PENNSYLVANIA 

Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents 

25 Pa. Code Chapters 121, 129 and 130 

39 Pa.B. 1636 (April 4, 2009) 

Environmental Quality Board Regulation #7-428 

(Independent Regulatory Review Commission #2755) 

Comment and Response Document 
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

2

Background

On April 4, 2009, the Environmental Quality Board (Board, EQB) published a notice of 

public hearings and comment period on a proposed rulemaking concerning amendments to 

25 Pa. Code Chapters 121, 129 and 130 (relating to general provisions; standards for 

sources; and standards for products) to implement control measures for the emissions of 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the industrial or commercial use or application of 

37 categories of adhesive, sealant, primer and solvent products (39 Pa.B. 1636). The 

public comment period closed on June 8, 2009. 

The proposed amendments included adding § 129.77 (relating to control of emissions from 

the use or application of adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents) to regulate the owner or 

operator of a facility or stationary source that uses or applies, on or after April 15, 2010, an 

adhesive, sealant, adhesive primer or sealant primer product, or an adhesive or sealant 

product applied to a particular substrate. The proposal also included requirements for the 

use of surface preparation solvents and cleanup solvents. The proposal included the option 

to use add-on controls as a compliance alternative rather than switching to complying 

products, for owners and operators using noncomplying products. 

The proposed amendments also added Subchapter D (relating to adhesives, sealants, primers 

and solvents) to Chapter 130 to adopt emission standards and VOC content limits for the 

sale, supply, offer for sale, manufacture, use or application of 37 categories of adhesive, 

sealant, adhesive primer and sealant primer products; adhesive and sealant products applied 

to certain substrates; and surface preparation solvents and cleanup solvents. The 

requirements of the proposed Chapter 130, Subchapter D, applied to a person who, on or 

after April 15, 2010, sells, supplies, offers for sale or manufactures for sale an adhesive, 

sealant, adhesive primer, sealant primer, surface preparation solvent or cleanup solvent 

product for industrial or commercial use or application in this Commonwealth. The 

requirements also applied to a person who uses or applies, for compensation, an adhesive, 

sealant, adhesive primer or sealant primer product; adhesive or sealant products applied to 

particular substrates; or surface preparation solvent or cleanup solvent products in this 

Commonwealth. 

 

The proposed rulemaking added definitions to § 121.1 (relating to definitions) for 

approximately 56 new terms, including those that relate to the adhesive, sealant, primer and 

solvent product categories that will be regulated under the requirements of § 129.77 and 

Chapter 130, Subchapter D, and amended definitions for nine existing terms to provide 

clarity. 

Public Hearings and Comment Period
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

Three public hearings were held on the proposed rulemaking as follows: 

May 4, 2009 Department of Environmental Protection 

1 p.m. Southwest Regional Office 

 Waterfront A & B Conference Room 

 400 Waterfront Drive 

 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

May 7, 2009 Department of Environmental Protection 

1 p.m. Southeast Regional Office 

 Delaware River Conference Room 

 2 East Main Street 

 Norristown, PA 19401 

May 8, 2009 Department of Environmental Protection 

1 p.m. Rachel Carson State Office Building 

 Room 105 

 400 Market Street 

 Harrisburg, PA 17105 

This document summarizes the testimony received during the public hearings and the 

written comments received from the public during the public comment period. Each 

public comment is provided with the identifying commentator number for each 

commentator that made that comment. A list of the commentators, including name, 

affiliation (if any), and location, can be found on the next two pages of this document. In 

addition, the comments received from the Independent Regulatory Review Commission 

(IRRC) are summarized and responses provided. No comments were received from the 

Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee. 

The Board invited each commentator to prepare a one-page summary of the commentator’s 

comments. No one-page summaries were submitted for this rulemaking. 

3
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

ID Name/Address Submitted 

one page 

Summary 

for 

distribution 

to EQB 

Provided 

Testimony 

Requested 

Final 

Rulemaking 

following 

EQB 

Action 

1. Donald P. Gallo, Esq 

Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren S.C. 

P.O. Box 2265 

Waukesha, WI 53187-2265 

(On behalf of the Polyurethane 

Manufacturers Association, 

Milwaukee, WI) 

2. Jeffrey A. Morris, Esq. 

Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren S.C. 

P.O. Box 2265 

Waukesha, WI 53187-2265 

(On behalf of the Polyurethane 

Manufacturers Association, 

Milwaukee, WI) 

3. Larry Sondericker 

EHS Manager 

Superior Tire & Rubber Corp. 

