Rule: National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards For Aerosol Coatings

Monday,
March 24, 2008
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 51 and 59
National Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings;
Final Rule
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:28 Mar 21, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\24MRR2.SGM 24MRR2
15604 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for the reactive compounds in aerosol (202) 566–9744. EPA visitors are
AGENCY coatings that contribute to ozone required to show photographic
formation. Therefore, certain identification and sign the EPA visitor
40 CFR Parts 51 and 59 compounds that would not be VOC log. After processing through the X-ray
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0971; FRL–8498–6] under the otherwise applicable and magnetometer machines, visitors
definition will count towards the will be given an EPA/DC badge that
RIN 2060–AN69 applicable reactivity limits under this must be visible at all times.
final regulation. The initial listing of Informational updates will be
National Volatile Organic Compound product categories and schedule for
Emission Standards for Aerosol provided via the EPA Web site at
regulation was published on March 23, http://www.epa.gov/epahome/
Coatings 1995 (60 FR 15264). This final action dockets.htm as they are available.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection announces EPA’s final decision to list
aerosol coatings for regulation under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
Agency (EPA). questions about the final rule, contact
ACTION: Final rule.
Group III of the consumer and
commercial product category for which Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, U.S. EPA, Office
regulations are mandated under section of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
SUMMARY: This action promulgates
183(e) of the CAA. Sector Policies and Programs Division,
national emission standards for the
Natural Resources and Commerce Group
aerosol coatings (aerosol spray paints) DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective March 24, 2008. The (E143–03), Research Triangle Park, NC
category under section 183(e) of the
incorporation by reference of certain 27711; telephone number (919) 541–
Clean Air Act (CAA). The standards
publications listed in the rule is 2509; facsimile number (919) 541–3470;
implement section 183(e) of the CAA, as
approved by the Director of the Federal e-mail address: whitfield.kaye@epa.gov.
amended in 1990, which requires the
Register as of March 24, 2008. For information concerning the CAA
Administrator to control volatile organic
section 183(e) consumer and
compounds (VOC) emissions from ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
commercial products program, contact
certain categories of consumer and docket for this action under Docket ID
Mr. Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of
commercial products for purposes of No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0971. All
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
reducing VOC emissions contributing to documents in the docket are listed on
Sector Policies and Programs Division,
ozone formation and ozone the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Natural Resources and Commerce Group
nonattainment. This regulation Although listed in the index, some
(E143–03), Research Triangle Park,
establishes nationwide reactivity-based information is not publicly available
North Carolina 27711, telephone
standards for aerosol coatings. States (e.g., Confidential Business Information
number: (919) 541–5460, facsimile
have previously promulgated rules for (CBI) or other information whose
number (919) 541–3470, e-mail address:
the aerosol coatings category based disclosure is restricted by statute).
moore.bruce@epa.gov.
upon reductions of VOC by mass; Certain other material, such as
however, EPA has concluded that a copyrighted material, will be publicly SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
national rule based upon the relative available only in hard copy form. Entities Potentially Affected by This
reactivity approach will achieve more Publicly available docket materials are Action. The entities potentially affected
reduction in ozone formation than may available either electronically through by this regulation encompass all steps in
be achieved by a mass-based approach www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at aerosol coatings operations. This
for this specific product category. This the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. includes manufacturers, processors,
rule will better control a product’s EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0971, EPA wholesale distributors, or importers of
contribution to ozone formation by Headquarters Library, Room 3334 in the aerosol coatings for sale or distribution
encouraging the use of less reactive VOC EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution in the United States, or manufacturers,
ingredients, rather than treating all VOC Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This processors, wholesale distributors, or
in a product alike through the Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. importers who supply the entities listed
traditional mass-based approach. We are to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, above with aerosol coatings for sale or
also revising EPA’s regulatory definition excluding legal holidays. The EPA distribution in interstate commerce in
of VOC. This revision is necessary to Docket Center telephone number is the United States. The entities
include certain compounds that would (202) 566–1744, and the facsimile potentially affected by this action
otherwise be exempt in order to account number for the EPA Docket Center is include:
NAICS
Category Examples of regulated entities
code a
Paint and Coating Manufacturing ................................................. 32551 Manufacturing of lacquers, varnishes, enamels, epoxy coatings,
oil and alkyd vehicle, plastisols, polyurethane, primers, shel-
lacs, stains, water repellant coatings.
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Production and Preparation 325998 Aerosol can filling, aerosol packaging services.
Manufacturing.
a North American Industry Classification System http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html.
This table is not intended to be section I.E of the promulgation Docket. The docket number for the
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide preamble. If you have any questions National Volatile Organic Compounds
for readers regarding entities likely to be regarding the applicability of this action Emission Standards for Aerosols
affected by this action. To determine to a particular entity, consult the Coating (40 CFR part 59, subpart E) is
whether you would be affected by this appropriate EPA contact listed in the Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–
action, you should examine the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 0971.
applicable industry description in section of this notice.
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 15605
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition A. Applicability of the Standards and pulmonary inflammation, respiratory
to being available in the docket, an Regulated Entities symptoms, effects on exercise
electronic copy of the final rule is also B. VOC Regulated Under This Rule performance, and increased airway
C. Regulatory Limits responsiveness. Epidemiological studies
available on the WWW. Following the
D. Compliance Dates
Administrator’s signature, a copy of the E. Labeling Requirements have shown associations between
final rule will be posted on EPA’s F. Recordkeeping and Reporting ambient ozone levels and increased
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) G. Variance susceptibility to respiratory infection,
policy and guidance page for newly H. Test Methods increased hospital admissions and
proposed or promulgated rules at III. Response to Significant Comments emergency room visits. Groups at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN A. Format of Regulation increased risk of experiencing elevated
provides information and technology B. Downwind Effects and Robustness of exposures include active children,
Relative Reactivity Scale outdoor workers, and others who
exchange in various areas of air
C. Consideration of Other Factors in the
pollution control. regularly engage in outdoor activities.
Consideration of Best Available Control
Judicial Review. Under section D. Variance, Small Quantity Manufacturers Those most susceptible to the effects of
307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and Extended Compliance Date ozone include those with pre-existing
judicial review of the final rule is E. Additional Reporting Requirements respiratory disease, children, and older
available only by filing a petition for IV. Summary of Impacts adults. The literature suggests the
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for A. Environmental Impacts possibility that long-term exposures to
the District of Columbia Circuit by May B. Energy Impacts ozone may cause chronic health effects
23, 2008. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), C. Cost and Economic Impacts (e.g., structural damage to lung tissue
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews and accelerated decline in baseline lung
the requirements established by this
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
final action may not be challenged function).
Planning and Review
separately in any civil or criminal B. Paperwork Reduction Act B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
these requirements. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Under section 183(e) of the CAA, EPA
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism conducted a study of VOC emissions
further provides that ‘‘only an objection F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation from the use of consumer and
to a rule or procedure which was raised and Coordination With Indian Tribal commercial products to assess their
with reasonable specificity during the Governments potential to contribute to levels of ozone
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of that violate the National Ambient Air
period for public comment (including Children From Environmental Health
any public hearing) may be raised Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone,
and Safety Risks and to establish criteria for regulating
during judicial review.’’ This section H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
also provides a mechanism for EPA to Concerning Regulations That
VOC emissions from these products.
convene a proceeding for Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Section 183(e) of the CAA directed EPA
reconsideration, ‘‘if the person raising Distribution or Use to list for regulation those categories of
the objection can demonstrate to EPA I. National Technology Transfer and products that account for at least 80
that it was impracticable to raise such Advancement Act percent of the VOC emissions, on a
an objection [within the period for J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer
to Address Environmental Justice in and commercial products in areas that
public comment] or if the grounds for Minority Populations and Low-Income
such objection arose after the period for violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone
Populations nonattainment areas), and to divide the
public comment (but within the time K. Congressional Review Act
specified for judicial review) and if such list of categories to be regulated into
objection is of central relevance to the I. Background four groups.
EPA published the initial list in the
outcome of the rule.’’ Any person A. The Ozone Problem Federal Register on March 23, 1995 (60
seeking to make such a demonstration to Ground-level ozone, a major FR 15264). In that notice, EPA stated
EPA should submit a Petition for component of smog, is formed in the that it may amend the list of products
Reconsideration to the Office of the atmosphere by reactions of VOC and for regulation, and the groups of product
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, oxides of nitrogen in the presence of categories listed for regulation, in order
Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania sunlight. The formation of ground-level to achieve an effective regulatory
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with ozone is a complex process that is program in accordance with EPA’s
a copy to both the person(s) listed in the affected by many variables. discretion under CAA section 183(e).
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Exposure to ground-level ozone is EPA has revised the list several times.
CONTACT section, and the Air and associated with a wide variety of human Most recently, in May 2006, EPA
Radiation Law Office, Office of General health effects, as well as agricultural revised the list to add one product
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, crop loss, and damage to forests and category, portable fuel containers, and
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., ecosystems. Controlled human exposure to remove one product category,
Washington, DC 20004. studies show that acute health effects petroleum dry cleaning solvents. See 71
Organization of This Document. The are induced by short-term (1 to 2 hour) FR 28320 (May 16, 2006). The aerosol
information presented in this notice is exposures (observed at concentrations spray paints (aerosol coatings) category
organized as follows: as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)), currently is listed for regulation as part
I. Background generally while individuals are engaged of Group III of the CAA section 183(e)
A. The Ozone Problem in moderate or heavy exertion, and by list.
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
prolonged (6 to 8 hour) exposures to CAA section 183(e) directs EPA to

C. Photochemical Reactivity
D. Role of Reactivity in VOC/Ozone
ozone (observed at concentrations as regulate consumer and commercial
Regulations low as 0.08 ppm and possibly lower), products using ‘‘best available controls’’
E. The Aerosol Coating Industry typically while individuals are engaged (BAC). CAA section 183(e)(1)(A) defines
II. Summary of the Final Standards and in moderate exertion. Transient effects BAC as ‘‘the degree of emissions
Changes Since Proposal from acute exposures include reduction that the Administrator
determines, on the basis of substantially as effective as a national sunlight, resulting in the formation of
technological and economic feasibility, rule and, therefore, issued CTGs to ozone. The impact of a given species of
health, environmental, and energy provide guidance to States for VOC on formation of ground-level ozone
impacts, is achievable through the development of appropriate State is sometimes referred to as its
application of the most effective regulations. Most recently, EPA ‘‘reactivity.’’ It is generally understood
equipment, measures, processes, determined that a CTG would be that not all VOC are equal in their
methods, systems or techniques, substantially as effective as a national effects on ground-level ozone formation.
including chemical reformulation, rule for three other Group III categories: Some VOC react extremely slowly and
product or feedstock substitution, Paper, Film and Foil Coating; Metal changes in their emissions have limited
repackaging, and directions for use, Furniture Coating; and Large Appliance effects on ozone pollution episodes.
consumption, storage, or disposal.’’ Coating.6 Some VOC form ozone more quickly
CAA section 183(e) also provides EPA For the category of aerosol coatings, than other VOC, or they may form more
with authority to use any system or EPA has determined that a national rule ozone than other VOC. Other VOC not
systems of regulation that EPA applicable nationwide is the best system only form ozone themselves, but also act
determines is the most appropriate for of regulation to achieve necessary VOC as catalysts and enhance ozone
the product category. Under CAA emission reductions from this type of formation from other VOC. By
section 183(e)(4), EPA can impose ‘‘any product. Aerosol coatings are typically distinguishing between more reactive
system or systems of regulation as the used in relatively small amounts by and less reactive VOC, however, EPA
Administrator deems appropriate, consumers and others on an occasional concludes that it may be possible to
including requirements for registration basis and at varying times and locations. develop regulations that will decrease
and labeling, self-monitoring and Under such circumstances, ozone concentrations further or more
reporting, prohibitions, limitations, or reformulation of the VOC content of the efficiently than by controlling all VOC
economic incentives (including products is a more feasible way to equally.
marketable permits and auctions of achieve VOC emission reductions, Assigning a value to the reactivity of
emissions rights) concerning the rather than through a CTG approach that a specific VOC species is a complex
manufacture, processing, distribution, would only affect a smaller number of undertaking. Reactivity is not simply a
use, consumption or disposal of the relatively large users. property of the compound itself; it is a
product.’’ Under these provisions, EPA Aerosol coatings regulations are property of both the compound and the
has previously issued national already in place in three States environment in which the compound is
regulations for architectural coatings, (California, Oregon, and Washington), found. Therefore, the reactivity of a
autobody refinishing coatings, consumer and other States are considering specific VOC varies with VOC:NOX
products, and portable fuel developing regulations for these ratios, meteorological conditions, the
containers.1 2 3 4 5 products. For the companies that market mix of other VOC in the atmosphere,
For any category of consumer or aerosol coatings in different States, and the time interval of interest.
commercial products, the Administrator trying to fulfill the differing Designing an effective regulation that
may issue control techniques guidelines requirements of State rules may create takes account of these interactions is
(CTG) in lieu of national regulations if administrative, technical, and marketing difficult. Implementing and enforcing
the Administrator determines that such problems. Although Section 183(e) does such a regulation requires an extra
guidance will be substantially as not preempt States from having more burden for both industry and regulators,
effective as a national regulation in stringent State standards, EPA’s national as those impacted by the rule must
reducing emissions of VOC which rule is expected to provide some degree characterize and track the full chemical
contribute to ozone levels in areas of consistency, predictability, and composition of VOC emissions rather
which violate the NAAQS for ozone. In administrative ease for the industry. A than only having to track total VOC
many cases, a CTG can be an effective national rule also helps States reduce content as is required by traditional
regulatory approach to reduce emissions potential compliance problems mass-based rules. EPA’s September 13,
of VOC in nonattainment areas because associated with noncompliant coatings 2005, final rule approving a comparable
of the nature of the specific product and being transported into nonattainment reactivity-based aerosol coating rule as
the uses of such product. A critical areas from neighboring areas and part of the California State
distinction between a national rule and neighboring States. A national rule will Implementation Plan for ozone contains
a CTG is that a CTG may include additional background information on
also enable States to obtain needed VOC
provisions that affect the users of the photochemical reactivity.8 Recently,
emission reductions from this sector in
products. For other product categories, EPA issued interim guidance to States
the near term, without having to expend
such as wood furniture coatings and regarding the use of VOC reactivity
their limited resources to develop
shipbuilding coatings, EPA has information in the development of
similar rules in each State.7
previously determined that, under CAA ozone control measures.9
section 183(e)(3)(C), a CTG would be C. Photochemical Reactivity
1. What Research Has Been Conducted
There are thousands of individual on VOC Reactivity?
1 ‘‘National Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Architectural Coatings’’ 63 FR 48848,

