta- ........................................................................................................................................................... . 108-38-3 10.61

Xylene, ortho- .......................................................................................................................................................... . 95-47-6 7.49

Xylene, para- . .......................................................................................................................................................... 106-42-3 4.25

15630

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15630 2008
Federal Register/Vol.' 73,' NO: .7 / Monday,' Ma-ch 24, 200817Ruleg and Regulatiohs 1

TABLE 2B TO SUBPART E -OF PART 59.-REACTIVITY -FACTORS FOR ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBON SOLVENT MIXTURES

Average C eReactivity

Bin boiling point* Criteriaf

(degrees F) factor

1 ............. 80-205 Alkanes (< 2% Ar.matics) .................................. ..................... 2.08

2 ............. 80-205 N- & Iso-Alkanes (> 90% and < 2% Aromatics) ................................................................................. 1.59

3 ............. 80-205 Cyclo-Alkanes (> 90% and < 2% Aromatics) ...................................................................................... 2.52

4 ............. 80-205 Alkanes (2 to < 8% Arom atics) ........................................................................................................... 2.24

5 ............. 80-205 Alkanes (8 to 22% Arom atics) ............................................................................................................. 2.56

6 ............. >205-340 Alkanes (< Arom o atics) ................................................................................................................... 1.41

7 ............. >205-340 N- & Iso-Alkanes ( > 90% and < 2% Aromatics) ............................................................................... 1.17

8 ............. >205-340 Cyclo-Alkanes (? 90% and < 2% Aromatics) ...................................................................................... 1.65 9 >205-340 Alkanes (2 to <8% Aromatics)........ . .. I . .................... .................. . .1.62

10.......... >205-340 Alkanes (8 to 22% Aromatics) ...................... 2.03

11 ........... >340-460 Alkanes (< 2% Arom atics) ............................................................................................................. 0 .91

12 ........... >340-460 N- & Iso-Alkanes (> 90% and < 2% Aromatics) ................................................... ................... 0.81

13 ........... >340-460 Cyclo-Alkanes ( 90% ! and < 2% Aromatics) ......................................................................... ...... 1.01

14 ........... >340-460 Alkanes (2 to < 8% Aromatics) .................................................................................. 1.21

15 ........... >340-460 Alkanes (8 to 22% Arom atics) ........................................................................................................... 1.82

16 ........... >460-580 Alkanes (< 2% Aromatics) ............................................................................................................ 0.57

17 . >460-580 N- & Iso-Alkanes (-> 90% and < 2% Aromatics) ................................................................................ 0.51

18 ........... >460-580 Cyclo-Alkanes (_ 90% and < 2% Aromatics) ...................................................................................... 0.63

19 ........... >460-580 Alkanes (2 to < 8% Aromatics) ..........................................................................................- 0.88

20 ........... >460-580 Alkanes (8 to 22% Aromatics) ................................... 14..........9...........

1.49

*Average Boiling Point = (Initial Boiling Point + Dry Point) / 2 (b) Aromatic Hydrocarbon Solvents

TABLE 2C TO SUBPART E OF PART 59.-REACTIVITY FACTORS FOR AROMATIC HYDROCARBON SOLVENT MIXTURES

Bin Boiling range Criteria Reactivity

(degrees F) factor

21 ........... 280- 290 Arom atic Content (>98% ) .................................................................................................................... 7.37

22 ........... 320-350 Arom atic Content ( 898% ) .................................................................................................................... 7.51

23 ........... 355-4 20 Arom atic Content (298% ) .................................................................................................................... 8.07

24 ........... 450-535 Arom atic Content ( 98% ) ............................................................................................. ....................... . 5.00

[FR Doc. E8-5589 Filed 3-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 6560-50-P

15631

HeinOnline -- 73 Fed. Reg. 15631 2008