P.O. Box 308 

Warren, PA 16365 

4. Jared O. Blum 

Executive Director 

ERA - EPDM Roofing Association 

7315 Wisconsin Avenue, 400E 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

5. Heidi K. McAuliffe, Esq. 

Counsel, Government Affairs 

National Paint and Coatings Assocation, 

Inc. (renamed American Coatings 

Association in 2010) 

1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

6. Charles Deimler 

Vice President 

Ephrata Precision Parts, Inc. 

93 Monroe Street 

P.O. Box 323 

Denver, PA 17517 

4
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

ID Name/Address Submitted 

one page 

Summary 

for 

distribution 

to EQB 

Provided 

Testimony 

Requested 

Final 

Rulemaking 

following 

EQB 

Action 

7. George M. Kickel* 

Director, Environment, Safety, Health 

and Regulatory Compliance 

Lord Corporation 

2000 West Grandview Blvd. 

Erie, PA 16509-1029 

X 

8. Charles T. Ruffing 

Technical Director 

Rubber Rolls Inc. 

50 Rockwood Drive 

Meadowlands, PA 15347 

9. Michael S. Kocak, ASQ, C.Q.E. 

Quality Assurance Manager 

C.U.E. Inc. of Cranberry Township 

11 Leonberg Road 

Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

(also Regulatory Division Manager, 

Polyurethane Manufacturers 

Association, Milwaukee, WI) 

X 

10. Ron Miller – Advanced Building 

Products – on behalf of the 

EPDM Roofing Association 

2891 Henderson Road 

Washington, PA 15301 

X 

11. Michael Palombo 

Performance Roofing Associates, 

Incorporated 

120 East Uwchlan Avenue 

Exton, PA 19341 

(On behalf of ERA - EPDM Roofing 

Association) 

X 

12. Bill Schneider 

Carlisle SynTec 

P.O. Box 7000 

1285 Ritner Highway 

Carlisle, PA 17013 

(also representing ERA - EPDM 

Roofing Association) 

X 

5
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

ID Name/Address Submitted 

one page 

Summary 

for 

distribution 

to EQB 

Provided 

Testimony 

Requested 

Final 

Rulemaking 

following 

EQB 

Action 

13. Kim Kaufman, Executive Director 

Independent Regulatory Review 

Commission 

333 Market Street, 14th Floor 

Harrisburg, PA 17101 

* This commentator provided both testimony and written comments. 

Abbreviations and acronyms used in this document: 

ERA – EPDM Roofing Association 

EPDM - Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer 

HAP – Hazardous Air Pollutant 

NESHAP – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

OTC – Ozone Transport Commission 

OTR – Ozone Transport Region 

RACT – Reasonably Available Control Technology 

VOC – Volatile Organic Compound

6
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

Definitions

1. Comment: Several commentators expressed concern with the Department’s definition 

of the term “metal to urethane/rubber molding or casting adhesive,” which in the proposed 

rulemaking read as follows: “An adhesive intended by the manufacturer to bond metal to 

high density or elastomeric urethane or molded rubber materials, in heater molding or 

casting processes, to fabricate products like rollers for computer printers or other paper 

handling equipment.” Many polyurethane parts are molded in, on or around a metal piece; 

in this process, an adhesive is generally used to promote the bond between the metal and 

the polyurethane. A bond failure will cause product failure, potentially posing a risk of 

property damage, personal injury, or both. ‘Heater molding or casting processes’ does not 

have a recognized meaning within the polyurethane or rubber industry, but ‘heated

molding or casting processes’ has relevance from a manufacturing perspective because 

both polyurethane and rubber molding and casting are performed at elevated temperatures. 

The commentators suggest that the use of the word ‘heater’ in this definition is a 

typographical error and that the word ‘heater’ should be replaced with the word ‘heated.’ 

(1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13) 

Response: The Department agrees and has revised the definition of the term “metal to 

urethane/rubber molding or casting adhesive” in the final-form rulemaking to replace the 

word ‘heater’ with the word ‘heated.’ 

2. Comment: The commentators expressed concern with the Department’s definition of 

the term “metal to urethane/rubber molding or casting adhesive,” which in the proposed 

rulemaking read as follows: “An adhesive intended by the manufacturer to bond metal to 

high density or elastomeric urethane or molded rubber materials, in heater molding or 

casting processes, to fabricate products like rollers for computer printers or other paper 

handling equipment.” The commentators suggest that the modifying phrase ‘to fabricate 

products like rollers for computer printers or other paper handling equipment’ may be 

misinterpreted by regulators to restrict the category only to paper handling products and 

not to all products that use adhesive to bond metal and urethane/rubber. The 

commentators request that the phrase ‘to fabricate products like rollers for computer 

printers or other paper handling equipment’ be deleted from the definition of the term 

“metal to urethane/rubber molding or casting adhesive.” (1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13) 

Response: The Department agrees that the modifying phrase ‘to fabricate products like 

rollers for computer printers or other paper handling equipment’ may be confusing to the 

industry and to regulators and has deleted this phrase from the definition of the term 

“metal to urethane/rubber molding or casting adhesive” in the final-form rulemaking. 