species of VOC that can participate in a Much of the initial work on reactivity
(September 11, 1998). series of reactions involving nitrogen scales was funded by the California Air
2 ‘‘National Volatile Organic Compound Emission oxides (NOX) and the energy from
Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings’’ 63 FR 8 ‘‘Revisions to the California State
48806, (September 11, 1998). 6 ‘‘Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Implementation Plan and Revision to the Definition
3 ‘‘Consumer and Commercial Products: Schedule
Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)-Removal of
for Regulation’’ 63 FR 48792, (September 11, 1998) Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Metal Furniture VOC Exemptions for California’s Aerosol Coating
4 National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Coatings; and Large Appliance Coatings’’ 72 FR Products Reactivity-based Regulation’’ 70 FR 53930,
Standards for Consumer Products’’ 63 FR 48819, 57215, (October 9, 2007). (September 13, 2005).
(September 11, 1998). 7 Courts have already approved EPA’s creation of 9 ‘‘Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile
5 ‘‘National Volatile Organic Compound Emission national rules under section 183(e). See, ALARM Organic Compounds in Ozone State
Standards for Portable Fuel Containers’’ 72 FR Caucus v. EPA, 215 F.3d 61,76 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. Implementation Plans’’) 70 FR 54046, (September
8428, (February 26, 2007). denied, 532 U.S. 1018 (2001). 13, 2005).
Resources Board (CARB), which was reactivity scales. One such effort is the airshed models under a variety of
interested in comparing the reactivity of work of R.G. Derwent and co-workers, environmental conditions;
emissions from different alternative fuel who have published articles on a scale iii. The development of emissions
vehicles. In the late 1980s, CARB called the photochemical ozone creation inventory processing tools for exploring
provided funding to William P. L. Carter potential (POCP) scale.14 15 This scale reactivity-based strategies; and
at the University of California to was designed for the emissions and iv. The fate of VOC emissions and
develop a reactivity scale. Carter meteorological conditions prevalent in their availability for atmospheric
investigated 18 different methods of Europe. The POCP scale is generally reactions.
ranking the reactivity of individual VOC consistent with that of Carter, although This research has led to a number of
in the atmosphere using a single-cell there are some differences because it findings that increase EPA’s confidence
trajectory model with a state-of-the-art uses a different model, chemical in the ability to develop regulatory
chemical reaction mechanism.10 Carter mechanism, and emission and approaches that differentiate between
suggested three scales for further meteorological scenarios. Despite these specific VOC on the basis of relative
consideration: differences, there is a good correlation reactivity. The first two research
i. Maximum Incremental Reactivity of r2=0.9 between the results of the objectives listed above were explored in
(MIR) scale—an ozone yield scale POCP and the MIR scales.16 a series of three parallel modeling
derived by adjusting the NOX emissions As CARB worked to develop studies that resulted in four reports and
in a base case to yield the highest reactivity-based regulations in one journal article.17 18 19 20 21 EPA
incremental reactivity of the base California, EPA began to explore the commissioned a review of these reports
reactive organic gas mixture. implications of applying reactivity to address a series of policy-relevant
ii. Maximum Ozone Incremental scales in other parts of the country. In science questions.22 In 2007, an
Reactivity (MOIR) scale—an ozone yield developing its regulations, CARB has additional peer review was
scale derived by adjusting the NOX maintained that the MIR scale is the commissioned by EPA to assess the
emission in a base case to yield the most appropriate metric for application appropriateness of basing a national
highest peak ozone concentration. in California, but cautioned that its aerosol coatings regulation on reactivity.
iii. Equal Benefit Incremental Generally, the peer reviews support the
research has focused on California
Reactivity (EBIR) scale—an ozone yield appropriateness of the use of the box-
atmospheric conditions and that the
scale derived by adjusting the NOX model based MIR metric nationwide for
suitability of the MIR scale for
emissions in a base case scenario so the aerosol coatings category. The
regulatory purposes in other areas has
VOC and NOX reductions are equally results are available in the rulemaking
not been demonstrated. In particular,
effective in reducing ozone. docket.
Carter concluded that, if only one specific concerns have been raised
about the suitability of using the MIR The results of the RRWG-organized
scale is used for regulatory purposes, study and the subsequent reviews
the MIR scale is the most appropriate.11 scale in relation to multi-day stagnation
or transport scenarios or over suggest that there is good correlation
The MIR scale is defined in terms of between different relative reactivity
environmental conditions where ozone geographic regions with very different
VOC:NOX ratios than those of metrics calculated with photochemical
production is most sensitive to changes airshed models, regardless of the choice
in hydrocarbon emissions and, California.
of model, model domain, scenario, or
therefore, represents conditions where In 1998, EPA participated in the
averaging times. Moreover, the scales
hydrocarbon controls would be the most formation of the Reactivity Research
calculated with photochemical airshed
effective. CARB used the MIR scale to Working Group (RRWG), which was
models correlate relatively well with the
establish fuel-neutral VOC emissions organized to help develop an improved
MIR metric derived with a single cell,
limits in its low-emitting vehicle and scientific basis for reactivity-related
one-dimensional box model. Prior to the
alternative fuels regulation.12 13 regulatory policies.16 All interested
Subsequently, Carter has updated the parties were invited to participate. Since 17 Carter, W.P.L., G. Tonnesen, and G. Yarwood
MIR scale several times as the chemical that time, representatives from EPA, (2003) Investigation of VOC Reactivity Effects Using
mechanisms in the model used to derive CARB, Environment Canada, States, Existing Regional Air Quality Models, Report to
the scale have evolved with new academia, and industry have met in American Chemistry Council, Contract SC–20.0-
public RRWG meetings to discuss and UCR-VOC-RRWG, April 17, 2003.
scientific information. CARB 18 Hakami, A., M.S. Bergin, and A.G. Russell
incorporated a 1999 version of the MIR coordinate research that would support (2003) Assessment of the Ozone and Aerosol
scale in its own aerosol coatings rule. this goal. Formation Potentials (Reactivities) of Organic
The latest revision to the MIR scale was The RRWG has organized a series of Compounds over the Eastern United States, Final
research efforts to explore: Report, Prepared for California Air Resources
issued in 2003. Board, Contract No. 00–339, January 2003.
In addition to Carter’s work, there i. The sensitivity of ozone to VOC 19 Hakami, A., M.S. Bergin, and A.G. Russell
have been other attempts to create mass reductions and changes in VOC (2004a) Ozone Formation Potential of Organic
composition under a variety of Compounds in the Eastern United States: A
10 Carter, W. P. L. (1994) ‘‘Development of ozone environmental conditions; Comparison of Episodes, Inventories, and Domains,
reactivity scales for organic gases,’’ J. Air Waste ii. The derivation and evaluation of Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 6748–6759.
Manage. Assoc., 44: 881–899. 20 Hakami, A., M. Arhami, and A.G. Russell
11 ‘‘Initial Statement of Reasons for the California

reactivity scales using photochemical (2004b) Further Analysis of VOC Reactivity Metrics
Aerosol Coatings Regulation, California Air and Scales, Final Report to the U.S. EPA, Contract
14 Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin, S.M. Saunders and #4D–5751–NAEX, July 2004.
Resources Board,’’ 2000.
12 California Air Resources Board ‘‘Proposed M.J. Pilling (2001) ‘‘Characterization of the 21 Arunachalam S., R. Mathur, A. Holland, M.R.
Regulations for Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Reactivities of Volatile Organic Compounds Using Lee, D. Olerud, Jr., and H. Jeffries (2003)
Fuels—Staff Report and Technical Support a Master Chemical Mechanism,’’ J. Air Waste Investigation of VOC Reactivity Assessment with
Document,’’ State of California, Air Resources Management Assoc., 51: 699–707. Comprehensive Air Quality Modeling, Prepared for
15 Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin, S.M. Saunders and U.S. EPA, GSA Contract # GS–35F–0067K, Task
Board, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812,
August 13, 1990. M.J. Pilling (1998) ‘‘Photochemical Ozone Creation Order ID: 4TCG68022755, June 2003.
13 California Air Resources Board ‘‘Proposed Potentials for Organic Compounds in Northwest 22 Derwent, R.G. (2004) Evaluation and
Regulations for Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Europe Calculated with a Master Chemical Characterization of Reactivity Metrics, Final Draft,
Fuels—Final Statement of Reasons,’’ State of Mechanism,’’ Atmos. Env., 32(14/15):2429–2441. Report to the U.S. EPA, Order No. 4D–5844-NATX,
California, Air Resources Board, July 1991. 16 See http://www.narsto.org/section.src?SID=10. November 2004.
RRWG-organized studies, little analysis policy exempted these ‘‘negligibly significantly greater reduction in ozone
of the robustness of the box-model reactive’’ compounds from VOC concentrations.26 The traditional
derived MIR metric and its applicability emissions limitations in programs approach to VOC control that focused
to environmental conditions outside designed to meet the ozone NAAQS. on reducing the overall mass of
California had been conducted. Since 1977, EPA has added other emissions may be adequate in some
Although these studies were not compounds to the list of negligibly areas of the country. However, EPA’s
specifically designed to test the reactive compounds based on new recent SIP guidance recognizes that
robustness of the box-model derived information as it has been developed. In approaches to VOC control that
MIR metrics, the results suggest that the 1992, EPA adopted a formal regulatory differentiate between VOC based on
MIR metric is relatively robust. definition of VOC for use in SIPs, which relative reactivity are likely to be more
explicitly excludes compounds that effective and efficient under certain
D. Role of Reactivity in VOC/Ozone have been identified as negligibly circumstances.27 In particular,
Regulations reactive [40 CFR 51.100(s)]. reactivity-based approaches are likely to
Historically, EPA’s general approach To date, EPA has exempted 54 be important in areas for which
to regulation of VOC emissions has been compounds or classes of compounds in aggressive VOC control is a key strategy
based upon control of total VOC by this manner. In effect, EPA’s current for reducing ozone concentrations. Such
mass, without distinguishing between VOC exemption policy has generally areas include:
individual species of VOC. EPA resulted in a two bin system in which • Areas with persistent ozone
considered the regulation of VOC by most compounds are treated equally as nonattainment problems;
mass to be the most effective and VOC, and are controlled. A separate • Urbanized or other NOX-rich areas
practical approach based upon the smaller group of compounds are treated where ozone formation is particularly
scientific and technical information as negligibly reactive, and are exempt sensitive to changes in VOC emissions;
available when EPA developed its VOC from VOC controls.24 This approach • Areas that have already
control policy. was intended to encourage the implemented VOC reasonably available
EPA issued the first version of its reduction of emissions of all VOC that control technology (RACT) measures
VOC control policy in 1971, as part of participate in ozone formation. From and need additional VOC emission
EPA’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) one perspective, it appears that this reductions.
preparation guidance.23 In that approach has been relatively successful. In these areas, there are a variety of
guidance, EPA emphasized the need to EPA estimates that, between 1970 and possible ways of addressing VOC
reduce the total mass of VOC emissions, 2003, VOC emissions from man-made reactivity in the SIP development
but also suggested that substitution of sources nationwide declined by 54 process, including:
one compound for another might be percent. This decline in VOC emissions • Developing accurate, speciated VOC
useful when it would result in a clearly has helped to decrease average ozone emissions inventories.
concentration by 29 percent (based on 1- • Prioritizing control measures using
evident decrease in reactivity and thus
hour averages) and 21 percent (based on reactivity metrics.
tend to reduce photochemical oxidant • Targeting emissions of highly-
formation. This latter statement 8-hour averages) between 1980 and
2003. These reductions occurred even reactive VOC compounds with specific
encouraged States to promulgate SIPs control measures.
with VOC emission substitution though, between 1970 and 2003,
• Encouraging VOC substitution and
provisions similar to the Los Angeles population, vehicle miles traveled, and
composition changes using reactivity-
County Air Pollution Control District’s gross domestic product rose 39 percent,
weighted emission limits.
(LACAPCD) Rule 66, which allowed 155 percent and 176 percent, The CARB aerosol coatings rule is an
some VOC that were believed to have respectively.25 example of this last application of the
low to moderate reactivity to be On the other hand, some have argued
concept of reactivity. CARB’s reactivity-
exempted from control. The exempt that a reactivity-based approach for
based rule for aerosol coatings was
status of many of those VOC was reducing VOC emissions would be more
designed to encourage the use of
questioned a few years later, when effective than the current mass-based
compounds that are less effective at
research results indicated that, although approach. One group of researchers
producing ozone. It contains limits for
some of those compounds do not conducted a detailed modeling study of
aerosol coatings expressed as grams of
produce much ozone close to the the Los Angeles area and concluded
ozone formed per gram of product
source, they may produce significant that, compared to the current approach,
instead of the more traditional limits
amounts of ozone after they are a reactivity-based approach could
expressed as percent VOC by mass. EPA
transported downwind from urban achieve the same reductions in ozone
approved CARB’s aerosol coatings rule
areas. concentrations at significantly less cost
as part of the California SIP for ozone.
In 1977, further research led EPA to or, for a given cost, could achieve a
EPA’s national aerosol coatings rule
issue a revised VOC policy under the builds largely upon CARB’s efforts to
24 For some analytical purposes, EPA has
title ‘‘Recommended Policy on Control distinguished between VOC and ‘‘highly reactive’’ regulate this product category using the
of Volatile Organic Compounds,’’ (42 FR VOC, such as in the EPA’s initial evaluation of relative reactivity approach.
35314, July 8, 1977), offering its own, consumer products for regulation. See, ‘‘Final
more limited, list of exempt organic Listing,’’ 63 FR 48792, 48795–6 (Sept. 11, 1998) E. The Aerosol Coating Industry
(explaining EPA’s approach); see also, ALARM Aerosol coatings include all coatings
compounds. The 1977 policy identified Caucus v. EPA, 215 F. 3d 61, 69–73 (D. C. Cir.
four compounds that have very low 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1018 (2001) (approving that are specially formulated and
photochemical reactivity and EPA’s approach as meeting the requirements of
determined that their contribution to CAA section 183(e)). 26 A. Russell, J. Milford, M. S. Bergin, S. McBride,
ozone formation and accumulation 25 ‘‘Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 L. McNair, Y. Yang, W. R. Stockwell, B. Croes,
Status and Trends,’’ EPA 454/K–03–001, (August ‘‘Urban Ozone Control and Atmospheric Reactivity
could be considered negligible. The 2003); and ‘‘The Ozone Report Measuring Progress of Organic Gases,’’ Science, 269: 491–495, (1995).
through 2003,’’ EPA 454/K–04-001, (April 2004); 27 ‘‘Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile
23 ‘‘Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Organic Compounds in Ozone State
Submittal of Implementation Plans’’, Appendix B, Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Implementation Plans,’’ 70 FR 54046, September
36 FR 15495, (August 14, 1971). Park, North Carolina. 13, 2005).
packaged for use in pressurized cans. coatings regulated in the final rule alter any requirements under any
They are used by both professional and include six general categories and 30 applicable State or local regulations.
do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers. The DIY specialty categories. Based on a survey The regulatory language in this final
segment accounts for approximately 80 of aerosol coating manufacturers rule has been changed from the
percent of all sales. The remainder of conducted by CARB in 1997, VOC proposed rule to clarify the regulated
aerosol coatings is sold for industrial emissions from the six general entity that is responsible for compliance
maintenance and original equipment categories together with the specialty with each portion of the regulation.
manufacturer use. Aerosol coatings are category of Ground Traffic/Marking The final rule includes a provision in
used for a number of applications Coatings account for approximately 85 section 59.501(f) that allows foreign
including small domestic coating jobs, percent of the ozone formed as a result manufacturers to qualify for the small
field and construction site marking, and of the use of aerosol coatings. These quantity manufacturer exemption in
touch-up of marks and scratches in categories are defined in this regulation section 59.501(e). Although foreign
paintwork of automobiles, appliances and are described in more detail in the manufacturers are not regulated entities
and machinery. docket to this rulemaking. under this rule, some may choose to
The aerosol coatings industry There are currently no national
voluntarily become regulated entities in
includes the formulators and regulations addressing VOC emissions
order to qualify for the small quantity
manufacturers of the concentrated from aerosol coatings. California,
manufacturer exemption. To qualify, the
product. These manufacturers may Oregon and Washington are the only
foreign manufacturer must (1) meet the
package the product or they may use toll States that currently regulate aerosol
same 7500 kilogram per year VOC mass
fillers (processors). These toll fillers coating products and Oregon’s and
limit that domestic small volume
may work not only with the large Washington’s rules are identical to the
manufacturers must meet; (2) comply
manufacturers, but for other coating Tier 1 VOC mass-based limits developed
manufacturers who do not have the by CARB that became effective in 1996. with the same recordkeeping and
specialized equipment necessary to fill Unlike other EPA or State regulations reporting requirements that domestic
aerosol containers. The fillers may then and previous CARB regulations for manufacturers must fulfill; and (3)
supply the product to coating dealers, aerosol coatings that regulate VOC comply with certain provisions in 40
home supply stores, distributors, ingredients by mass in the traditional CFR 59.501(f)(3), which are similar to
company-owned stores and industrial approach, the current California those used in other EPA rules to ensure
customers. regulation for aerosol coatings is that EPA may effectively monitor and
An aerosol consists of a gas in which designed to limit the ozone formed from implement this rule with respect to
liquid or solid substances may be VOC emissions from aerosol coatings by foreign entities.28
dispensed. Aerosol coatings are establishing limits on the reactivity of B. VOC Regulated Under This Rule
pressurized coatings that, like other the cumulative VOC ingredients of such
coatings, consist of pigments and resins coatings. This rule regulates emissions of VOC
and solvents. However, aerosol coatings from aerosol coatings. Because even less
also contain a propellant that dispenses II. Summary of the Final Standards and reactive VOC contribute to ozone
the product ingredients. A controlled Changes Since Proposal formation, we are amending the
amount of propellant in the product This section presents a summary of regulatory definition of VOC for
vaporizes as it leaves the container, the major features of the final rule, as purposes of this rule by adding 40 CFR
creating the aerosol spray. The well as a summary of the changes made 51.100(s)(7). As provided in that new
combination of product and propellant to the proposed rule. The reasons for the subsection, any organic compound in
is finely tuned to produce the correct changes in the final rule are explained the volatile portion of an aerosol coating
concentration and spray pattern for an in Section III. is counted towards the product’s
effective product. reactivity-based limit if it: (1) Has a
Aerosol coatings can be packaged in A. Applicability of the Standards and
reactivity factor (RF) value greater than
disposable cans for hand-held Regulated Entities
that of ethane (0.3), or (2) is used in
applications or for use in specialized The final Aerosol Coatings Reactivity amounts greater than 7.3 percent of the
equipment in ground traffic/marking Rule (ACRR) will apply to product weight in the product
applications. As with other coatings, manufacturers, processors, wholesale formulation.
aerosol coatings are available in both distributors, or importers of aerosol Table 2A currently includes those
solvent-based and water-based coatings used by both the general organic compounds we know to be used
formulations. population (i.e., the ‘‘Do It Yourself’’ in aerosol coatings that have an RF
In developing the final national rule market) and industrial applications (e.g., value greater than that of ethane (0.3).
for aerosol coatings, EPA has used the at original equipment manufacturers Under the proposed rule, we had a
same coating categories, and the same and other industrial sites). This single de minimis threshold that
definitions for those categories, regulation will apply to distributors, if provided that a compound would not be
previously identified by CARB in its the name of the distributor appears on counted towards the applicable limit,
comparable regulation for aerosol the label of the aerosol products. regardless of its reactivity, if the
coatings. We believe these categories The final rule includes an exemption
compound represented less than 0.1
adequately categorize the industry and from the limits in Table 1 of the rule for
percent of the product weight. In the
encompass the range of products those manufacturers that make a small
final rule, we have provided a two-part
included in our own analysis of this annual volume of aerosol coating
threshold: (1) A 0.1 percent threshold
category that we conducted in preparing products, i.e., with a total VOC content
for compounds with an RF value greater
EPA’s Report to Congress (EPA–453/R– by mass of no more than 7,500

than 0.3; and (2) a 7.3 percent threshold
94–066–A). Use of the same definitions kilograms of VOC per year in the
and categories has the added benefit of aggregate for all aerosol coating 28 See Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives:
providing regulated entities with products. EPA notes that an exemption Baseline Requirements for Gasoline Produced by
consistency between the CARB and under EPA’s national rule for aerosol Foreign Refiners, Final Rule, 62 FR 45,533, 45,537–
national rules. The categories of aerosol coatings under section 183(e) does not 38 (August 28, 1997).
for compounds with an RF value of 0.3 expressed in terms of grams of ozone the product date code. If the product
or less. generated per gram of product. The date is not obvious from the date code,
The rationale for the 7.3 percent reactivity of each VOC ingredient is an explanation of the code is required
threshold is that compounds with an RF specified in the table of values included in the initial notification discussed
value of 0.3 or less will contribute in the regulation. No changes have been below. In the final rule, EPA has made
minimally to ozone formation from this made to the regulatory limits since a change to allow a regulated entity to
product category. We calculated the 7.3 proposal. develop a facility-specific category code
percent figure as follows. We first system, if the system is explained in the
determined the maximum RF value for D. Compliance Dates
initial notification.
a compound, which is 22.04 (the default The final rule requires all regulated
value for compounds of unknown entities to comply by January 1, 2009, F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
reactivity). We then multiplied that for all aerosol coating products, except The final rule includes a requirement
value by 0.1(the proposed percentage those that require registration under the for an Initial Notification from all
threshold for all organic compounds Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and regulated entities to EPA at least 90 days
irrespective of their RF value), which Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 40 CFR 136– before the compliance date. This
resulted in a value of 2.2. To determine 136y) (FIFRA), which are not subject to notification will provide basic
an appropriate percentage threshold for the requirements of this rule until information about the regulated entity
organic compounds with an RF value of January 1, 2010. The rule also includes as well as contact information for the
0.3 or less, we then divided 2.2 by 0.3 a provision that allows regulated certifying official. In addition, this
(the RF for ethane) which resulted in the entities to seek a compliance extension notification will need to explain the
7.3 percent threshold for such if they have not previously product date code system used to label
compounds. Therefore, in determining manufactured, imported, or distributed products and the category code system,
compliance with the limits of this rule, in California or elsewhere any aerosol if the facility is not using the default
this rule does not require inclusion of coating product that complies with category codes included in Table 1. The
de minimis amounts of ingredients applicable California regulations. This Initial Notification must also include
taking into consideration the relative extension would give the regulated VOC formulation data for each aerosol
reactivity of the compound. entity until January 1, 2011, to comply coatings product that is subject to this
As provided in 40 CFR 59.505(e)(2), if with the requirements of the final rule. rule. The formulation data must provide
in the future, compounds with an RF Beginning on the compliance date, the the weight fraction (g compound/g
value of 0.3 or less are used in amounts regulated entities under this rule will be product) for each VOC compound used
greater than or equal to 7.3 percent of required to conduct initial compliance in the product in an amount equal to or
a particular aerosol coatings product demonstration calculations for all greater than 0.1 percent. The
formulation, then those compounds will coating formulations manufactured or notification must also identify any
be counted towards the applicable filled at each of their facilities, and to volatile organic compound or mixture
limits of this rule at that time. maintain compliance demonstration that is not currently listed in Table 2A,
The emission limits in the rule are data for each batch of aerosol coating. 2B, or 2C, if that compound or mixture
expressed in terms of weight of ozone These calculations and the underlying will be used in an aerosol coatings
generated from the VOC ingredients per documents must be maintained for at formulation. Finally, the notification
weight of coating material, rather than least 5 years after the product is must include a statement certifying that
the traditional weight of VOC manufactured, processed, distributed, or all of the regulated entity’s products
ingredients per weight (or volume) of imported, and must be submitted to the will be in compliance with the limits by
product. EPA has concluded that this EPA upon request. The regulated entity the compliance date.
approach will reduce the overall may use formulation data to make the The regulated entity is required to
amount of ozone that results from the compliance calculations; however, EPA submit a revised notification if there is
VOC emitted to the atmosphere from is adopting California Air Resources a change in the information in the Initial
these products, while providing Board Method 310 as the underlying test Notification, with the exception of
regulated entities with greater flexibility method (i.e., formulation data must be changes to product formulations. The
to select VOC ingredients for their verifiable with California Air Resources regulated entity is not required to
products. This approach provides Board Method 310, if requested). submit a revised notification if the VOC
incentives to regulated entities to use Facilities are also allowed to use EPA’s formulations submitted in its Initial
VOC ingredients that have lower Test Method 311. Notification change. The regulated
reactivity and that will therefore EPA has added a provision allowing entity is required to submit a revised
generate less ozone. the extension of the compliance date for notification if the manufacturer, for
EPA has revised the list of FIFRA-registered compounds as a example, adds a new coating category,
compounds in Table 2A in order to revision to the proposed rule. This changes the product date code system or
include only those compounds actually provision was added to the final rule batch definition, or begins to use a VOC
used as ingredients in aerosol coating due to the additional approvals (e.g., that is not listed in Table 2A, 2B, or 2C.
products. In addition, EPA has provided approval of labels and formulation The regulated entity is required to
a mechanism to add additional changes) that must be obtained for all maintain compliance calculations for
compounds to the table if a regulated FIFRA-registered products. each of its aerosol coatings
entity elects to use them as an formulations. For each batch of a
E. Labeling Requirements particular formulation, the regulated
ingredient in aerosol coatings.
The final rule also includes labeling entity must maintain records of the
C. Regulatory Limits
requirements to facilitate date(s) the batch was manufactured, the

The regulatory limits for the final rule implementation and enforcement of the volume of the batch, and the VOC
are a series of reactivity limits for six limits. Labels must clearly identify the formula for the formulation. Records of
general coating categories and 30 product category or the category code these calculations must be maintained
specialty categories of specialty provided in Table 1 of the regulation, for 5 years after the product is
coatings. These reactivity limits are the limit for that product category, and manufactured, processed, distributed for
wholesale, or imported for sale or G. Variance in the regulation. EPA Method 311—
distribution in interstate commerce in The final rule allows regulated Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant
the United States. The regulated entity entities to submit a written application Compounds in Paints and Coatings by
must supply this information to EPA to EPA requesting a temporary variance Direct Injection into a Gas
within 60 days of a written request. The if, for reasons beyond their reasonable Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,
final rule includes the addition of a control, they cannot comply with the appendix A) was originally developed
provision that allows for manufacturers requirements of the rule. An approved for liquid coatings, so it does not
or importers to accept the responsibility variance order would specify a final include provisions for the collection of
for recordkeeping and reporting compliance date and a condition that the propellant portion of an aerosol
requirements that would otherwise be imposes increments of progress coating. Therefore, those choosing to
required of their distributors. necessary to assure timely compliance. use EPA Method 311—Analysis of
The promulgated rule requires that A variance would end immediately if Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in
every 3 years, beginning with calendar the regulated entity failed to comply Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection
year 2011, each regulated entity must with any term or condition of the into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part
variance. The Administrator will 63, appendix A) must separate the
submit a triennial report. The triennial
provide special consideration to aerosol propellant from the coating
report would provide updated VOC
variance requests from regulated using either ASTM D3063–94 or ASTM
formulation data and, for each VOC
entities, particularly small businesses D 3074–94. There were no changes to
formulation, the total mass of each
that have not marketed their products in the test methods in the final rule.
individual VOC or mixture used as
ingredients in the aerosol coatings areas subject to State regulations for III. Response to Significant Comments
manufactured, imported, or distributed these products prior to this rulemaking.
During the public comment period,
that year. This information must be EPA notes that a variance under EPA’s
we received a total of 18 comment
provided only for the second year of the national rule for aerosol coatings under
letters. Of these, seven were brief letters
reporting cycle, which in the case of the section 183(e) does not alter any
in support of the proposed regulation. A
first report would be information from requirements under any applicable State
summary of the most significant
2010. Subsequent reports will be or local regulations. No changes were
comments is presented below. A
required at three year intervals. In other made to this section since the proposal.
summary of all comments received on
words, a report containing data from H. Test Methods this rule, as well as complete responses
2013 will be due in 2014, a report to each of these comments, are
containing data from 2016 will be due Although regulated entities may use
formulation data to demonstrate presented in the docket (EPA–HQ–
in 2017, and so forth. EPA intends to OAR–2006–0971).
provide mechanisms for regulated compliance with the reactivity limits,
entities to provide this information EPA concludes it is also necessary to A. Format of Regulation
through the electronic submission have test methods in place that can be
Several commenters discussed the use
facilities being expanded under the used to verify the accuracy of the
of a reactivity-based rule versus a mass-
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) formulation data. Therefore, we have
based rule. Two commenters fully
program and will provide additional included two test methods that may be
supported the reactivity-based rule,
information and guidance to regulated used by regulated entities or EPA to
while five commenters raised some
entities before the first report is due. determine compliance with the
concerns over some aspects of this
This report has been added to the final reactivity limits. In those cases where
approach.
rule to address concerns raised during the formulation data and test data are
The commenters supporting the rule
the public comment period, as not in agreement, data collected using
generally supported the use of a
explained in section III.E of this the approved test methods will prevail.
reactivity-based approach both
preamble. Regulated entities or regulatory agencies
nationally and in California. One
may use either California Air Resources
The final rule requires those small commenter stated that EPA did a good
Board Method 310—Determination of
manufacturers who qualify for job in evaluating the reactivity
Volatile Organic Compounds in
exemption from the limits of Table 1 of regulation in California and the
Consumer Products and Reactive
subpart E to make an annual report to feasibility of making it apply
Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating
EPA providing necessary information nationwide, calling it a ‘‘bold step
Products, or EPA Method 311—Analysis
and documentation to establish that the forward in the arena of air quality
of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds
products made by the entity should be regulations.’’ Another commenter stated
in Paints and Coatings in Paints and
exempt. that ‘‘[t]he rule is an important
Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas
advancement in the use of reactivity-
EPA notes that the contents of any Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63,
based emissions regulations for VOC.’’
reports, including the VOC composition appendix A) to determine the reactive
The commenter provided the following
of the coatings subject to this rule, are organic compound content of an aerosol
points in support of this rule and the
‘‘emissions data’’ under section 114 of coating. California Air Resources Board
future use of reactivity-based VOC
the CAA and EPA’s regulatory Method 310 includes some test
emission limits in other consumer
definition of such term in 40 CFR part procedures that are not required to
product and coating standards:
2. As such, this information must be determine the VOC content of aerosol
available to the public regardless of coatings; for example, California Air 1. Reactivity-based VOC emission
whether EPA obtains the information Resources Board Method 310 regulations are more appropriate and
effective for addressing the environmental
through a reporting requirement or incorporates EPA Method 24 for