3. Comment: A commentator is opposed to the proliferation of state rules regulating 

industrial adhesives because many companies that use the commentator’s products are 

already subject to a number of volatile organic compound (VOC) and hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) emission standards. For example, many of the commentator’s customers 

must comply with the Miscellaneous Metal or Plastic Surface Coatings Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants. Although these standards apply to the surface coating of metals 

7
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

and plastic substrates, the commentator’s adhesive products were specifically included in 

these standards, as these adhesives are applied using similar processes. The Miscellaneous 

Metal Surface Coating NESHAP defines these products as “coatings that contain heatactivated polymer systems in either solvent or water that, when applied to metal substrates, 

dry to a non-tacky surface and react chemically with the rubber and metal during a 

vulcanization process.” In the proposed rulemaking, the commentator’s customers may 

surmise that the “metal to urethane/rubber molding or casting adhesive” definition may be 

the equivalent category; however it is unclear from what the commentator refers to as the 

somewhat confusing language used. The commentator recommends that the term and 

definition of “metal to urethane/rubber molding or casting adhesive” in the proposed 

rulemaking be deleted and replaced with a term and definition modeled after a term and 

definition for “rubber vulcanization adhesive/primer” in the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Quality Management District Rule 4653 – Adhesives. (7) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator’s recommendation. The 

Department has retained the proposed term and definition of “metal to urethane/rubber 

molding or casting adhesive,” amended as described in response to comments number 

(no.) 1 and 2, above, for consistency with the model rule developed by the Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC) entitled the “OTC Model Rule for Adhesives and Sealants” 

(OTC Model Rule), and with the regulations of other members of the Ozone Transport 

Region (OTR). This Commonwealth is a member of the OTR. 

4. Comment: The commentator suggested that the term “rubber” be defined as in the Bay 

Area Air Quality Rule 8.51. The commentator believes that these changes would 

accommodate the concerns of the Polyurethane Manufacturers Association (PMA) and its 

members. (7) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator’s recommendation. The 

Department did not receive comments from the PMA concerning the definition of the term 

“rubber.” Furthermore, the definition of the term “rubber” in the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District Rule 8.51 (relating to adhesive and sealant products) is similar to the 

definition in the Department’s proposed rulemaking. In addition, the definition of the term 

“rubber” in the proposed rulemaking is consistent with the definition of the term “rubber” 

contained in the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Miscellaneous Industrial 

Adhesives published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EPA-453/R08-005, September 2008 and with the definition in the OTC Model Rule. The Department 

has retained the proposed definition of the term “rubber” for consistency with the OTC 

Model Rule.

5. Comment: A commentator recommended that the definition of the term “single-ply roof 

membrane” be expanded to include thermoplastic membranes like thermoplastic polyolefin 

(TPO) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), as these materials are also considered part of the 

single-ply roofing market by the commercial roofing industry. (12) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentator that the definition of the term 

“single-ply roof membrane” should be expanded to include TPO and PVC. The definition 

8
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

of this term has been amended in the final-form rulemaking to include TPO, PVC and 

ketone ethylene ester (KEE). This change is consistent with the final-form definition of 

this term promulgated by Rhode Island and Connecticut. These states are members of the 

OTR, as is this Commonwealth. 

6. Comment: The IRRC requested clarification on the editor’s note for the term 

“fiberglass” and questioned if the Board would have two definitions for the term 

“fiberglass.” (13) 

Response: The Department published a definition for the term “fiberglass” in § 121.1 

(relating to definitions) in two separate proposed rulemakings. The definition of the term 

in this proposed rulemaking specified that the definition is for purposes of §§ 129.77 and 

130.702. The definition of this term in the rulemaking published for comment on April 19, 

2008 (38 Pa.B. 1831), concerning emissions from glass melting furnaces, specified that 

that definition is for purposes of §§ 129.301-129.310. That rulemaking was published as a 

final rulemaking on June 19, 2010 (40 Pa. B. 3328). The definition of the term 

“fiberglass” in this final-form rulemaking for adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents 

includes both definitions, as specified. 