concern of interest, ozone formation
through a specific request to the determining the VOC content of a potential.
regulated entity. Therefore, such coating. We have identified those 2. This national proposed rule is based on
information is not eligible for treatment sections of California Air Resources an established CARB regulation for aerosol
as ‘‘confidential business information’’ Board Method 310 that are not required coatings which has already been approved by
under 40 CFR 59.516 of this rule. for compliance demonstration purposes EPA and in use for several years.
3. Reactivity-based VOC emission formulations for the entire United based approach for this rule is
regulations provide product formulators with States. appropriate. Under CAA section 183(e),
more options for meeting environmental Several commenters raised concerns EPA is charged with developing
performance standards while providing over some aspects of an approach based regulations that implement BAC for the
technically feasible product performance, on reactivity. These commenters stated
and stimulating future product development
purposes of decreasing ground-level
enhancements.
that a reactivity-based approach may ozone formation. For aerosol coatings,
4. There is evidence that lower mass-based have merit, but only if EPA first EPA has determined that the proposed
VOC limits in some products may be leading addresses numerous ‘‘unanswered reactivity-based regulation remains
to the increased use of more photochemically questions’’ about the potential adverse BAC. The reactivity-based limits are
reactive VOC, eliminating some of the impact of such an approach on other based on those adopted in CARB’s
anticipated environmental benefit (ozone equally, if not more, important reactivity-based rule and are designed to
reduction) of these regulations, and possibly components of air quality management achieve a comparable decrease in ozone
increasing the actual ozone formation programs, such as the effect on ambient formation that would have been
potential of the products themselves. fine particulate matter (PM2.5) levels and achieved by CARB’s 2002 mass-based
This commenter also stated that the air toxics. The commenters also raised limits, which are lower than CARB’s
reactivity-based approach is consistent the issues of downwind ozone impacts 1996 mass-based limits. Moreover,
with EPA’s September 2005 ‘‘Interim and enforceability. One commenter while some of CARB’s 2002 mass-based
Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic provided an extensive history of the limits are now considered unfeasible
Compounds in Ozone State evolution of EPA’s use of reactivity, and are not in force, the reactivity-based
Implementation Plans,’’ which noting that EPA is not obligated to issue limits are now in effect and many
specifically ‘‘encourages States to a reactivity-based regulation, stating that manufacturers are producing and selling
consider recent scientific information the required reactivity-based portion of compliant products. Oregon and
on the photochemical reactivity of EPA’s obligation under § 183(e) was Washington have adopted CARB’s 1996
volatile organic compounds in the fulfilled during the listing process. The mass-based limits. However, even if
development of state implementation commenter questioned whether EPA these limits were lowered for some
plans designed to meet the national had adequately addressed all possible categories to the 2002 limits, where
ambient air quality standards for ozone impacts of a reactivity-based approach deemed feasible, this hybrid approach
[70 FR 54046–54051; September 13, before proceeding with the proposal. proposed by the commenters would not
Some commenters advocated that achieve the same level of ozone
2005].’’
EPA should issue a mass-based rule, decrease that the reactivity-based limits
The commenter concluded that rather than one based on reactivity. The
reactivity-based VOC standards should will. Furthermore, it is not clear that
commenters pointed to the uncertainty manufacturers who are not currently
not be considered ‘‘only as a of the use of a reactivity-based
supplement to mass-based approaches, subject to the CARB reactivity-based
approach, including concerns over the
but as a scientifically valid and limits would have any more or less
toxicity of pollutants that are used as
appropriate means for controlling ozone difficulty meeting the hybrid mass
substitutes, the potential inter-
formation.’’ The commenter also stated limits than they would meeting the
relationship with PM2.5 issues,
that in its approval of the CARB reactivity-based limits in the proposed
downwind ozone and enforceability
regulation, EPA appropriately stated rule. In other words, any mass-based
concerns. The commenters concluded
that the reactivity-based rule will rule would also likely include
that, given these concerns, and the fact
improve the SIP in part by ‘‘creating an provisions for small businesses and
that a fully implemented rule only
incentive for the use of solvents with other variances.
yields a benefit equivalent to a 19
relatively low contribution to ozone percent reduction of VOC, that EPA may The determination of BAC depends
formation [70 FR 1642].’’ The be ‘‘better served to establish a National on EPA’s determination that the
commenter further stated that some rule based on the 1996 CARB rule proposed relative reactivity factors can
VOC mass-based limits in the previous amended with 2002 mass-based limits be used to reasonably predict the
version of CARB’s aerosol coatings rule known to be feasible.’’ The commenters changes in the ozone formation that will
‘‘presented particularly difficult stated that this is the approach used by occur due to changes in the emissions
reformulation challenges’’ for product two other States, Oregon and from this source category. After
manufacturers [70 FR 1642]. The Washington, that have aerosol coating thoughtful consideration of the available
commenter stated that EPA correctly rules. One commenter further stated that research, EPA has concluded that this
noted that CARB’s regulation will because these limits would be feasible determination is justified. EPA has
preserve the air quality benefits of its for all manufacturers, the small followed and contributed to the
previous rule, while at the same time manufacturer exemption, the extended development of the science underlying
allowing manufacturers greater compliance date, and the variance reactivity-based regulations since such
flexibility in reformulating their provisions would all be unnecessary. an approach was considered in the early
products, by replacing existing mass- Therefore, the commenter concluded 1990s. EPA’s position on the
based VOC limits for aerosol spray that a mass-based approach would acceptability of reactivity scales has
coatings with reactivity-based limits achieve the most reductions and would evolved along with the science. The
that are designed to achieve equivalent allow EPA time to conduct the required most recent results of research
air quality benefits [70 FR 1642]. The investigations to address issues and not performed under the RRWG, cited in
commenter concluded that expanding ‘‘rely on expectations that may not hold section I of this preamble, provide
this aerosol coating regulation to the rest to be true.’’ One commenter stated that evidence that the relative reactivity
of the United States expands the ‘‘EPA appears to have neglected to factors in the proposed rule are
benefits of this working reactivity-based consider an approach that combines reasonably robust over a wide variety of
VOC regulation to other areas of the mass-based and reactivity-based environmental conditions. Concerns
United States where ozone formation is components.’’ about the potential for increased ozone
a concern, while allowing aerosol EPA considered these comments, but downwind are addressed in a separate
coating manufacturers to develop single we still conclude that the reactivity- section below.
Although recent research suggests that reactivity, and which cumulatively may agricultural and forested areas of the
other reactivity scales may more contribute more to ozone formation. country.
accurately represent the behavior of There is no explicit limit on the ozone One commenter further stated that the
ozone in current air quality models, it formation associated with the product. statements made in the preamble related
is not clear that emission limits based The precise impacts (on ozone, fine to future ozone levels seem to be based
on these scales would be achievable or particles, air toxics, or other on expectations rather than
that the use of a different scale would environmental endpoints of concern) of demonstrations based on modeling
lead to significantly different ozone either reactivity-based or mass-based efforts. The commenter encouraged
decreases from this source category. emission limits are difficult to predict EPA, given the potential for further
Furthermore, emission limits based on a given the reformulations that may be tightening of the current ozone NAAQS,
different scale than that used by CARB used to achieve the limits. However, to perform studies demonstrating that
would lead to increased costs to reactivity-based limits derived using a there would be no increase in
comply. Therefore, EPA has determined reasonable set of relative reactivity downwind ozone ‘‘so that the
that use of the proposed relative factors provide the appropriate implementation of this rule does not
reactivity factors is reasonable and will incentives to shift formulations to worsen ozone nonattainment problems
lead to net decreases of ground-level compounds with lower reactivity, and found in the Northeastern United
ozone. The consideration of fine particle limit the overall ozone contribution of States.’’
formation, toxics exposures, and the regulated products. EPA recognizes the commenters’
stratospheric ozone depletion are The commenter’s assertion that concerns about downwind ozone
addressed below in a separate section, reactivity-based regulations should not formation but has concluded that the
as are concerns about the complexity of be pursued until other mass-based VOC VOC reformulations resulting from this
enforcement. control measures, including RACT, have reactivity-based regulation will reduce
One commenter disagreed with EPA’s been implemented or strengthened is overall ozone formation and exposure.
statement in the preamble that this not a factor in the decision of how EPA First, any enhancements of downwind
regulation was needed because there are fulfills its obligations under CAA ozone caused by upwind substitution of
areas of the country that need VOC section 183(e) to implement best larger amounts of less reactive VOC are
substitution strategies to address available controls. However, EPA does expected to be smaller than the
nonattainment issues. The commenter believe that traditional mass-based VOC concurrent reductions of upwind ozone.
argued that there are many control measures continue to be Carter et al. (2003), in modeling large-
opportunities to reduce VOC mass by effective tools for addressing VOC scale VOC substitution scenarios, found
implementing readily available and contributions to ozone nonattainment larger local ozone reductions and
proven programs ‘‘before embarking into problems in many situations and that smaller downwind ozone increases.
VOC substitution.’’ The commenter reactivity-based control measures are Similarly, Arunachalam et al. (2003)
continued that most nonattainment most useful where mass-based controls found that ‘‘high-versus-low reactivity
areas around the country have not taken have reached the limits of technological substitution’’ is ‘‘an effective strategy for
aggressive steps to limit VOC. Therefore, feasibility. In the case of aerosol reducing high levels of ozone,’’
the commenter contended that there are coatings, EPA has determined that it is especially in, or downwind of, urban
significant reductions that can be possible to use reactivity-based limits to areas. In a modeling exercise conducted
obtained from programs, such as go beyond what is achievable with to inform this rulemaking, Luecken
implementing RACT or updating mass-based limits, and therefore, has (2007; see docket) substituted lower
decades-old RACT programs, fuel found reactivity-based limits to be BAC reactivity VOC for higher reactivity VOC
strategies, and other area source for this product category. in the Chicago area and found the
regulations like consumer products, resulting downwind ozone disbenefits
B. Downwind Effects and Robustness of to be much smaller than the upwind
architectural coatings, and Stage I vapor
Relative Reactivity Scale ozone benefits. In general, upwind
recovery.
EPA disagrees with this commenter. Several commenters discussed the ozone reductions are expected to occur
Several of the commenters on the state of the science of reactivity and in or near densely populated urban
proposed rule inaccurately portray the whether EPA’s statements about the areas, where ozone levels are highest,
choice between mass-based emission science of reactivity were correct. Some thus reducing overall population
limits and reactivity-based emission commenters questioned EPA’s statement exposure. Second, downwind areas,
limits as a choice between emission that the expected realistic changes in particularly remote, rural, or suburban
reductions and emission substitutions. the formulation of aerosol products are areas, are likely to be NOX-limited
For aerosol coating products, any new unlikely to result in noticeable increases (Sillman, 1999; AQCD, 2006), thus
emission limitation, whether it is mass- in ozone downwind of the source, restricting ozone formation from small
based or reactivity-based, will be stating that EPA does not know this to additional amounts of upwind
achieved by reformulating the product, be the case. The commenters asserted anthropogenic VOC. The
thereby changing the composition of the that this issue is important ‘‘for the implementation of other regulations
associated emissions. With a reactivity- simple fact that ozone nonattainment such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule
based limit, the reformulation will be areas in the Northeastern United States will likely reduce NOX further in such
guided by relative reactivity factors that have the highest recorded ozone values areas. Third, in downwind areas that
will encourage manufacturers to use downwind of urban centers, and this may be VOC-limited, the simultaneous
lower reactivity compounds and will effort has the potential to increase ozone VOC substitutions occurring in these
limit the overall ozone formation in the very place where ozone areas may counterbalance, to some
associated with the product. All VOC reductions are most needed, extent, the introduction of VOC from
components with an RF value greater confounding the ozone attainment plans upwind. Fourth, the reductions in
than 0.3 are included in the calculation. that are being developed by the states.’’ upwind reactivity and ozone formation
With a mass-based limit, manufacturers The commenters also stated that are likely to reduce the direct transport
may shift to more powerful solvents, increased ozone downwind from urban of ozone and ozone precursors such as
some of which may often be higher in centers could result in more impacts to aldehydes downwind from urban areas.
EPA agrees that modeling can be mass-based VOC emissions reductions on coatings. These factors include the
useful for demonstrating the impacts of ozone formation potential is uncertain and potential impact on ambient PM levels,
regulatory changes. While EPA did not can vary greatly depending on the VOC the potential for increase in emissions of
substitution decisions made to meet specific
perform nationwide modeling specific mass limits. Reactivity-based VOC emissions
certain hazardous air pollutants (HAP),
to this regulation, the three studies cited limits, by considering the rate and and potential stratospheric ozone
above support the EPA’s contention that mechanism of photo oxidation in the impacts. In addition, one commenter
downwind ozone increases are likely to troposphere, are reflective of the actual stated that EPA should consider the
be small, especially compared to processes that lead to ozone formation. impact of the rule on agricultural and
upwind ozone reductions. Thus, while Relative photochemical reactivity thus forest areas.
additional modeling will continue to provides a more rigorous scientific approach The commenters concerned with
shed light on VOC reactivity, there is an to assessing an individual compound’s contribution to PM levels were
potential contribution to ozone accumulation primarily concerned about the aerosol
adequate basis for proceeding with this than does consideration of its mass alone.
reactivity-based regulation. As the fraction of measured ambient PM2.5. The
science evolves, EPA will continue to Accordingly, this commenter commenters stated that EPA should
invest and participate in research into concluded that EPA’s approach is consider ‘‘negative co-effects’’ of the
VOC chemistry and the use of reactivity scientifically sound and represents a rule on fine particulate matter, because
measures. significant step forward in aerosol the substitution with compounds with
One commenter stated that, while coatings regulation. low reactivities could increase the mass
reactivity-based approaches may EPA recognizes the concerns raised by of emissions of low reactive
provide significant benefits ‘‘where the the commenters, but agrees with the compounds, which could impact both
science is sufficiently robust to ensure latter commenter. EPA acknowledges primary and secondary ozone formation.
that the expected benefits are achieved the difficulty in assessing reactivity in The commenter stated that this would
in practice,’’ the commenter stated that, widely different environmental be even more important in the near
based on the proposal, ‘‘it is not clear conditions. As noted in the proposal, a future, as the PM2.5 NAAQS is revised
that EPA has adequately addressed all compound’s reactivity can depend on and given the fact that PM2.5
the relevant technical issues or that this the VOC:NOX ratio, meteorological nonattainment is coincident with ozone
reactivity-based regulation is conditions, and the mix of other VOC. nonattainment in many areas in the
appropriate at this time.’’ The Many different methods have been country. The commenter concluded that
commenter notes that EPA must suggested for measuring the reactivity of EPA must examine the impacts of
adequately (and accurately) account for individual compounds. EPA has chosen increasing low reactive VOC on PM2.5
the differences in the various the MIR scale, which is an ozone yield before establishing a regulatory
environmental conditions (and resulting scale derived by adjusting the NOX framework that encourages substitution.
variations in VOC behavior) throughout emissions in a base case simulation to Several commenters were concerned
the United States. The commenter stated yield the highest incremental reactivity that EPA did not consider the toxicity
that the complexity of the interactions of the base reactive organic gas mixture. of compounds when establishing BAC
of VOC in the ambient air makes it These are environmental conditions for this category. Some commenters
extremely difficult to accurately predict where ozone production is most identified several examples of HAP,
the actual VOC forming capacity of a sensitive to changes in VOC emissions including benzene and diisocyanates,
chemical compound. The commenter and, therefore, where VOC controls with relatively low reactivity factors and
stated that ‘‘assuming an essentially would be most effective. These tend to noted that EPA overlooked the fact that
uniform ‘‘reactivity’’ for a compound reflect conditions in or near urban areas all VOC are not equal when it comes to
used in any coating product anywhere where VOC emissions are most likely to their individual toxic potential. The
in the country presents the potential for produce ozone, and thus EPA has commenters stated that toxicity should
an inaccurate assessment of the actual determined the MIR scale is the most be considered in setting emission limits,
VOC-related effects of the product appropriate for regulatory purposes (see with one commenter suggesting that
nationwide.’’ The commenter further also Carter, 1994). Research conducted EPA consider a substitution protocol for
stated that ‘‘EPA’s half-hearted assertion under the auspices of the RRWG has VOC that includes ‘‘low to high’’
in the proposed rule that its scientific shown good correlation between the toxicity in addition to ‘‘low to high’’
understanding of VOC reactivity has MIR scale and other reactivity scales, reactivity.
evolved sufficiently to allow it to including those computed with Another commenter also noted that
reliably and accurately predict the photochemical airshed models. Also, the table of reactivity factors also
behavior of individual species of VOC this research has supported the includes compounds that have been
in a regulatory context is far from nationwide applicability of reactivity banned under Title VI of the CAA
unequivocal.’’ scales, and peer reviews of the RRWG because they are considered
Another commenter had a different reports have specifically supported the stratospheric ozone depletors.
position and asserted that: use of the MIR scale for a nationwide EPA has addressed the impacts of the
aerosol coatings regulation (see docket). factors mentioned by the commenters in
Controlling VOC emissions from coatings
and consumer products based on For more detail, refer to the proposal (72 the final rule to the extent allowed by
photochemical reactivity is a scientifically FR 38952). As noted above, EPA will the CAA.
sound and appropriate means of addressing continue to invest and participate in With respect to the commenter’s
ozone formation potential. There can be research into VOC chemistry and the concerns about HAP emissions from
enormous differences in the capacity of use of reactivity measures. aerosol coatings, EPA notes that section
various VOC to react in the atmosphere to 183(e) only provides the EPA with
form tropospheric ozone. As reflected in C. Consideration of Other Factors in the
authority to regulate VOC emissions

EPA’s proposal, scientific research shows Consideration of Best Available Controls from consumer and commercial
that photochemical reactivity has a more
direct correlation to the ozone-forming Several commenters presented products for purposes of reducing ozone
potential (i.e., potential air quality impacts) arguments for numerous factors that nonattainment. Other provisions of the
of VOC emissions than does a simple mass- should be included in EPA’s Act, such as section 112, provide the
based measure of emissions. The impact of determination of BAC for aerosol statutory mechanism for reduction of
HAP emissions. Thus, although EPA (2) If the compound does not have an proposed rule that either extended the
shares the concerns of the commenter established reactivity factor listed in compliance date or provided an
about unnecessary exposure to HAPs, Table 2A, 2B, or 2C, the compound can exemption from the rule. These
the EPA does not have authority like be used, provided an RF of 22.04 g O3/ provisions were the variance provisions
that of the State of California to restrict g compound is used in all calculations in the rule, the exemption for small
or ban the use of specific HAPs as for that compound. This value, which is quantity manufacturers, and the
ingredients in aerosol coatings. equal to the highest RF identified to extended compliance date for regulated
Nevertheless, EPA believes that date, was selected to ensure that the entities that have not previously
sufficiently stringent limits can have the environment is protected while marketed coatings compliant with
beneficial effect of reducing the use of additions to the list are being CARB’s reactivity based rules.
certain HAPs such as toluene and considered. A few commenters were concerned
benzene. Because these compounds are In the proposed regulation, we about the potential for unfair economic
highly reactive, the limits of the final proposed to eliminate all of the advantage created by the small quantity
rule will serve to restrict the use of these exemptions from the definition of VOC manufacturer exemption. One
compounds as ingredients in aerosol listed in the first clause subparagraphs commenter stated that the exemption for
coatings as a practical matter. of § 51.100(s). This inadvertently small manufacturers provides a
With respect to the comment included certain inorganic compounds competitive advantage that they could
concerning compounds that are banned listed in § 51.100(s) that are not VOC. ‘‘readily use’’ to expand market share.
under Title VI, EPA is clarifying that the On further review, EPA concluded that Some commenters believed that the
compounds included in 72 FR 38951 are there is no need to eliminate the small quantity exemptions should be
not a list of compounds ‘‘approved’’ for exemption for organic compounds that available to regulated entities of all sizes
use in aerosol coatings. On the contrary, have an RF value of 0.3 or less and that and be based on the size of the batch.
it is merely a list of compounds for represent less than 7.3 percent of a This commenter gave the example of a
which relative reactivity factors have given product formulation. coating supplier that provided most
been derived. Therefore, if a compound However, if a regulated entity intends coating in bulk, but would supply a
had been banned by Title VI, or banned to use an organic compound that is not small quantity of matching paint in
for use for any other reason, they cannot listed in Table 2A in the final rule as an aerosol cans for exact match touch-ups.
ingredient in an aerosol coating, then Another commenter stated that they
be used as ingredients in aerosol
the regulated entity is required to notify were unable to support a proposal that
coatings.
EPA via its Initial Notification or an specifically exempts manufacturers of
However, EPA has revisited the
update to that notification. EPA will certain products from regulatory
decision to include an exhaustive list of
then add such compounds and their requirements unless the exemption was
compounds in Table 2A. Based on
reactivity factors to Table 2A. Until available to all manufacturers of that
concerns raised by commenters and an
listed in Table 2A, such compounds type of product. The latter commenter
internal review at EPA, we have revised
may be used in aerosol coating products was concerned with the anti-trust
Table 2A. That table currently includes
but are assigned the default reactivity ramifications of providing such an
those organic compounds we know to
factor of 22.04 g O3/g compound. exemption, since it could create a
be used in aerosol coatings products Several commenters also provided beneficial climate for one manufacturer,
that: (1) Have an RF value greater than input on the question raised in the but not another.
that of ethane (0.3), and (2) are used in proposal preamble related to a voluntary Some commenters expressed concern
amounts greater than 7.3 percent of the program for the reduction of HAP. The that EPA overstated the emission
product weight. This changes the role of commenters were all opposed to an reductions in the rule, given the number
Table 2A from a listing of available additional program, citing existing of sources that would potentially take
reactivity factor (RF) values to a table programs and requirements that already advantage of the exemption, variances,
defining the compounds that have address the inclusion of toxic materials and extensions. One commenter stated
defined RF factors for this rule. in coatings. For example, the Federal that the small quantity manufacturer
If a regulated entity identifies a Hazardous Substance Act (FHSA), exemption, in particular, would have a
compound or mixture of compounds which requires specific labeling of substantial impact on the VOC emission
that is not on Table 2A, 2B, or 2C, the products that it classifies as ‘‘hazardous reductions achieved by the rule and
regulated entity can still use the substances.’’ The FHSA includes any cautioned that EPA should closely
compound or mixture as an ingredient, products containing methylene chloride monitor the impacts of these provisions
as follows: on that list. on the overall rule efficacy.
(1) The regulated entity can inform EPA is not establishing a voluntary EPA does not agree that the
EPA that it intends to use the compound HAP reduction program at this time. exemption and variance provisions are
and request that the compound be Existing programs appear to be likely to have a significant impact on
added to Table 2A, 2B, or 2C, pursuant sufficient to help ensure that the the overall effectiveness of this rule.
to the procedures in section 59.511(j) of unwanted outcome of increased toxicity EPA has tailored the small quantity
the final rule. However, if the of aerosol coating products does not manufacturer exemption to provide
compound has a reactivity factor that is occur. EPA reserves the right to revisit relief only to those particularly small
less than 0.30 g O3/g VOC, and the the potential for such a program, for this entities that would otherwise bear
compound is less than or equal to 7.3 or another reactivity-based rulemaking, particularly high costs for compliance
percent by weight in any of your at a later date. relative to the small amount of products
products, the regulated entity can use an they produce and, therefore, the small
D. Variance, Small Quantity
RF equal to zero in all calculations. Any amount of total VOC emissions from
requests submitted to EPA on or before Manufacturers, Extended Compliance such products. The variance provision
June 1, 2008 will be considered, and if Date is, likewise, narrowly tailored and
appropriate, incorporated into the Several commenters expressed provides only temporary variance from
appropriate Table on or before January concern about both the need for, and the limits of the rule. Each of these
1, 2009. equity of, the three provisions in the provisions is targeted to small subsets of
regulated entities that would otherwise quantity manufacturers creates an belief that the rule is not enforceable
be disproportionately impacted by this antitrust issue. Such issues generally without additional reporting.
rule. arise where members of an industry One commenter argued that more
The two-year compliance extension collude to create unfair market detailed records, including formulation
for facilities that have not previously advantage, as by agreeing not to data, must be mandated by this rule.
manufactured coatings compliant with compete on prices for their respective This commenter said that it would be
CARB coating limits is provided to products. EPA, in its capacity as unreasonable for EPA not to provide for
ensure that facilities have adequate time government regulator, can promulgate adequate data reporting that would
to reformulate products to meet the rule. regulations with features such as allow for meaningful oversight and
If a regulated entity has not previously exemptions for certain members of an enforcement of the rule, stating that
developed compliant products, it may industry without violation of the formulation data are critical to this
take longer (i.e., beyond January 1, applicable statutes and regulations assessment. The commenter does not
2009) to reformulate and market a new pertaining to antitrust issues. Moreover, believe that the proposed approach (i.e.,
product. However, because EPA EPA is obligated to take the specific the regulated entity responding to an
estimates that well over 85 percent of concerns of small entities into account EPA request for data) is sufficient. The
the aerosol coatings in the United States in the regulatory process and, where commenter stated that EPA must
have already been reformulated to meet appropriate, to provide mechanisms include reporting requirements in the
the California limits, we do not expect such as exemptions in order to mitigate rule that will ensure it can quickly and
many facilities to qualify for this disproportionate and unnecessary effectively verify compliance and
provision. Similarly, EPA does not impacts upon small businesses. In the intervene appropriately where a
anticipate that a large number of case of this regulation, EPA has violation occurs. Other commenters
regulated entities will need to request a determined that it is appropriate to supported gathering additional
variance under this rule. In California, provide an exemption of this type information, with one stating that they
only one variance request was ever because it will permit the believe that without full electronic
requested for the comparable CARB implementation of a rule that will reporting of all formulation data, the
aerosol coating rule. achieve significant VOC emission burden on EPA’s compliance and
EPA established the small quantity reductions across the industry as a enforcement staff would be too great
manufacturer exemption with the whole and the percentage of emissions and that any effective enforcement
primary focus of assisting small reductions that will be foregone by would be impossible.
businesses that may make only a small virtue of the exemption are anticipated Other commenters strongly disagreed
quantity of aerosol coatings. Because to be de minimis. that additional reporting is warranted.
small businesses do not always do These commenters pointed to the
business across the country, EPA As discussed in the air impacts requirements to supply information to
concluded that it was possible that some section of this preamble, we do not EPA on the types of products they
may not have previously been subject to expect any of these provisions to have manufacture, as well as contact
the reactivity-based requirements in a significant impact on overall VOC information. They contended that the
California. While we have included the emission reductions that will result requirement to supply the more detailed
costs of developing reformulated from the rule, largely due to the small information, including formulation data
products in the cost assessment of this number of regulated entities that we for the volatile components in their
rule, we also recognize that the average expect to qualify for these exemptions. products, is unnecessary. When EPA
cost (i.e., cost on a ‘‘per can’’ basis) Therefore, EPA has concluded that all chose to make a compliance review,
could be higher for a company exemptions should remain in the rule, there were provisions in the proposed
producing a smaller product line. as proposed. We have made some rule that gave EPA the ability to obtain
Recognizing this, we established this changes to the regulatory language, the specific information, as needed. The
provision to exempt those most likely to particularly with respect to the small commenters encouraged EPA to
experience the highest per-can quantity manufacturer, to ensure that maintain the provisions related to
reformulation costs. the provisions are clear. reporting requirements as they were
EPA also does not concur with the One commenter asked EPA to clarify proposed.
commenter’s concerns that the small whether an importer’s products are EPA appreciates the comments
quantity manufacturer exemption exempt as specified under the small received on this topic from all sides and
creates an unfair competitive advantage quantity manufacturer exemption in understands both positions. When EPA
or antitrust issues. The total mass of § 59.501(e). First, EPA notes that the is establishing the recordkeeping and
VOC per exemption (7500 kg) represents small quantity manufacturer exemption reporting requirements for a rule, we
less than 0.01 percent of the total VOC is only available to manufacturers. have the responsibility to balance the
used in aerosol coatings (based on the Second, in response to this comment, burden imposed by the requirements
1990 survey). Even adjusting for EPA has added a provision in § 59.501(f) with the need for a rule that is
emission reductions that have occurred that specifies how foreign implementable as a practical matter. We
since 1990, the mass for this exemption manufacturers may qualify for the small must ensure that the information
would remain well below one percent of quantity manufacturer exemption. needed to implement the rule is
the market. We disagree that this small available, while ensuring that we do not
E. Additional Reporting Requirements
fraction of the total aerosol coating require industry to gather and submit
market could give anyone a competitive Numerous commenters provided information that will never be used.
advantage. Further, a significant input on the need, or lack of need, for This rulemaking, the first national VOC
expansion in a small quantity additional reporting requirements, in rule incorporating reactivity-based