Implementation of Single-ply Roof Membrane Requirements

7. Comment: A commentator provided that the Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer 

(EPDM) Roofing Association (ERA) is comprised of members who manufacture and 

distribute EPDM rubber roofing membrane. The commentator stated that, as the voice of 

the suppliers of more than half the commercial roofing installations in the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, the ERA remains committed to developing a “win-win” solution that 

effectively mitigates ground level ozone formation in Pennsylvania while also preserving 

the integrity and dependability of the commercial roofing system of choice for 

Pennsylvania citizens. (4) 

Response: The Department thanks the Association for its interest and support in 

developing an effective adhesives and sealants regulation. 

8. Comment: Commentators on behalf of the EPDM roofing industry noted that the 

proposed rulemaking was based on a model rule developed by the OTC, which in turn was 

based on the reasonably available control technology (RACT) and best available retrofit 

control technology determined by the California Air Resources Board. One of these 

commentators stated that the VOC limits of the proposed OTC Model Rule were derived 

from a California rule that did not anticipate the effects of cold temperatures and the 

unique benefits of EPDM roofing. The commentator stated that these unique benefits are 

not as critical in moderate climates such as California, therefore EPDM is infrequently 

used in California. In Pennsylvania, where temperature swings and freeze-thaw cycles are 

intense, the commentator stated that the high flexibility of EPDM roofing is a major 

consumer choice to avoid premature roof failure due to cracking or splitting. The 

commentator stated that climate differences also exist between Pennsylvania and 

California that affect installation of the currently available EPDM roofing VOC compliant 

9
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

adhesives which are water-based, and that water-based adhesives are not able to be used at 

temperatures below 40o F and cannot be stored on rooftops at colder temperatures due to 

the risk of freezing. The EPDM industry therefore requested a transitional period that 

would allow the EPDM industry adequate time to field test new VOC-compliant adhesive 

formulations during colder months and to train the approximately 25,000 roofing crew 

members employed in Pennsylvania in the effective use of VOC-compliant adhesives 

under colder temperature conditions. One commentator further stated that the EPDM 

industry is committed to having a year-round product commercialized by January 1, 2012. 

(4, 10, 11, 12) 

Response: The Department appreciates the EPDM roofing industry’s interest in 

developing an effective adhesives and sealants regulation. The Department has revised the 

final-form rulemaking to require compliance with the VOC content limits for adhesives, 

sealants, primers and solvents, including single-ply roofing membrane products, by 

January 1, 2012. The Department believes that this compliance date will provide EPDM 

roofing manufacturers and Pennsylvania roofing contractors with adequate time to develop 

VOC-compliant products and perfect the application practices that will be effective on a 

year-round basis. This removes the need to have a phased-in compliance period for the use 

and application of single-ply roofing membrane products, which was included in the 

proposed rulemaking. 

9. Comment: Several commentators expressed support for the Department’s proposed 

phased-in compliance period for single-ply roofing adhesives. The EPDM industry is fully 

supportive of the rulemaking as proposed. (4, 10, 11, 12) 

Response: The Department appreciates the commentators’ support of the proposed 

rulemaking. Please see the response to comment no. 8 for additional information 

concerning the compliance date. 

10. Comment: The commentator stated that documentation for a seasonal approach to 

phasing-in the requirements for single-ply roofing adhesives was provided previously in 

the research report, “The Low-Slope Commercial Roofing Industry in the Northeast United 

States and the Ozone Transport Commission Model Rule for Adhesives and Sealants: A 

Study of Risks and Options for Effective Implementation” conducted by TEGNOS

Research, Inc. (4) 

Response: The Department thanks the commentator for providing the research report on 

effective implementation of low-slope roofing industry adhesives and sealants. The 

Department reviewed and considered the information in this report in drafting the finalform rulemaking. 

11. Comment: These commentators stated that the members of ERA, thousands of 

roofing contractors in Pennsylvania, support this regulation. (10, 11) 

Response: The Department appreciates the commentators’ support of the proposed 

adhesives and sealants rulemaking. 

10
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

12. Comment: The commentator commended the Department on the proposed phased-in 

compliance period for single-ply roofing adhesives. The phased-in compliance period 

provides needed flexibility to minimize the economic impact of the volatile organic 

compound limits for adhesives on both roofing contractors and building owners in 

Pennsylvania. This phased-in compliance period will produce significant reductions in 

VOC-producing adhesives and sealants, uninterrupted employment of the thousands of 

roofing crew members who work in the state, and continued protection of building owners’ 

assets with high performance EPDM roofs installed on a year-round basis. (12) 

Response: The Department appreciates the commentator’s support of the proposed 

rulemaking. See the response to comment no. 8 for additional information concerning the 

compliance date. 

13. Comment: The commentator commended the Department on the proposed phased-in 

compliance period for single-ply roofing adhesives. The phased-in compliance period is 

consistent with regulations in place in the neighboring OTC states of New Jersey, 

Maryland and Delaware, placing Pennsylvania contractors on equal competitive ground 

with contractors from those states. (12) 

Response: The Department appreciates the commentator’s support of the proposed 

rulemaking. The Department agrees that consistent rules across states and regions are 

ideal to support interstate commerce. This Commonwealth is a member of the OTR. The 

Department used the OTC Model Rule as the basis for developing its rulemaking and has 

consulted with other members of the OTR in the development of the final-form 

rulemaking, to provide for consistency of implementation throughout the OTR. See the 

response to comment no. 8 for additional information concerning the compliance date. 

Consistent Regulations 

14. Comment: A commentator indicated support for the goal of the OTC Model Rule for 

adhesives and sealants since it is important for manufacturers of industrial adhesives and 

sealants to have uniform standards for these products. (5) 

Response: The Department agrees that consistent rules across states and regions are 

helpful to support interstate commerce. This Commonwealth is a member of the OTR. 

The Department used the OTC Model Rule as the basis for developing its rulemaking and 

has consulted with other members of the OTR in the development of the final-form 

rulemaking, to provide for consistency throughout the OTR. 

Sell-through and Use-through Provisions; Date-coding Provision 

15. Comment: Two commentators suggested that there is an inconsistency between 

proposed §§ 130.702(a) and 130.702(b) in the provisions for the sell-through and usethrough of noncomplying products. Section 130.702(a) prohibits the sale, supply, offer for 

sale or manufacture for sale in this Commonwealth of noncomplying products 

11
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

manufactured on or after the proposed compliance date of April 15, 2010. Section 

130.702(b) prohibits the use or application of noncomplying products in this 

Commonwealth on or after the proposed compliance date of April 15, 2010, no matter 

when the product was manufactured (even if manufactured prior to April 15, 2010). The 

commentators recommend that specific language be added indicating that the use and 

application of noncomplying products manufactured after the compliance date of the 

rulemaking are prohibited. (5, 13)

Response: The Department agrees with the commentators’ suggestion of an inconsistency 

between the sell-through and use-through provisions of noncomplying adhesive, sealant, 

primer and solvent products. The Department has revised final-form § 130.702(b) to 

clarify that noncomplying products manufactured on and after the revised compliance date 

of January 1, 2012, may not be used or applied for compensation in this Commonwealth. 

The Department has also revised the final-form rulemaking to add §§ 130.707 and 130.708 

(relating to product dating; and sell-through of products) to allow the sell-through of noncomplying product manufactured before January 1, 2012, if the product container or 

package displays the date on which the product was manufactured. 

16. Comment: A commentator responded to the Board’s request in the Preamble for 

comment on whether there should be a date-coding requirement incorporated into the finalform regulations to facilitate enforcement of the regulation and sale and use of product 

manufactured before the compliance date (sell-through and use-through). See 39 Pa.B. 

1636 at p. 1641 (April 4, 2009). The commentator suggests that it would be simpler and 

more cost effective to make the compliance deadline 24 months from the date that the final 

rule is published. According to the commentator, a sell-through or use-through provision 

would force users to stockpile product which is a costly expense in difficult economic 

times. (7) 

Response: The Department disagrees. Many complying adhesives, sealants, primers and 

solvents have already been developed, or reformulated from noncomplying products, due 

to similar rules having been promulgated in California and other states in the OTR. The 

final-form rulemaking has been amended to include date-coding and sell-through 

provisions to allow for the sell-through of noncomplying product manufactured before the 

compliance date. 

Burden of Compliance

17. Comment: A commentator suggests that the rule places the burden of compliance on 

the manufacturer and seller of adhesives, sealants, primers or solvents to ensure that 

noncompliant product is not sold to customers that do not have control systems in place. 