manufacturer’s market share would general, and the annual reporting of limits, raises additional concerns about
likely result in the manufacturer no formulation data, in particular. Some the types of information that should be
longer qualifying for the exemption. commenters contended that no gathered. Based on a thoughtful review
Finally, EPA also does not agree that additional periodic reporting was of the comments and our own review,
creation of the exemption for small warranted, while others stated their we have concluded that there are two
basic needs for information: (1) conservatively low). For cost and result of the implementation of the
Information that allows EPA (and economic impacts, we ensured that our CARB aerosol coatings regulations.
others) to ensure that the requirements estimated impacts were not understated Because many manufacturers sell
are being met, and (2) information that (i.e., we state cost and economic ‘‘CARB compliant’’ coatings across the
allows EPA (and others) to assess impacts conservatively high). This country, some of these VOC emission
whether the reactivity-based approach is approach ensures that conclusions reductions have already been achieved
resulting in the ozone reductions we drawn on the overall impact on outside of California. We estimate that
have determined, based on information facilities, including small businesses, approximately 18 percent of the total
we have analyzed to date, should occur. are based on conservative assumptions. products sold are not currently
Each of these basic information needs compliant with this rule’s limits.
A. Environmental Impacts
warrant a different approach. Therefore, we estimate that this rule
EPA has revised the reporting In accordance with section 183(e), will result in additional VOC reductions
requirements of the final rule to ensure EPA has evaluated what regulatory equivalent to 3,100 tons per year (i.e., 18
that adequate information is available. approach would constitute ‘‘best percent of 17,130 tons per year).
EPA concurs with the commenters who available controls’’ for this product The reduction of 3,100 tons per year
believe that we have an obligation to category, taking into account the of VOC emissions represents new
ensure that our new approach to considerations noted in the statute. EPA reductions. However, for ozone SIP
regulating some VOC sources through has evaluated the incremental increase purposes, we are providing States that
the use of reactivity-based limits is or decrease in air pollution, water do not currently have aerosol coating
working. In the final rule, EPA has pollution, and solid waste reduction regulations in place full credit for the
included a requirement for regulated that would result from implementing 19.4 percent reduction from the 1990
entities to provide information about the the final standards. baseline. This 19.4 percent reduction is
VOC composition of their products in 1. Air Pollution Impacts equivalent to a 0.114 pound of VOC
their Initial Notifications and to update reduction per capita.
this information every three years, The final rule will reduce the amount Although we have not quantified the
beginning with data for calendar year of ozone generated from the use of anticipated impacts of this rule on HAP
2010, along with information about the aerosol coatings. Because most States emissions, EPA expects that the final
quantities of individual VOC species in will use the VOC emission reductions rule will reduce emissions of toluene
each formulation manufactured, resulting from this rule in their ozone and xylene, two highly reactive toxic
imported, or distributed in the reporting SIP planning, we have calculated the and volatile compounds. Toluene and
year. This triennial reporting will enable reductions associated with the rule in xylene are hazardous air pollutants that
EPA to better assess the efficacy of the terms of mass VOC emissions and we manufacturers have historically used
reactivity-based approach, including the will refer to a reduction in mass VOC extensively in some aerosol coating
manner in which the program’s emissions when discussing the impacts formulations. However, both of these
requirements are being achieved. For of the final regulation. EPA concludes compounds are also highly reactive
example, the information will enable us this is appropriate because the reactivity VOC. Therefore, it will be difficult for
to ascertain how manufacturers are limits were designed to ensure that the regulated entities to continue to use
responding to the regulation, what the ozone reductions that would be these compounds in significant
impact of the rule is on the aerosol achieved by the limits were equivalent concentrations and still meet the
coatings category, and whether the rule to the mass VOC reductions that would reactivity limits in the final rule. EPA
has any unintended consequences or have been achieved by the CARB 2002 maintains that a regulation based upon
impacts. The information will also mass-based VOC limits. However, VOC reactivity, rather than VOC mass,
enable us to compare the changes in because the limits actually reduce the will provide a significant incentive for
VOC emissions under a mass-based amount of ozone generated from the regulated entities to cease or reduce use
approach as compared to a reactivity- VOC used in aerosol coatings rather of toluene and xylene in their products.
based approach. EPA intends to than VOC content by mass, the VOC Due to the reduction in equivalent
integrate the triennial report into the reductions that we refer to are more VOC emissions and ozone formation
expanded electronic reporting processes accurately described as an ‘‘equivalent and the anticipated reduction in
being developed for the National reduction in VOC emissions.’’ We will hazardous air pollutant emissions, we
Emissions Inventory. EPA will provide use the term ‘‘reduction’’ in subsequent believe the rule will improve human
additional information and guidance to discussions. Additional information on health and the environment.
regulated entities prior to the first the method used to calculate the air
impacts of the rule are included in the 2. Water and Solid Waste Impacts
required triennial report due in 2011.
This information will be sent to impacts calculation memorandum There are no adverse solid waste
regulated entities, based on contact contained in the docket to this impacts anticipated from the
information submitted in their Initial rulemaking. compliance with this rule. Companies
Notifications. EPA has estimated that this rule will can continue to sell and distribute
reduce nationwide emissions of VOC coatings that do not meet the applicable
IV. Summary of Impacts from the use of aerosol coatings by an limits after the compliance date, as long
This section presents a summary of estimated 17,130 tons (15,570 Mg) from as those coatings were manufactured
the impacts expected as a result of this the 1990 baseline. This represents a 19.4 before the compliance date. Therefore,
rule. To ensure that the impacts are not percent reduction from the 1990 the industry does not have to dispose of
underestimated, we followed an baseline of 88,300 tons (80,270 Mg) of aerosol cans containing noncompliant
approach that would provide VOC emissions from the product product, which would result in an
conservative estimates for each impact. category. While we believe that the increase in solid waste. It is possible
For environmental impacts, we ensured above numbers accurately assess the that the rule will actually result in a
that our estimated positive impacts (i.e., impacts of the final rule for SIP credit reduction in solid waste, as more
emission reduction) were not overstated purposes, we recognize that significant concentrated higher solids coatings may
(i.e., we state positive impacts reductions have already occurred as the be used as an option for meeting the
regulatory limits. This will result in However, we know that significant The estimated recordkeeping and
fewer containers requiring disposal progress has already been made in reporting burden in the third year after
when the same volume of solids is reformulating aerosol coatings to meet the effective date of the promulgated
applied by product users. the promulgated limits. Even before rule is estimated to be 15,818 labor
There are no anticipated adverse CARB’s regulation became effective, its hours at a cost of $1.0 million. This
water impacts from this rulemaking. survey data showed that for 10 coating estimate includes the cost of reporting,
categories, 100 percent of the coatings including reading instructions,
B. Energy Impacts
were complying with the limits in 1997. information gathering, preparation of
There are no adverse energy impacts For the remaining categories, all but two initial and supplemental reports,
anticipated from compliance with this had complying market shares greater triennial reporting of formulation data,
rule. EPA expects that regulated entities than 20 percent in 1997. With CARB’s and variance or compliance extension
will comply through product 2002 reactivity-based regulation in applications. Recordkeeping cost
reformulation, which will not place, EPA anticipates that the number estimates include reading instructions,
significantly alter energy impacts. The of coatings already meeting the limits planning activities, calculation of
rule does not include add-on controls or has increased significantly. reactivity, and maintenance of batch
other measures that would add to information. The average hours and cost
energy usage or other impacts. V. Statutory and Executive Order per regulated entity in the third year
Reviews would be 197 hours and $16,400. About
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 62 facilities would respond per year.
There are four types of facilities that Planning and Review Burden means the total time, effort, or
will be impacted by the final rule. These financial resources expended by persons
include the aerosol coating Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose,
manufacturers, aerosol coating (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this or provide information to or for a
processors, and aerosol coating action is a ‘‘significant regulatory Federal Agency. This includes the time
wholesale distributors, and importers of action’’ because it raises novel legal or needed to review instructions; develop,
aerosol coatings. For some products, the policy issues. Accordingly, EPA acquire, install, and utilize technology
manufacturer is also the filler and submitted this action to the Office of and systems for the purposes of
distributor, while for other products the Management and Budget (OMB) for collecting, validating, and verifying
manufacturing process, the filling review under EO 12866 and any information, processing and
process, and the distribution may be changes made in response to OMB maintaining information, and disclosing
done by three separate companies. The recommendations have been and providing information; adjust the
primary focus of our cost and economic documented in the docket for this existing ways to comply with any
analysis is the aerosol coating action. previously applicable instructions and
manufacturers as we anticipate that the B. Paperwork Reduction Act requirements; train personnel to be able
costs to the fillers, distributors, or to respond to a collection of
The information collection information; search data sources;
importers will be minimal.
For the aerosol coating manufacturer, requirements in this final rule have been complete and review the collection of
we evaluated three components in submitted for approval to the OMB information; and transmit or otherwise
determining the total cost of the final under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 disclose the information.
rule. These three components include U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information An agency may not conduct or
the cost of the raw materials that the Collection Request (ICR) document sponsor, and a person is not required to
manufacturer will use to formulate prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA respond to, a collection of information
coatings that comply with the regulatory ICR number 2266.02. unless it displays a currently valid OMB
limits, the cost of research and The information collection control number. The OMB control
development efforts that will be requirements are based on numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
necessary to develop compliant recordkeeping and reporting CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
formulations, and the cost of the requirements. These recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are specifically C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with the rule. authorized by CAA section 114 and The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
These costs are explained in more detail section 183(e). All information generally requires an agency to prepare
in the proposed rule.29 The only change submitted to EPA for which a claim of a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
to this rule since proposal that could confidentiality is made is safeguarded rule subject to notice and comment
impact the cost analysis from the according to EPA policies set forth in 40 rulemaking requirements under the
proposed rule is the addition of CFR part 2, subpart B, as appropriate. Administrative Procedure Act or any
triennial reporting, as discussed The content of the reports required by other statute unless the agency certifies
elsewhere. However, the estimated this rule will not be eligible for that the rule will not have a significant
increase in burden from this increased treatment as confidential business economic impact on a substantial
reporting did not affect the average information. number of small entities. Small entities
The promulgated standards would include small businesses, small
reporting and recordkeeping burden on
require regulated entities to submit an organizations, and small governmental
a per can basis. Therefore, there was no
initial notification and other reports as jurisdictions.
change in the economic assessment.
outlined in section II.F. For purposes of assessing the impacts
If all of the cans of aerosol coating
We estimate that about 62 regulated of this rule on small entities, small
product subject to the rule required
entities are subject to the promulgated entity is defined as: (1) A small business
reformulation, the total nationwide cost
standards. New and existing regulated as defined by the Small Business
of the final rule would be $20,360,521.
entities would have no capital costs Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
29 ‘‘National Volatile Organic Compound associated with the information CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings: Proposed collection requirements in the jurisdiction that is a government of a
Rule’’ 72 FR 38951 (July 16, 2007). promulgated standards. city, county, town, school district, or
special district with a population of less or more in any one year. Before responsibilities among the various
than 50,000; and (3) a small promulgating an EPA rule for which a levels of government.’’
organization that is any not-for-profit written statement is needed, section 205 The regulatory action does not have
enterprise which is independently of the UMRA generally requires EPA to federalism implications. The action
owned and operated and is not identify and consider a reasonable does not have substantial direct effects
dominant in its field. number of regulatory alternatives and on the States, on the relationship
After considering the economic adopt the least costly, most cost- between the national government and
impacts of this regulatory action, I effective or least burdensome alternative the States, or on the distribution of
certify that this action will not have a that achieves the objectives of the rule. power and responsibilities among the
significant economic impact on a The provisions of section 205 do not various levels of government, as
substantial number of small entities. apply when they are inconsistent with specified in EO 13132. The CAA
The small entities directly regulated by applicable law. Moreover, section 205 establishes the relationship between the
this final rule are manufacturers, allows EPA to adopt an alternative other Federal Government and the States, and
wholesale distributors, and importers of than the least costly, most cost-effective this action does not impact that
aerosol coating products. We have or least burdensome alternative if the relationship. Thus, EO 13132 does not
determined that up to 40 out of a total Administrator publishes with the final apply to this regulatory action.
of 60 entities (or 67%) could experience rule an explanation why that alternative F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
a cost-to-sales ratio increase of up to was not adopted. Before EPA establishes and Coordination With Indian Tribal
1.42 percent. This ratio does not include any regulatory requirements that may Governments
revenues from other products that small significantly or uniquely affect small
regulated entities may sell. In addition, governments, including tribal Executive Order (EO) 13175, entitled
significant progress has already been governments, it must have developed ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
made in reformulating aerosol coatings under section 203 of the UMRA a small Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
to meet previously promulgated CARB government agency plan. The plan must 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
emission limits. Both of these factors provide for notifying potentially to develop an accountable process to
would significantly reduce the cost-to- affected small governments, enabling ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
sales ratio. Consequently it is very officials of affected small governments Tribal officials in the development of
unlikely that the cost-to-sales ratio for to have meaningful and timely input in regulatory policies that have Tribal
any small entity would exceed 1 the development of EPA regulatory implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
percent. Thus, a significant impact is proposals with significant Federal implications’’ is defined in the EO to
not expected for a substantial number of intergovernmental mandates, and include regulations that have
small entities. informing, educating, and advising ‘‘substantial direct effects on one or
Although this final rule will not have small governments on compliance with more Indian tribes, or on the
a significant economic impact on a the regulatory requirements. distribution of power and
substantial number of small entities, EPA has determined that this responsibilities between the Federal
EPA has made efforts to reduce the regulatory action does not contain a Government and Indian tribes.’’
potential impact of the regulation. These Federal mandate that may result in This final action does not have Tribal
efforts include active participation in expenditures of $100 million or more implications as defined by EO 13175.
National Small Business Environmental for State, local, or tribal governments, in The final regulatory action does not
Assistance Program (SBEAP) meetings, the aggregate, or the private sector in have a substantial direct effect on one or
and in follow-up meetings with SBEAP any one year. Thus, this action is not more Indian tribes, in that this action
States in Region 5. As a result, several subject to the requirements of sections imposes no regulatory burdens on
States provided information to small 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, Tribes. Furthermore, the action does not
businesses regarding the rule. The final we have determined that this regulatory affect the relationship or distribution of
rule includes several provisions action contains no regulatory power and responsibilities between the
designed to minimize the potential requirements that might significantly or Federal Government and Indian tribes.
adverse impacts on small businesses. uniquely affect small governments The CAA and the Tribal Authority Rule
They include a small quantity because they contain no regulatory (TAR) establish the relationship of the
manufacturer exemption, a compliance requirements that apply to such Federal Government and Tribes in
extension for entities that have not governments or impose obligations implementing the CAA. Because the
previously developed CARB-compliant upon them. Therefore, this action is not rule does not have Tribal implications,
aerosol coatings formulations, and a subject to the requirements of section EO 13175 does not apply.
variance provision. 203 of UMRA.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Children from Environmental Health
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Executive Order (EO) 13132, entitled and Safety Risks
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, Executive Order (EO) 13045,
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 1999), requires EPA to develop an ‘‘Protection of Children from
Federal agencies to assess the effects of accountable process to ensure Environmental Health and Safety Risks’’
their regulatory actions on State, local, ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to
and tribal governments and the private and local officials in the development of any rule that (1) is determined to be
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, regulatory policies that have federalism ‘‘economically significant’’ as defined
EPA generally must prepare a written implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have under EO 12866, and (2) concerns an
statement, including a cost-benefit federalism implications’’ is defined in environmental health or safety risk that
analysis, for proposed and final rules the EO to include regulations that have EPA has reason to believe may have a
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, disproportionate effect on children. If
result in expenditures to State, local, on the relationship between the national the regulatory action meets both criteria,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, government and the States, or on the section 5–501 of the EO directs the EPA
or to the private sector, of $100 million distribution of power and to evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on American Society of Testing and without having any disproportionately
children, and explain why the planned Materials (ASTM) Method D3063–94 or high and adverse human health or
regulation is preferable to other D3074–94 for analysis of the propellant environmental effects on any
potentially effective and reasonably portion of the coating; South Coast Air population, including any minority or
feasible alternatives considered by the Quality Management District low-income populations. Further, it
EPA. (SCAQMD) Method 318–95, establishes national emission standards
This regulatory action is not subject to Determination of Weight Percent for VOC in aerosol coatings.
EO 13045 because it is not an Elemental Metal in Coatings by X-ray
economically significant regulatory K. Congressional Review Act
Diffraction, July, 1996, for metal
action as defined by EO 12866. In content; and ASTM D523–89 The Congressional Review Act, 5
addition, EPA interprets EO 13045 as (Reapproved 1999), Standard Test U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
applying only to those regulatory Method for Specular Gloss for specular Business Regulatory Enforcement
actions that are based on health and gloss of flat and nonflat coatings. Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
safety risks, such that the analysis EPA Method 311—Analysis of that before a rule may take effect, the
required under section 5–501 of the EO Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in agency promulgating the rule must
has the potential to influence the Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection submit a rule report, which includes a
regulations. This regulatory action is not into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part copy of the rule, to each House of the
subject to EO 13045 because it does not 63, appendix A) also is a compilation of Congress and to the Comptroller General
include regulatory requirements based voluntary consensus standards. The of the United States. The EPA will
on health or safety risks. following are incorporated by reference submit a report containing the final rule
in EPA Method 311—Analysis of amendment and other required
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in
Concerning Regulations That House of Representatives, and the
Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Comptroller General of the United
into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part
Distribution, or Use States prior to publication of this final
63, appendix A): ASTM D1979–91,
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy ASTM D3432–89, ASTM D4457–85, rule amendment in the Federal Register.
action’’ as defined in Executive Order ASTM D4747–87, ASTM D4827–93, and The final rule amendment is not a
(EO) 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning ASTM PS9–94. ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA 804(2). This final rule is effective on
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 conducted searches to identify March 24, 2008.
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is voluntary consensus standards in
List of Subjects
not likely to have a significant adverse addition to these methods. No
effect on the supply, distribution, or use applicable voluntary consensus 40 CFR Part 51
of energy. Further, we have concluded standards were identified. Environmental protection,
that this rule is not likely to have any For the methods required by the rule, Administrative practice and procedure,
adverse energy effects. a source may apply to EPA for Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
permission to use alternative test Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
I. National Technology Transfer and
methods or alternative monitoring Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
Advancement Act
requirements in place of any required matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
As noted in the proposed rule, section testing methods, performance requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
12(d) of the National Technology specifications, or procedures under organic compound, Consumer products,
Transfer and Advancement Act §§ 63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the Aerosol products, Aerosol coatings,
(NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113, General Provisions. Consumer and commercial products.
Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 40 CFR Part 59
standards (VCS) in its regulatory Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Environmental protection,
activities, unless to do so would be Administrative practice and procedure,
inconsistent with applicable law or Low-Income Populations
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
otherwise impractical. The VCS are Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR reference, Intergovernmental relations,
technical standards (e.g., materials 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal Reporting and recordkeeping
specifications, test methods, sampling executive policy on environmental requirements.
procedures, and business practices) that justice. Its main provision directs
Dated: November 15, 2007.
are developed or adopted by VCS federal agencies, to the greatest extent
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to practicable and permitted by law, to Stephen L. Johnson,
provide Congress, through OMB, make environmental justice part of their Administrator.
explanations when the EPA does not mission by identifying and addressing, ■ For the reasons set out in the
use available and applicable VCS. as appropriate, disproportionately high preamble, parts 51 and 59 of title 40 of
This final rule involves technical and adverse human health or the Code of Federal Regulations are
standards. EPA cites the following environmental effects of their programs, amended as follows:
standards in this rule: California Air policies, and activities on minority
Resources Board Method 310— populations and low-income PART 51—[AMENDED]
Determination of VOC in Consumer populations in the United States. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 51
Products and Reactive Organic EPA has determined that this final continues to read as follows:
Compounds in Aerosol Coating rule will not have disproportionately