In effect, the rulemaking requires the manufacturer or seller of the product to determine if 

the rule applies to the customer. (7) 

Response: The Department disagrees. An adhesive, sealant, adhesive primer, sealant 

primer, surface preparation solvent or cleanup solvent product intended for use or 

application at a manufacturing facility subject to § 129.77 does not require the 

12
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

manufacturer or supplier of the product to verify that the facility has a control system in 

place. The manufacturer or seller of the product is exempt from Subchapter D in this 

situation, under § 130.703(e) (which was labeled as § 130.703(i) in the proposed 

rulemaking). The burden of compliance will fall on the owner or operator of the 

manufacturing facility that is using or applying noncomplying product to demonstrate that 

the noncomplying product was used or applied in accordance with the requirements of 

§ 129.77(g), which lists the requirements for the use of add-on air pollution control 

equipment to control emissions of VOC from noncomplying product subject to § 129.77. 

18. Comment: The commentator suggested that the burden of compliance will fall on the 

manufacturer or seller who will have to bear a disproportionate amount of technical service 

and regulatory support costs to assist their customers in identifying and re-qualifying 

alternate adhesive systems or determining if their use meets the allowable exemptions. 

The commentator recommends that the language that places a compliance burden on the 

manufacturer and seller be removed from the proposed rule. (7) 

Response: Please see the response to comment no. 17. 

19. Comment: The commentator does not understand how the requirement to not sell 

noncompliant product to customers that do not have control systems in place will be 

enforced equally between manufacturers of adhesives located in Pennsylvania and those 

located outside the United States. The commentator asserts that the responsibility for 

compliance be placed with the user of the material and the Department and not with the 

seller. (7) 

Response: Please see the response to comment no. 17 

20. Comment: Some commentators expressed concern with the compliance date of the 

proposed regulation and stated that the Department must provide a reasonable compliance 

date that allows for implementation of the rule’s requirements. The IRRC commented that 

because the Board does not know exactly when this regulation will officially be 

promulgated, the Board should consider replacing the April 15, 2010, compliance date 

with a reference to a specific amount of time after the effective date of the regulation. (5, 7, 

13) 

Response: The Department agrees that it must provide a reasonable compliance date. The 

proposed compliance date of April 15, 2010, has been revised to January 1, 2012, in the 

final-form rulemaking. The Department does not agree that it must replace the proposed 

compliance date with a reference to a specific amount of time after the effective date of the 

regulation. The Department is able to estimate within a reasonable time frame when this 

final-form rulemaking will be published and effective, and has extended the compliance 

date taking that time frame and the needs of the regulated industry into account. 

21. Comment: The commentators suggested that the proposed compliance deadline is not 

achievable to design, build, install, test and obtain permit approval of add-on air pollution 

control devices. The commentators suggest that the rulemaking allow 2 years after 

13
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

adoption of the final-form rule for regulated industry to make the appropriate changes to 

their operations. (5, 7, 13) 

Response: The Department has revised the final-form rulemaking compliance deadline 

from April 15, 2010, to January 1, 2012. The Department agrees, however, that this 

compliance deadline may not be achievable for the design and installation of add-on 

controls. The Department has amended proposed § 129.77(g) to provide the option for an 

extension to the compliance date for the owner or operator of a facility that intends to 

comply with this section through the use of add-on air pollution control equipment. 

22. Comment: Two commentators suggested that the proposed compliance deadline is 

not achievable for the reformulation of adhesives. They asserted that it is not realistic to 

develop, reformulate, test and achieve final customer approval for a new adhesive in less 

than one year. The commentators suggest that the rulemaking allow 2 years after adoption 

of the final-form rule to allow proper reformulation and customer acceptance testing to 

occur. (7, 13) 

Response: The Department disagrees that the regulated industry needs 2 years after 

adoption of the final-form rulemaking to comply with the requirements. The Department 

has revised the final-form rulemaking to require compliance beginning January 1, 2012. 

The Department believes that this revised compliance date, in addition to the fact that 

many complying adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents have already been developed, or 

reformulated from noncomplying products, due to similar rules having been promulgated 

in California and other states in the OTR, will provide the regulated industry with 

sufficient resources to comply. 

23. Comment: A commentator expressed concern that its products manufactured in 

Pennsylvania will be at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace, due to inadequate 

time for proper reformulation and customer acceptance testing. (7) 

Response: The Department disagrees that the commentator will be at a competitive 

disadvantage. The Department has revised the final-form rulemaking to require 

compliance beginning January 1, 2012. Further, many states, including California and 

several members of the OTR, have implemented rules with VOC content limits and 

requirements similar to the Department’s proposed rulemaking. Manufacturers and users 

in states outside this Commonwealth will be required to manufacture and buy products that 

meet the same limits as were in the proposed rulemaking, creating a market for complying 

products manufactured in Pennsylvania. Additionally, the EPA issued the Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives in 2008. The CTG 

provides states in ozone nonattainment areas and in the OTR with guidance on what 

constitutes RACT for emissions of VOCs from miscellaneous industrial adhesives. The 

EPA reviewed the California rules and the OTC Model Rule for Adhesives and Sealants 

prior to developing its guidance for RACT for miscellaneous industrial adhesives. The 

OTR states are required to adopt RACT regulations for miscellaneous industrial adhesives, 

based on the EPA’s CTG. 