Products; EPA Method 311—Analysis of high and adverse human health or Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401–
7671q.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in environmental effects on minority or
Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection low-income populations because it ■ 2. Section 51.100 is amended by
into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part increases the level of environmental adding paragraph (s)(7) to read as
63, appendix A), in conjunction with protection for all affected populations follows:
§ 51.100 Definitions. Table 2C to Subpart E of Part 59—Reactivity manufactured on or after January 1,

* * * * * Factors for Aromatic Hydrocarbon 2009, for sale or distribution in the
Solvent Mixtures United States. Aerosol coatings that are
(s) * * *
(7) For the purposes of determining Subpart E—National Volatile Organic registered under the Federal Insecticide,
compliance with EPA’s aerosol coatings Compound Emission Standards for Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C.
reactivity based regulation (as described Aerosol Coatings 136–136y) (FIFRA). For FIFRA
in 40 CFR part 59—National Volatile registered aerosol coatings, the
Organic Compound Emission Standards § 59.500 What is the purpose of this provisions of this subpart apply to
for Consumer and Commercial subpart? aerosol coatings manufactured on or
Products) any organic compound in the This subpart establishes the product- after January 1, 2010, for sale or
volatile portion of an aerosol coating is weighted reactivity (PWR) limits distribution in the United States.
counted towards the product’s regulated entities must meet in order to (d) You are not a regulated entity
reactivity-based limit, as provided in comply with the national rule for under this subpart for the aerosol
part 59, subpart E. Therefore, the volatile organic compounds (VOC) coatings products that you manufacture
compounds that are used in aerosol emitted from aerosol coatings. This (in or outside of the United States) that
coating products and that are identified subpart also establishes labeling, are exclusively for sale outside the
in paragraph (s) of this section as recordkeeping, and reporting United States.
negligibly reactive and excluded from requirements for regulated entities. (e) If you meet the definition of small
EPA’s definition of VOC are to be quantity manufacturer for a given year,
§ 59.501 Am I subject to this subpart?
counted towards a product’s reactivity the products you manufacture in that
limit for the purposes of determining (a) The regulated entities for an year are not subject to the PWR limits
compliance with EPA’s aerosol coatings aerosol coating product are the presented in § 59.504 or the labeling
reactivity-based national regulation, as manufacturer or importer of an aerosol requirements of § 59.507. To qualify for
provided in part 59, subpart E. coating product and a distributor of an this exemption, small aerosol coating
aerosol coating product if named on the manufacturers must comply with the
* * * * * label. Distributors whose names do not applicable recordkeeping and reporting
PART 59—[AMENDED] appear on the label for the product are requirements in §§ 59.510 and 59.511.
not regulated entities. Distributors (f) If you are a person who
■ 3. The authority citation for part 59 include retailers whose names appear manufactures or processes aerosol
continues to read as follows: on the label for the product. If your coatings outside of the United States,
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7511b(e).
name appears on the label, you are a you may qualify for the small quantity
regulated entity. manufacturer exemption in paragraph
■ 4. Subpart E is added to read as (b) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section if you meet the
follows: (e) of this section, the responsibilities of
requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)
each regulated entity are detailed in
Subpart E—National Volatile Organic
through (f)(3) of this section.
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this
Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol (1) The total VOC by mass included
section.
Coatings (1) If you are a manufacturer or in all aerosol coatings you manufacture,
Sec. importer, you are the regulated entity at all facilities, in a given calendar year,
59.500 What is the purpose of this subpart? responsible for ensuring that all aerosol in the aggregate, is less than 7,500
59.501 Am I subject to this subpart? coatings manufactured or imported by kilograms.
59.502 When do I have to comply with this you meet the PWR limits presented in (2) You comply with the
subpart?
§ 59.504, even if your name is not on the recordkeeping and reporting
59.503 What definitions apply to this requirements in §§ 59.510 and 59.511.
subpart? label.
(2) If you are a distributor named on (3) You commit to and comply with
59.504 What limits must I meet? the requirements of paragraphs (f)(3)(i)
59.505 How do I demonstrate compliance the label, you are the regulated entity
responsible for compliance with all through (f)(3)(vii) of this section.
with the reactivity limits?
59.506 How do I demonstrate compliance if sections of this subpart except for the (i) You must provide an initial
I manufacture multi-component kits? limits presented in § 59.504. If you are notification no later than 90 days before
59.507 What are the labeling requirements a distributor that has specified the compliance date, or at least 90 days
for aerosol coatings? formulations to be used by a before you start manufacturing aerosol
59.508 What test methods must I use? manufacturer, then you are responsible coating products that are sold in the
59.509 Can I get a variance? United States. This initial notification
for compliance with all sections of this
59.510 What records am I required to must state that you are a foreign
maintain? subpart.
(3) If there is no distributor named on manufacturer that is intending to qualify
59.511 What notifications and reports must
I submit? the label, then the manufacturer or for the small quantity manufacturer
59.512 Addresses of EPA regional offices. importer is the regulated entity exemption in paragraph (e) of this
59.513 State authority. responsible for compliance with all section, provide all of the information
59.514 Circumvention. sections of this subpart. specified in § 59.511(b), and provide all
59.515 Incorporations by reference. (4) If you are a manufacturer or the information in paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(A)
59.516 Availability of information and importer, you can choose to certify that and (f)(3)(i)(B) of this section.
confidentiality you will provide any or all of the (A) The name, address, telephone
Table 1 to Subpart E of Part 59—Product- recordkeeping and reporting number, and e-mail address of an agent
Weighted Reactivity Limits by Coating
requirements of §§ 59.510 and 59.511 by located in the United States who will
Category
Table 2A to Subpart E of Part 59—Reactivity following the procedures of § 59.511(g) serve as your point of contact for
Factors and (h). communications with EPA.
Table 2B to Subpart E of Part 59—Reactivity (c) Except as provided in paragraph (B) The address of each of your
Factors for Aliphatic Hydrocarbon (e) of this section, the provisions of this facilities that is manufacturing aerosol
Solvent Mixtures subpart apply to aerosol coatings coatings for sale in the United States.
(ii) You must notify the Administrator California Code of Regulations, sections Art Fixative or Sealant means a clear
of any changes in the information 94520–94528. In order to be considered coating, including art varnish, workable
provided in your initial notification for an extension of the compliance date, art fixative and ceramic coating, which
within 30 days following the change. you must submit a special compliance is designed and labeled exclusively for
(iii) The agent identified above must extension application to the EPA application to paintings, pencil, chalk,
maintain a copy of the compliance Administrator no later than 90 days or pastel drawings, ceramic art pieces or
records specified in § 59.510(b). Those before the compliance date or within 90 other closely related art uses, in order to
records must be kept by the agent such days before the date that you first provide a final protective coating or to
that the agent will be able to provide the manufacture aerosol coatings, fix preliminary stages of artwork while
written report which must be submitted whichever is later. This application providing a workable surface for
upon 60 days notice under § 59.511(d) must contain the information in subsequent revisions.
and able to make those records available paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this ASTM means the American Society
for inspection and review under section. If a regulated entity remains for Testing and Materials.
§ 59.511(e). unable to comply with the limits of this Autobody Primer means an
(iv) You must give any EPA inspector rule by January 1, 2011, the regulated automotive primer or primer surfacer
or auditor full, complete, and immediate entity may seek a variance in coating designed and labeled
access to your facilities and records to accordance with § 59.509. exclusively to be applied to a vehicle
conduct inspections and audits of your (1) Company name; body substrate for the purposes of
manufacturing facilities. (2) A signed certification by a corrosion resistance and building a
(v) You must agree that United States responsible company official that the repair area to a condition in which, after
substantive and procedural law shall regulated entity has not at any time drying, it can be sanded to a smooth
apply to any civil or criminal manufactured, imported, or distributed surface.
enforcement action against you under for sale or distribution in California any Automotive Bumper and Trim
this subpart, and that the forum for any product in any category listed in Table Product means a product, including
civil or criminal enforcement action 1 of this subpart that complies with adhesion promoters and chip sealants,
under this subpart shall be governed by California’s Regulation for Reducing designed and labeled exclusively to
the CAA, including the EPA Ozone Formed From Aerosol Coating repair and refinish automotive bumpers
administrative forum where allowed Product Emissions, Title 17, California and plastic trim parts.
under the CAA. Code of Regulations, sections 94520– Aviation Propeller Coating means a
(vi) Any person certifying any 94528; coating designed and labeled
notification, report, or other exclusively to provide abrasion
(3) A statement that the regulated
communication from you to EPA must resistance and corrosion protection for
entity will, to the extent possible within
state in the certification that United aircraft propellers.
its reasonable control, take appropriate Aviation or Marine Primer means a
States substantive and procedural law
action to achieve compliance with this coating designed and labeled
shall apply to any civil or criminal
subpart by January 1, 2011; exclusively to meet federal specification
enforcement action against him or her
(4) A list of the product categories in TT–P–1757.
under this subpart, and that the forum
Table 1 of this subpart that the regulated Clear Coating means a coating which
for any civil or criminal enforcement
entity manufactures, imports, or is colorless, containing resins but no
action under this section shall be
distributes; and, pigments except flatting agents, and is
governed by the CAA, including the
EPA administrative forum where (5) Name, title, address, telephone, e- designed and labeled to form a
allowed under the CAA. mail address, and signature of the transparent or translucent solid film.
(vii) All reports and other certifying company official. Coating Solids means the nonvolatile
communications with EPA must be in (c) Except as provided in paragraph portion of an aerosol coating product,
English. To the extent that you provide (b) of this section, the compliance date consisting of the film-forming
any documents as part of any report or for aerosol coatings that are registered ingredients, including pigments and
other communication with EPA, an under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide resins.
English language translation of that and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C 136–136y) Commercial Application means the
document must be provided with the (FIFRA) is January 1, 2010. use of aerosol coating products in the
report or communication. production of goods, or the providing of
§ 59.503 What definitions apply to this
subpart?
services for profit, including touch-up
§ 59.502 When do I have to comply with and repair.
this subpart? The following terms are defined for Corrosion Resistant Brass, Bronze, or
(a) Except as provided in § 59.509 and the purposes of this subpart only. Copper Coating means a clear coating
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, Administrator means the designed and labeled exclusively to
you must be in compliance with all Administrator of the United States prevent tarnish and corrosion of
provisions of this subpart by January 1, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uncoated brass, bronze, or copper metal
2009. or an authorized representative. surfaces.
(b) The Administrator will consider Aerosol Coating Product means a Distributor means any person who
issuance of a special compliance pressurized coating product containing purchases or is supplied aerosol coating
extension that extends the date of pigments or resins that is dispensed by product for the purposes of resale or
compliance until January 1, 2011, to means of a propellant and is packaged distribution in commerce. Retailers who
regulated entities that have never in a disposable can for hand-held fall within this definition are
manufactured, imported, or distributed application, or for use in specialized distributors. Importers are not
aerosol coatings for sale or distribution equipment for ground traffic/marking distributors.
in California that are in compliance applications. For the purpose of this Enamel means a coating which cures
with California’s Regulation for regulation, applicable aerosol coatings by chemical cross-linking of its base
Reducing Ozone Formed From Aerosol categories are listed in Table 1 of this resin and is not resoluble in its original
Coating Product Emissions, Title 17, subpart. solvent.
Engine Paint means a coating Flatting Agent means a compound Lacquer means a thermoplastic film-
designed and labeled exclusively to coat added to a coating to reduce the gloss forming material dissolved in organic
engines and their components. of the coating without adding color to solvent, which dries primarily by
Exact Match Finish, Engine Paint the coating. solvent evaporation, and is resoluble in
means a coating which meets all of the Floral Spray means a coating designed its original solvent.
following criteria: and labeled exclusively for use on fresh Manufacturer means any person who
(1) The product is designed and flowers, dried flowers, or other items in manufactures or processes an aerosol
labeled exclusively to exactly match the a floral arrangement for the purposes of coating product for sale or distribution
color of an original, factory-applied coloring, preserving or protecting their within the United States. Manufacturers
engine paint; appearance. include:
(2) The product is labeled with the Formulation Data, unless otherwise (1) Processors who blend and mix
manufacturer’s name for which they specified, means the recipe used to aerosol coatings;
were formulated; and formulate or manufacture a coating (2) Contract fillers who develop
(3) The product is labeled with one of product in terms of the weight fraction formulas and package these
the following: (g compound/g product) of each formulations under a distributor’s name;
(i) The original equipment individual VOC in the product. and
manufacturer’s (O.E.M.) color code Fluorescent Coating means a coating (3) Contract fillers who manufacture
number; labeled as such, which converts
(ii) The color name; or products using formulations provided
absorbed incident light energy into by a distributor.
(iii) Other designation identifying the emitted light of a different hue.
specific O.E.M. color to the purchaser. Marine Spar Varnish means a coating
Glass Coating means a coating designed and labeled exclusively to
Exact Match Finish, Automotive designed and labeled exclusively for use
means a topcoat which meets all of the provide a protective sealant for marine
on glass or other transparent material to wood products.
following criteria: create a soft, translucent light effect, or
(1) The product is designed and Metallic Coating means a topcoat
to create a tinted or darkened color which contains at least 0.5 percent by
labeled exclusively to exactly match the
while retaining transparency. weight elemental metallic pigment in
color of an original, factory-applied Ground Traffic/Marking Coating
automotive coating during the touch-up the formulation, including propellant,
means a coating designed and labeled
of automobile finishes; and is labeled as ‘‘metallic,’’ or with the
exclusively to be applied to dirt, gravel,
(2) The product is labeled with the name of a specific metallic finish such
grass, concrete, asphalt, warehouse
manufacturer’s name for which they as ‘‘gold,’’ ‘‘silver,’’ or ‘‘bronze.’’
floors, or parking lots. Such coatings
were formulated; and Multi-Component Kit means an
(3) The product is labeled with one of must be in a container equipped with a
aerosol spray paint system which
the following: valve and spray head designed to direct
requires the application of more than
(i) The original equipment the spray toward the surface when the
one component (e.g. foundation coat
manufacturer’s (O.E.M.) color code can is held in an inverted vertical
and topcoat), where both components
number; position.
High Temperature Coating means a are sold together in one package.
(ii) The color name; or Nonflat Paint Product means a coating
(iii) Other designation identifying the coating, excluding engine paint, which
is designed and labeled exclusively for which, when fully dry, registers a
specific O.E.M. color to the purchaser. specular gloss greater than 15 on an 85°
Notwithstanding the foregoing, use on substrates which will, in normal
use, be subjected to temperatures in gloss meter or greater than five on a 60°
automotive clear coatings designed and gloss meter.
labeled exclusively for use over excess of 400 °F.
Hobby/Model/Craft Coating means a Ozone means a colorless gas with a
automotive exact match finishes to pungent odor, having the molecular
replicate the original factory-applied coating which is designed and labeled
exclusively for hobby applications and form O3.
finish shall be considered to be Person means an individual,
automotive exact match finishes. is sold in aerosol containers of 6 ounces
by weight or less. corporation, partnership, association,
Exact Match Finish, Industrial means state, any agency, department, or
a coating which meets all of the Importer means any person who
brings an aerosol coating product that instrumentality of the United States,
following criteria: and any officer, agent, or employee
(1) The product is designed and was manufactured, filled, or packaged at
a location outside of the United States thereof.
labeled exclusively to exactly match the
into the United States for sale or Photograph Coating means a coating
color of an original, factory-applied
distribution in the United States. designed and labeled exclusively to be
industrial coating during the touch-up
Ingredient means a component of an applied to finished photographs to
of manufactured products;
(2) The product is labeled with the aerosol coating product. allow corrective retouching, protection
manufacturer’s name for which they Impurity means an individual of the image, changes in gloss level, or
were formulated; and chemical compound present in a raw to cover fingerprints.
(3) The product is labeled with one of material which is incorporated in the Pleasure Craft means privately owned
the following: final aerosol coatings formulation, if the vessels used for noncommercial
(i) O.E.M. color code number; compound is present in amounts below purposes.
(ii) The color name; or the following in the raw material: Pleasure Craft Finish Primer/
(iii) Other designation identifying the (1) For individual compounds that are Surfacer/Undercoater means a coating
specific O.E.M. color to the purchaser. carcinogens each compound must be designed and labeled exclusively to be
Flat Paint Products means a coating present in an amount less than 0.1 applied prior to the application of a
which, when fully dry, registers percent by weight; pleasure craft topcoat for the purpose of
specular gloss less than or equal to 15 (2) For all other compounds present corrosion resistance and adhesion of the
on an 85° gloss meter, or less than or in a raw material, a compound must be topcoat, and which promotes a uniform
equal to 5 on a 60° gloss meter, or which present in an amount less than 1 percent surface by filling in surface
is labeled as a flat coating. by weight. imperfections.
Pleasure Craft Topcoat means a Small quantity manufacturer means a sheen match on finished wood
coating designed and labeled manufacturer whose total VOC by mass products.
exclusively to be applied to a pleasure included in all aerosol coatings Working Day means any day from
craft as a final coat above the waterline manufactured at all facilities in a given Monday through Friday, inclusive,
and below the waterline when stored calendar year, in the aggregate, is less except for days that are Federal
out of water. This category does not than 7,500 kilograms. holidays.
include clear coatings. Spatter Coating/Multicolor Coating
Polyolefin Adhesion Promoter means means a coating labeled exclusively as § 59.504 What limits must I meet?
a coating designed and labeled such wherein spots, globules, or spatters (a) Except as provided in § 59.509,
exclusively to be applied to a polyolefin of contrasting colors appear on or each aerosol coating product you
or polyolefin copolymer surface of within the surface of a contrasting or manufacture, distribute or import for
automotive body parts, bumpers, or trim similar background. sale or use in the United States must
parts to provide a bond between the Stain means a coating which is meet the PWR limits presented in Table
surface and subsequent coats. designed and labeled to change the 1 of this subpart. These limits apply to
Primer means a coating labeled as color of a surface but not conceal the the final aerosol coating, including the
such, which is designed to be applied to surface. propellant. The PWR limits specified in
a surface to provide a bond between that United States means the United States
surface and subsequent coats. Table 1 of this subpart are also
of America, including the District of applicable to any aerosol coating
Product-Weighted Reactivity (PWR) Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Limit means the maximum allowed product that is assembled by adding
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, bulk coating to aerosol containers of
‘‘product-weighted reactivity,’’ as American Samoa, and the
calculated in § 59.505, of an aerosol propellant.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
coating product that is subject to the (b) If a product can be included in
Islands.
limits specified in § 59.504 for a specific Vinyl/Fabric/Leather/Polycarbonate both a general coating category and a
category, expressed as grams of ozone Coating means a coating designed and specialty coating category and the
per gram (g O3/g of product). labeled exclusively to coat vinyl, fabric, product meets all of the criteria of the
Propellant means a liquefied or specialty coating category, then the
leather, or polycarbonate substrates or to
compressed gas that is used in whole or specialty coating limit will apply
coat flexible substrates including rubber
in part, such as a co-solvent, to expel a instead of the general coating limit,
or thermoplastic substrates.
liquid or any other material from the unless the product is a high temperature
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
same self-pressurized container or from coating. High-temperature coatings that
means any organic compound as
a separate container. contain at least 0.5 percent by weight of
Reactivity Factor (RF) is a measure of defined in § 51.100(s) of this chapter. As
provided in 40 CFR 51.100(s)(7), an elemental metallic pigment in the
the change in mass of ozone formed by formulation, including propellant, are
adding a gram of a VOC to the ambient exemptions from the definition of VOC
in 40 CFR 51.100(s) for certain subject to the limit specified for metallic
atmosphere, expressed to hundredths of coatings.
a gram (g O3/g VOC). The RF values for compounds that are used in aerosol
coatings are inapplicable for purposes of (c) Except as provided in paragraph
individual compounds and hydrocarbon (b) of this section, if anywhere on the
solvent mixtures are specified in Tables this subpart.
Webbing/Veiling Coating means a container of any aerosol coating product
2A, 2B, and 2C of this subpart. subject to the limits in Table 1 of this
Retailer means any person who sells, coating designed and labeled
exclusively to provide a stranded to subpart, or on any sticker or label
supplies, or offers aerosol coating
spider webbed appearance when affixed to such product, or in any sales
products for sale directly to consumers.
applied. or advertising literature, the
Retailers who fall within the definition
Weight Fraction means the weight of manufacturer, importer or distributor of
of ‘‘distributor’’ in this section are
distributors. an ingredient divided by the total net the product makes any representation
Retail Outlet means any establishment weight of the product, expressed to that the product may be used as, or is
where consumer products are sold, thousandths of a gram of ingredient per suitable for use as a product for which
supplied, or offered for sale, directly to gram of product (excluding container a lower limit is specified, then the
consumers. and packaging). lowest applicable limit will apply.
Shellac Sealer means a clear or Weld-Through Primer means a coating § 59.505 How do I demonstrate compliance
pigmented coating formulated solely designed and labeled exclusively to with the reactivity limits?
with the resinous secretion of the lac provide a bridging or conducting effect
beetle (Laccifer lacca), thinned with for corrosion protection following (a) To demonstrate compliance with
alcohol, and formulated to dry by welding. the PWR limits presented in Table 1 of
evaporation without a chemical Wood Stain means a coating which is this subpart, you must calculate the
reaction. formulated to change the color of a PWR for each coating as described in
Slip-Resistant Coating means a wood surface but not conceal the paragraphs (a)(1) through (2) of this
coating designed and labeled surface. section:
exclusively as such, which is Wood Touch-Up/Repair/Restoration (1) Calculate the weighted reactivity
formulated with synthetic grit and used means a coating designed and labeled factor (WRF) for each propellant and
as a safety coating. exclusively to provide an exact color or coating component using Equation 1:
WRFi = RFi × WFi Equation 1