14
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

24. Comment: The commentator expressed concern that its customers outside of 

Pennsylvania would incur additional costs associated with reformulation. (7) 

Response: The Department disagrees. Noncomplying products may be sold outside of this 

Commonwealth to a customer in a state or region that does not have the VOC content 

limits that are proposed to be implemented in this Commonwealth. 

25. Comment: The commentator suggested that the rule imposes a competitive 

disadvantage on Pennsylvania manufacturers. Manufacturers outside of Pennsylvania are 

able to choose adhesives on the basis of performance and cost without incurring additional 

operational costs to control emissions beyond what is required by the U.S. EPA. (7)

Response: The Department disagrees that the proposed rulemaking imposes a competitive 

disadvantage on Pennsylvania manufacturers. Noncomplying products may be sold 

outside of this Commonwealth to a customer in a state or region that does not have the 

VOC content limits that are proposed to be implemented in this Commonwealth. Many 

states, including California and several members of the OTR, have implemented rules with 

VOC content limits and requirements similar to the Department’s proposed rulemaking. 

Manufacturers and users in these states will be required to buy products that meet the same 

limits as were in the proposed rulemaking, creating a market for complying products 

manufactured in Pennsylvania. 

26. Comment: The commentator is opposed to the proliferation of state rules regulating 

industrial adhesives since many of the companies that use the commentator’s adhesives are 

subject to a number of VOC and HAP emissions standards. These are primarily source 

specific emission limits that are policed through facility operating permits. Regulation 

through a state product rule will make compliance even more complicated and confusing 

and will increase the regulatory burden on these facilities. Furthermore, these rules limit 

operational flexibility and may even discourage users from adopting more environmentally 

friendly adhesives. (7) 

Response: The Department disagrees that the proposed rulemaking adds an additional 

regulatory burden to the regulated community. Final-form §§ 129.77(l)(2) and 

130.703(a)(2) specify that the requirements do not apply to adhesives, sealants, adhesive 

primers or sealant primers that are subject to § 129.73 or Chapter 130, Subchapter B or 

Subchapter C (relating to aerospace manufacturing and rework; consumer products; and 

architectural and industrial maintenance coatings). Those regulations contain requirements 

for certain adhesive products that are not regulated under the proposed rulemaking. 

Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission standards are Federal requirements on specific 

source categories. A HAP may or may not be a VOC. 

27. Comment: The commentator stated that compliance with the Plastic and Metal 

Surface Coating NESHAP is based on a 12-month rolling average with an adhesive 

coating category limit expressed in pounds of HAP per gallon of applied solids rather than 

pounds per gallon or grams per liter. This allows facilities to use noncomplying products 

as long as the overages are compensated by other materials that are significantly below the 

15
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

limit. The commentator recommended that the Department consider using a rolling 

average in the proposed rule. (7)

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator’s suggestion to adopt a 12-

month rolling average. Compliance with the requirements of this proposed rulemaking is 

expected to be through the use of compliant products, consistent with the requirements of 

the OTC Model Rule. An owner or operator of a facility may seek compliance through the 

use of add-on controls to control the emissions from noncomplying products. Compliance 

using add-on controls will be evaluated on a daily basis, consistent with the requirements 

of the OTC Model Rule. An owner or operator of a facility may also seek compliance with 

the requirements of § 129.77 through the use of an equivalency under § 129.51(a) (relating 

to general). This option allows the owner or operator to request approval of an averaging 

approach specified in a plan approval application and memorialized in a permit under the 

equivalency provision. 