ER24MR08.013</MATH>
Where: RFi = reactivity factor of component i, g O3/ (2) Calculate the PWR of each product
WRFi = weighted reactivity factor of g component i, from Table 2A, 2B, or 2C. using Equation 2:
component i, g O3/g component i. WFi = weight fraction of component i in the
product,
PWR p = ( WRF )1 + ( WRF )2 + • • • + ( WRF )n Equation 2
Where: 2005) (incorporated by reference in VOC is listed on the appropriate table,

PWRp = PWR for product P, g O3/g product. 59.515), or EPA Method 311—Analysis that RF will be used for that VOC for the
WRF1 = weighted reactivity factor for of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds purposes of this rule. As provided in
component 1, g O3/g component. in Paints and Coatings by Direct § 59.511(j), any petition submitted to
WRF2 = weighted reactivity factor for Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40 EPA on or before June 1, 2008 will be
component 2, g O3/g component. CFR part 63, appendix A) results will considered, and if appropriate,
WRFn = weighted reactivity factor for
govern. incorporated into Table 2A on or before
component n, g O3/g component.
(d) If you manufacture a coating January 1, 2009.
(b) In calculating the PWR, you must containing either an aromatic or (3) If a compound has an RF less than
follow the guidelines in paragraphs aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent mixture, or equal to 0.3, and will not be used at
(b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section. you must use the appropriate RF for that a level greater than or equal to 7.3
(1) Any ingredient which does not mixture provided in Table 2B or 2C of weight percent (g of compound/g
contain carbon is assigned a RF value of this subpart when calculating the PWR product) in any of the regulated entity’s
0. using formulation data. However, when formulations, the RF to be used in all
(2) Any aerosol coating solid, calculating the PWR for a coating calculations by that entity for this
including but not limited to resins, containing these mixtures using data subpart is 0.
pigments, fillers, plasticizers, and from California Air Resources Board (4) Except as provided in paragraph
extenders is assigned a RF of 0. These Method 310 (May 5, 2005) (incorporated (e)(1), (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section, if
items do not have to be identified by reference in 59.515), or EPA Method a VOC is not listed in Table 2A of this
individually in the calculation. 311—Analysis of Hazardous Air subpart, it is assigned a default RF factor
(3) All individual compounds present Pollutant Compounds in Paints and of 22.04 g O3/g VOC. As described in
in the coating in an amount equal to or Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas § 59.511(j), regulated entities may
exceeding 0.1 percent will be Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, petition the Administrator to add a
considered ingredients regardless of appendix A), you must identify the compound or mixture to Table 2A, 2B,
whether or not the ingredient is individual compounds that are present or 2C of this subpart.
reported to the manufacturer. in the solvent mixture and use the (f) In calculating the PWR value for a
(4) All individual compounds present weight fraction of those individual coating containing an aromatic
in the coating in an amount less than 0.1 compounds and their RF from Table 2A hydrocarbon solvent with a boiling
percent will be assigned an RF value of of this subpart in the calculation. range different from the ranges specified
0. (e) If a VOC is used in a product but in Table 2C of this subpart, you must
(5) Any component that is a VOC but not listed in Table 2A of this subpart, assign an RF as described in paragraphs
is not listed in Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of the Reactivity Factor (RF) is assigned (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section:
this subpart is assigned an RF value as according to paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), (1) If the solvent boiling point is lower
detailed in paragraph (e) of this section. (e)(3) or (e)(4) of this section. than or equal to 420 degrees F, then you
(c) You may use either formulation (1) If the VOC is not listed in Table must use the RF in Table 2C of this
data (including information for both the 2A of this subpart, but has an RF greater subpart specified for bin 23;
liquid and propellant phases), California than 0.3, the regulated entity may (2) If the solvent boiling point is
Air Resources Board Method 310— petition EPA to add the VOC to Table higher than 420 degrees F, then you
Determination of Volatile Organic 2A, as described in § 59.511(j). Based on must use the RF specified in Table 2C
Compounds (VOC) in Consumer these petitions, EPA will periodically of this subpart for bin 24.
Products and Reactive Organic update the appropriate table. Once an (g) For purposes of compliance with
Compounds in Aerosol Coating RF for a VOC is listed on the the PWR limits, all compounds listed in
Products (May 5, 2005) (incorporated by appropriate table, that RF will be used Tables 2A, 2B, or 2C that are used in the
reference in 59.515), or EPA’s Method for that VOC for the purposes of this aerosol coating products must be
311—Analysis of Hazardous Air rule. As provided in § 59.511(j), any included in the calculation. This
Pollutant Compounds in Paints and petitions submitted to EPA on or before includes compounds that may otherwise
Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas June 1, 2008, will be considered, and if be exempted from the definition of VOC
Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, appropriate, incorporated into Table 2A in § 59.100(s).
appendix A), to calculate the PWR. on or before January 1, 2009.
However, if there are inconsistencies (2) If the VOC is used in a product but § 59.506 How do I demonstrate compliance
between the formulation data and the not listed in Table 2A of this regulation, if I manufacture multi-component kits?
California Air Resources Board Method and has an RF less than or equal to 0.3, (a) If you manufacture multi-
310 (May 5, 2005) (incorporated by and will be used at a level greater than component kits as defined in § 59.503,
reference in 59.515), or EPA Method or equal to 7.3 weight percent (g of then the Kit PWR must not exceed the
311—Analysis of Hazardous Air compound/g product) in any of the Total Reactivity Limit.
Pollutant Compounds in Paints and regulated entity’s formulations, the (b) You must calculate the Kit PWR
Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas regulated entity may petition EPA as and the Total Reactivity Limit as
Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, described in § 59.511(j). Based on these follows:
appendix A) results, the California Air petitions, EPA will periodically update (1) KIT PWR = (PWR(1) × W1) +
ER24MR08.014</MATH>
Resources Board Method 310 (May 5, the appropriate table. Once an RF for a (PWR(2) × W2) +. ...+ (PWR(n) × Wn)
(2) Total Reactivity Limit = (RL1 × W1) into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part (b) Within 30 days of receipt of the
+ (RL2 × W2) +...+ (RLn × Wn). 63, appendix A) must be used in original application and within 30 days
(3) Kit PWR ≤ Total Reactivity Limit. conjunction with ASTM Method of receipt of any supplementary
Where: D3063–94 or D3074–94 for analysis of information that is submitted, the
W = the weight of the product contents the propellant portion of the coating. Administrator will send a regulated
(excluding container). Those choosing to use California Air entity written notification of whether
RL = the PWR Limit specified in Table 1 of Resources Board Method 310 (May 5, the application contains sufficient
this subpart. 2005) (incorporated by reference in information to make a determination. If
Subscript 1 denotes the first component § 59.515) must follow the procedures an application is incomplete, the
product in the kit. specified in section 5.0 of that method Administrator will specify the
Subscript 2 denotes the second component with the exception of section 5.3.1, information needed to complete the
product in the kit.
Subscript n denotes any additional which requires the analysis of the VOC application, and provide the
component product. content of the coating. For the purposes opportunity for the regulated entity to
of this subpart, you are not required to submit written supplementary
§ 59.507 What are the labeling determine the VOC content of the information or arguments to the
requirements for aerosol coatings? aerosol coating. For both California Air Administrator to enable further action
(a) The labels of all aerosol products Resources Board Method 310 (May 5, on the application. The regulated entity
manufactured on and after the 2005) (incorporated by reference in must submit this information to the
applicable compliance date listed in § 59.515) and EPA Method 311— Administrator within 30 days of being
§ 59.502 must contain the information Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant notified that its application is
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of Compounds in Paints and Coatings by incomplete.
this section. Direct Injection into a Gas (c) Within 60 days of receipt of
(1) The aerosol coating category code Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, sufficient information to evaluate the
for the coating, based on the category appendix A), you must have a listing of application, the Administrator will send
definitions in § 59.503. This code can be the VOC ingredients in the coating a regulated entity written notification of
the default category code shown in before conducting the analysis. approval or disapproval of a variance
Table 1 of this subpart or a company- (b) To determine the metal content of application. This 60-day period will
specific code, if that code is explained metallic aerosol coating products, you begin after the regulated entity has been
as required by § 59.511(a); must use South Coast Air Quality sent written notification that its
(2) The applicable PWR limit for the Management District (SCAQMD) application is complete.
product specified in Table 1 of this Method 318–95, Determination of
subpart; (d) The Administrator will issue a
Weight Percent Elemental Metal in variance if the criteria specified in
(3) The day, month, and year on Coatings by X-ray Diffraction, July,
which the product was manufactured, paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this
1996, in 40 CFR part 59 (incorporated section are met to the satisfaction of the
or a code indicating such date; by reference in § 59.515).
(4) The name and a contact address Administrator.
To determine the specular gloss of flat
for the manufacturer, distributor, or (1) Complying with the provisions of
and nonflat coatings you must use
importer that is the regulated entity this subpart would not be
ASTM Method D523–89 (Reapproved
under this subpart. technologically or economically
(b) The label on the product must be 1999), Standard Test Method for
Specular Gloss, in 40 CFR part 59 feasible.
displayed in such a manner that it is (2) The compliance plan proposed by
readily observable without removing or (incorporated by reference in § 59.515).
the applicant can reasonably be
disassembling any portion of the § 59.509 Can I get a variance? implemented and will achieve
product container or packaging. The compliance as expeditiously as possible.
(a) Any regulated entity that cannot
information may be displayed on the
comply with the requirements of this (e) A variance must specify dates by
bottom of the container as long as it is
subpart because of circumstances which the regulated entity will achieve
clearly legible without removing any
beyond its reasonable control may apply increments of progress towards
product packaging.
in writing to the Administrator for a compliance, and will specify a final
§ 59.508 What test methods must I use? temporary variance. The variance compliance date by which the regulated
(a) Except as provided in § 59.505(c), application must include the entity will achieve compliance with this
you must use the procedures in information specified in paragraphs subpart.
California Air Resource Board Method (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section. (f) A variance will cease to be
310—Determination of Volatile Organic (1) The specific products for which effective upon failure of the party to
Compounds (VOC) in Consumer the variance is sought. whom the variance was issued to
Products and Reactive Organic (2) The specific provisions of the comply with any term or condition of
Compounds in Aerosol Coating subpart for which the variance is the variance.
Products (May 5, 2005) (incorporated by sought.
reference in § 59.515) or EPA’s Method (3) The specific grounds upon which § 59.510 What records am I required to
the variance is sought. maintain?
311—Analysis of Hazardous Air
Pollutant Compounds in Paints and (4) The proposed date(s) by which the (a) If you are the regulated entity
Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas regulated entity will achieve identified in § 59.501(a) as being
Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, compliance with the provisions of this responsible for recordkeeping for a
appendix A) to determine the speciated subpart. This date must be no later than product, and no other person has
ingredients and weight percentage of 3 years after the issuance of a variance. certified that they will fulfill your
each ingredient of each aerosol coating (5) A compliance plan detailing the recordkeeping responsibilities as
product. EPA Method 311—Analysis of method(s) by which the regulated entity provided in § 59.511(g), you must
Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in will achieve compliance with the comply with paragraphs (a)(1) through
Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection provisions of this subpart. (a)(5) of this section:
(1) All records must be maintained on § 59.511 What notifications and reports include the weight fraction (g
and after the applicable compliance date must I submit? compound/g product) for each VOC
listed in § 59.502. (a) If you are the regulated entity ingredient used in the product in an
identified in § 59.501(a) and (b) as being amount greater than or equal to 0.1
(2) You are required to maintain
responsible for notifications and percent. The formulation data must also
records of the following at the location
reporting for a product, and no other include the information in either
specified in § 59.511(b)(4) for each
person has certified that they will fulfill paragraph (b)(9)(i) or (b)(9)(ii) of this
product subject to the PWR limits in
your notification and reporting section for each VOC ingredient
Table 1 of this subpart: The product responsibilities as provided in reported.
category, all product calculations, the paragraph (g) of this section, you are (i) For compounds listed in Table 2A
PWR, and the weight fraction of all responsible for all notifications and of this regulation, the chemical name,
ingredients including: Water, total reports included in this section. If no CAS number, and the applicable
solids, each VOC, and any other distributor is named on the label, the reactivity factor; or
compounds assigned a RF of zero as manufacturer or importer of the aerosol (ii) For hydrocarbon solvent mixtures
specified in § 59.505. Solids do not have coating is responsible for all listed in either 2B or 2C or this subpart,
to be listed individually in these requirements of this section, even if not the trade name, solvent mixture
records. If an individual VOC is present listed on the label. manufacturer, bin number, and the
in an amount less than 0.1 percent by (b) You must submit an initial applicable reactivity factor.
weight, then it does not need to be notification no later than 90 days before (10) For each product formulation, a
reported as an ingredient. An impurity the compliance date, or at least 90 days list of the unique product codes by
that meets the definition provided in before the date that you first Universal Product Code (UPC), or other
§ 59.503 does not have to be reported as manufacture, distribute, or import unique identifier; and
an ingredient. For each batch of each aerosol coatings, whichever is later. The (11) A statement certifying that all
product subject to the PWR limits, you initial notification must include the products manufactured by the company
must maintain records of the date the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through that are subject to the limits in Table 1
batch was manufactured, the volume of (b)(11) of this section. of this subpart will be in compliance
the batch, the recipe used for (1) Company name; with those limits.
(2) Name, title, address, telephone (c) If you change any information
formulating the batch, and the number
number, e-mail address and signature of included in the initial notification
of cans manufactured in each batch and
certifying company official; required by paragraph (b) of this section,
each formulation.
(3) A list of the product categories including the list of aerosol categories,
(3) You must maintain a copy of each from Table 1 of this subpart that you contact information, records location,
notification and report that you submit manufacture, import, or distribute; the category or date coding system, or
to comply with this subpart, the (4) The street address of each of your the list required under paragraph (b)(8)
documentation supporting each facilities in the United States that is of this section, you must notify the
notification, and a copy of the label for manufacturing, packaging, or importing Administrator of such changes within
each product. aerosol coatings that are subject to the 30 days following the change. You are
(4) If you claim the exemption under provisions of this subpart, and the street also required to notify the Administrator
§ 59.501(e), you must maintain a copy of address where compliance records are within 30 days of the date that you
the initial report and each annual report maintained for each site, if different; begin using an organic compound in
(5) A description of date coding any of your aerosol coating products if
that you submit to EPA, and the
systems, clearly explaining how the date that compound has an RF less than or
documentation supporting such report. of manufacture is marked on each sales equal to 0.3, and is used at a level
(5) You must maintain all records unit; greater than or equal to 7.3 weight
required by this subpart for a minimum (6) An explanation of the product percent (g of compound/g product) in
of 5 years. The records must be in a category codes that will be used on all any of your formulations. You are not
form suitable and readily available for required labels, or a statement that the required to notify the Administrator
inspection and review. default category codes in Table 1 of this within 30 days of changes to the
(b) By providing the written subpart will be used; information provided as required by
(7) For each product category, an paragraph (b)(9) of this section. Changes
certification to the Administrator in
explanation of how the manufacturer, in formulation are to be reported in the
accordance with § 59.511(g), the
distributor, or importer will define a triennial reporting required by
certifying manufacturer accepts
batch for the purpose of the paragraph (i) of this section.
responsibility for compliance with the recordkeeping requirements;
recordkeeping requirements of this (d) Upon 60 days written notice, you
(8) A list of any compounds or must submit to the Administrator a
section with respect to any products mixtures that will be used in aerosol
covered by the written certification, as written report with all the information
coatings that are not included in Table in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of
detailed in the written certification. 2A, 2B, or 2C of this subpart;
Failure to maintain the required records this section for each product you
(9) For each product category, VOC manufacture, distribute, or import under
may result in enforcement action by formulation data for each formulation your name or another company’s name.
EPA against the certifying manufacturer that you anticipate manufacturing, (1) The brand name of the product;
in accordance with the enforcement importing, or distributing for calendar (2) A copy of the product label;
provisions applicable to violation of year 2009 or for the first year that (3) The owner of the trademark or
these provisions by regulated entities. If
includes your compliance date, if brand names;