28. Comment: The commentator stated that, if restricted to a reasonably available control 

technology rule limit, operations may find it difficult to comply, particularly in 

applications where the demands of the bonded assembly or product specification make a 

high-VOC product necessary. In these instances, a control device may be the only 

immediate solution. Although control devices are typically thought of as an acceptable 

means to compliance, installation of a control device is costly and significantly increases 

operating expenses. These facilities may simply shift their business to other non-regulated 

states, or perhaps cease operations altogether. Increasing use of control devices will result 

in an increase in CO2.and consumption of natural resources, creating a shift in 

environmental problems. The only real solution to all of these environmental issues is 

increased use of aqueous or non-voc containing adhesives. However, once these adhesive 

users have control devices in place, there is little incentive for them to evaluate and 

substitute compliant adhesives because the costs associated with re-qualifying a new 

adhesive are quite high and the process is resource intensive. Furthermore, facilities cannot 

simply shut down and start up incinerators at will, so these sources cannot abandon this 

method of control until there are VOC compliant alternatives available for every 

conceivable bonded assembly manufactured. For this reason the commentator believes 

that the best environmental and economic approach is to regulate this industry only with 

source specific emission limits, rather than through a general industrial adhesive rule that 

invokes category specific emission limits. An acceptable approach to this scenario would 

be to exempt Title V facilities from this industrial adhesives rule. (7) 

Response: The Department disagrees. The Title V program consolidates applicability 

requirements for a facility. Exempting Title V facilities would exempt major sources of 

emissions. 

VOC Test Methodology

29. Comment: A commentator requested that an EPA-approved alternative test method 

for 2-component reactive adhesives, codified in Appendix A of the Plastic Surface Coating 

16
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

NESHAP (40 CFR 63, Subpart PPPP, Appendix A), be added to §§ 129.77(s) and 

130.705(a). (7) 

Response: The Department has reviewed the EPA Reference Method, Determination of 

Weight Volatile Matter Content and Weight Solids Content of Reactive Adhesives, for 2-

component reactive adhesives codified in Appendix A of Subpart PPPP and agrees that it 

should be included on the list of test methods listed in §§ 129.77(s) and 130.705(a). This 

revision has been made to the final-form rulemaking. 

Written and Oral Contracts

30. Comment: The Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) stated that 

proposed §§ 129.77(i) and 130.702(g) include a prohibition on the use of a material that 

would result in a violation of the regulation. Further, this prohibition applies to “all 

written or oral contracts” under which any of these materials would be used. The IRRC 

asks if the Board intends to apply this provision retroactively. If so, the IRRC requests 

that the Board outline its authority to do so. If not, the IRRC requests that the Board 

clarify the provisions to state that they will be applied prospectively. (13)

Response: The Department appreciates the IRRC’s concern. The final-form rulemaking 

has been revised to clarify that this prohibition applies to written or oral contracts that are 

created on or after the compliance date of this regulation.

Records and Reporting Requirements

31. Comment: The IRRC requested clarification on how the records required under 

proposed subsections 129.77(l)(4), (n) and (o), and 130.703(b)(4), (e) and (f) shall be 

recorded and maintained by the owner or operator. (13) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the statement that the rulemaking should be 

amended for clarity on recordkeeping. Subsections 129.77(l)(4), (n) and (o) (the latter two 

relabeled as (m) and (n) in the final-form rulemaking) each clearly states that an owner or 

operator claiming an exemption under the section shall record and maintain operational 

records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this exemption, in accordance with 

subsections (p)--(r) (relabeled as (o)—(q) in the final-form rulemaking). Subsection 

130.703(b)(4) clearly states that a person claiming an exemption under this paragraph shall 

record and maintain operational records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this 

exemption, in accordance with § 130.704 (relating to recordkeeping requirements). 

Proposed subsections 130.703(e) and (f) have been deleted from the final-form 

rulemaking, mooting the comment with regard to these two subsections. Requiring the 

owners and operators of regulated facilities to maintain records is a standard requirement. 

This requirement is found in many Board-approved regulations, including § 129.52(g) 

(relating to surface coating processes), for instance. The owners and operators of regulated 

sources have not had difficulty understanding or complying with requirements to make and 

maintain records. 

 

17
Comment and Response Document Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents EQB #7-428; IRRC 

#2755 

18

32. Comment: The IRRC requested clarification of the requirement in proposed 

§ 129.77(r)(1) for maintaining records. Can the records be maintained in electronic or 

paper format? The final-form regulation should indicate in what format these records must 

be maintained. (13) 

Response: The Department disagrees that the final-form rulemaking must specify in what 

format the records must be maintained. Requiring the owners and operators of regulated 

facilities to maintain records is a standard requirement found in many Board-approved 

regulations, including § 129.52(g), for instance. The owners and operators of regulated 

sources have not had difficulty understanding or complying with this requirement. 

33. Comment: The IRRC requested clarification of whether the Department’s requests for 

records under proposed § 129.77(r)(2) will be made orally or in writing. The final-form 

rulemaking should indicate in what format the requests will be made. (13) 

 

Response: The Department agrees and has revised the final-form rulemaking to specify 

that the records shall be submitted to the Department upon receipt of a written request.