the certifying manufacturer revokes its different than 2009. If a regulated entity (4) The product category as defined in
certification, as allowed by § 59.511(h), can certify that the reporting is being § 59.503;
the regulated entity must assume completed by another regulated entity (5) For each product, formulation data
responsibility for maintaining all for any product, no second report is for each formulation that manufactured,
records required by this section. required. The formulation data must imported, or distributed in the
requested time period. The formulation section, you must submit a report to the (i) For compounds listed in Table 2A
data must include the weight fraction (g appropriate Regional Office listed in of this subpart, the chemical name, CAS
compound/g product) for each VOC § 59.512. This report must include the number, and the applicable reactivity
ingredient used in the product in an information contained in (g)(1) though factor; or
amount greater than or equal to 0.1 (g)(4) of this section. (ii) For hydrocarbon solvent mixtures
percent, plus the weight fraction of all (1) Name and address of certifying listed in either 2B or 2C of this subpart,
other ingredients including: Water, total entity; the trade name, solvent mixture
solids, and any other compounds (2) Name and address(es) of the manufacturer, bin number, and the
assigned an RF of zero. The formulation regulated entity for which you are applicable reactivity factor.
data must also include the information accepting responsibility; (3) For each formulation, the total
in either paragraph (d)(5)(i) or (ii) of this (3) Description of specific mass of each individual VOC species
section. requirements in § 59.510 and this present in an amount greater than or
(i) For compounds listed in Table 2A section for which you are assuming equal to 0.1 percent of the formulation,
of this subpart, the chemical name, CAS responsibility and explanation of how that was manufactured, imported, or
number, and the applicable reactivity all required information under this distributed in the reporting year; and
factor. subpart will be maintained and (4) For each formulation, a list of the
(ii) For hydrocarbon solvent mixtures submitted, as required, by you or the individual product codes by UPC or
listed in either 2B or 2C or this table, the regulated entity; and other unique identifier.
trade name, solvent mixture (4) Signature of responsible official for (j) If a regulated entity identifies a
manufacturer, bin number, and the the company. VOC that is needed for an aerosol
applicable reactivity factor. (h) An entity that has provided formulation that is not listed in Tables
(e) If you claim the exemption under certification under paragraph (g) of this 2A, 2B, or 2C of this subpart, it is
§ 59.501(e), you must submit an initial section (the ‘‘certifying entity’’) may assigned a default RF factor of 22.04 g
notification no later than 90 days before revoke the written certification by O3/g VOC. Regulated entities may
the compliance date or at least 90 days sending a written statement to the petition the Administrator to add a
before the date that you first appropriate Regional Office listed in compound to Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of this
manufacture aerosol coatings, § 59.512 and to the regulated entity for subpart. Petitions must include the
whichever is later. The initial which the certifying had accepted chemical name, CAS number, a
notification must include the responsibility, giving a minimum of 90 statement certifying the intent to use the
information in paragraphs (e)(1) through days notice that the certifying entity is compound in an aerosol coatings
(e)(6) of this section. rescinding acceptance of responsibility product, and adequate information for
(1) Company name; for compliance with the requirements the Administrator to evaluate the
(2) Name, title, number, address, outlined in the certification letter. Upon reactivity of the compound and assign a
telephone number, e-mail address, and expiration of the notice period, the RF value consistent with the values for
signature of certifying company official; regulated entity must assume the other compounds listed in Table 2A
(3) A list of the product categories responsibility for all applicable of this subpart. Any requests submitted
from Table 1 of this subpart that you requirements. to EPA on or before June 1, 2008 will
manufacture; (i) As a regulated entity in accordance be considered and, if appropriate,
(4) The total amount of product you with paragraph (a) of this section, you incorporated into Table 2A, 2B, or 2C of
manufacture in each category and the must provide the information requested this subpart on or before January 1,
total VOC mass content of such in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(4) of this 2009.
products for the preceding calendar section every three years beginning in
year; 2011 for reporting year 2010. The report § 59.512 Addresses of EPA regional
(5) The street address of each of your shall be submitted by March 31 of the offices.
facilities in the United States that is year following the reporting year to the All requests (including variance
manufacturing aerosol coatings that are appropriate Regional Office listed in requests), reports, submittals, and other
subject to the provisions of this subpart § 59.512. The first report is due March communications to the Administrator
and the street address where 31, 2011, for calendar year 2010. pursuant to this regulation shall be
compliance records are maintained for (1) All identification information submitted to the Regional Office of the
each site, if different; and included in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and EPA which serves the State or territory
(6) A list of the States in which you (b)(4) of this section; for the address that is listed on the
sell or otherwise distribute the products (2) For each product category, VOC aerosol coating product in question.
you manufacture. formulation data for each formulation These areas are indicated in the
(f) If you claim the exemption under that was manufactured, imported, or following list of EPA Regional Offices.
§ 59.501(e), you must file an annual distributed in the reporting year. The EPA Region I (Connecticut, Maine,
report for each year in which you claim formulation data must include the Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
an exemption from the limits of this weight fraction (g compound/g product) Rhode Island, Vermont), Director,
subpart. Such annual report must be for each VOC ingredient used in the Office of Environmental Stewardship,
filed by March 1 of the year following product in an amount equal to or greater Mailcode: SAA, JFK Building, Boston,
the year in which you manufactured the than 0.1 percent. If a regulated entity MA 02203.
products. The annual report shall can certify that the reporting is being EPA Region II (New Jersey, New York,
include the same information required completed by another regulated entity Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands), Director,
in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(6) of this for any product, no second report is Division of Enforcement and
section. required. The formulation data must Compliance Assistance, 290

(g) If you are a manufacturer, include the information in either Broadway, New York, NY 10007–
importer, or distributor who chooses to paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this 1866.
certify that you will maintain records section for each VOC present in an EPA Region III (Delaware, District of
for a regulated entity for all or part of amount greater than or equal to 0.1 Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
the purposes of § 59.510 and this percent. Virginia, West Virginia), Air
Protection Division, 1650 Arch Street, components in addition to the Method 318–95, Determination of
Philadelphia, PA 19103. requirements of this subpart. Weight Percent Elemental Metal in
EPA Region IV (Alabama, Florida, (b) Requiring the manufacturer, Coatings by X-ray Diffraction, (July,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North distributor or importer of aerosol 1996), IBR approved for § 59.508.
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee), coatings or components to obtain (3) ASTM Method D523–89
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics, permits, licenses, or approvals prior to (Reapproved 1999), Standard Test
Management Division, 345 Courtland initiating construction, modification, or Method for Specular Gloss, IBR
Street, NE., Atlanta, GA 30365. operation of a facility for manufacturing approved for § 59.508.
EPA Region V (Illinois, Indiana, an aerosol coating or component.
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, (b) You may obtain and inspect the
§ 59.514 Circumvention. materials at the Air and Radiation
Wisconsin), Director, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Each manufacturer, distributor, and Docket and Information Center, U.S.
Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604–3507. importer of an aerosol coating or EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
EPA Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, component subject to the provisions of DC; the EPA Library, 109 T.W.
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), this subpart must not alter, destroy, or Alexander Drive, U.S. EPA, Research
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics falsify any record or report, to conceal Triangle Park, North Carolina; you may
Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, what would otherwise be inspect the materials at the National
TX 75202–2733. noncompliance with this subpart. Such Archives and Records Administration
EPA Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, concealment includes, but is not limited (NARA). For information on the
Nebraska), Director, Air and Toxics to, refusing to provide the Administrator availability of this material at NARA,
Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue, access to all required records and date- call 202–741–6030, or go to http://
Kansas City, KS 66101. coding information, misstating the PWR www.archives.gov/federal_register/
EPA Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, content of a coating or component code_of_federal_regulations/
North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, batch, or altering the results of any ibr_locations.html.
Wyoming), Director, Air and Toxics required tests to determine the PWR.
§ 59.516 Availability of information and
Division, 999 18th Street, 1 Denver
§ 59.515 Incorporations by reference. confidentiality.
Place, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado
80202–2405. (a) The following material is (a) Availability of information. The
EPA Region IX (American Samoa, incorporated by reference (IBR) in the availability to the public of information
Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, paragraphs noted in § 59.508. These provided to or otherwise obtained by
Nevada), Director, Air Division, 75 incorporations by reference were the Administrator under this part shall
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA approved by the Director of the Federal be governed by part 2 of this chapter.
94105. Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These (b) Confidentiality. All confidential
EPA Region X (Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, business information entitled to
Washington), Director, Air and Toxics materials are incorporated as they exist
on the date of approval, and notice of protection under section 114(c) of the
Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Clean Air Act (CAA) that must be
WA 98101. any changes in these materials will be
published in the Federal Register. submitted or maintained by each
§ 59.513 State authority. (1) California Air Resources Board regulated entity pursuant to this subpart
The provisions in this regulation will Method 3–0—Determination of Volatile shall be treated in accordance with 40
not be construed in any manner to Organic Compounds (VOC) in CFR part 2, subpart B.
preclude any State or political Consumer Products and Reactive (c) Reports and Applications. The
subdivision thereof from: Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating content of all reports and applications
(a) Adopting and enforcing any Products (May 5, 2005), IBR approved required to be submitted to the Agency
emission standard or limitation for § 59.508. under § 59.511, § 59.509, or § 59.502 are
applicable to a manufacturer, distributor (2) South Coast Air Quality not entitled to protection under Section
or importer of aerosol coatings or Management District (SCAQMD) Test 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 ............................................................................................................... CCP 1.50

Flat Coatings .................................................................................................................. FCP 1.20
Fluorescent Coatings ..................................................................................................... FLP 1.75
Metallic Coatings ............................................................................................................ MCP 1.90
Non-Flat Coatings .......................................................................................................... NFP 1.40
Primers ........................................................................................................................... PCP 1.20
Ground Traffic/Marking .................................................................................................. GTM 1.20
Art Fixatives or Sealants ................................................................................................ AFS 1.80
Auto body primers .......................................................................................................... ABP 1.55
Automotive Bumper and Trim Products ......................................................................... ABT 1.75
Aviation or Marine Primers ............................................................................................ AMP 2.00
Aviation Propellor Coatings ............................................................................................ APC 2.50
Corrosion Resistant Brass, Bronze, or Copper Coatings .............................................. CRB 1.80

Exact Match Finish—Engine Enamel ............................................................................ EEE 1.70
Exact Match Finish—Automotive ................................................................................... EFA 1.50
Exact Match Finish—Industrial ...................................................................................... EFI 2.05
Floral Sprays .................................................................................................................. FSP 1.70
Glass Coatings ............................................................................................................... GCP 1.40
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART E OF PART 59.—PRODUCT-WEIGHTED REACTIVITY LIMITS BY COATING CATEGORY—Continued

[g O3/g product]
Coating category Category code a Reactivity limit
High Temperature Coatings ........................................................................................... HTC 1.85

Hobby/Model/Craft Coatings, Enamel ............................................................................ HME 1.45
Hobby/Model/Craft Coatings, Lacquer ........................................................................... HML 2.70
Hobby/Model/Craft Coatings, Clear or Metallic ............................................................. HMC 1.60
Marine Spar Varnishes .................................................................................................. MSV 0.90
Photograph Coatings ..................................................................................................... PHC 1.00
Pleasure Craft Primers, Surfacers or Undercoaters ...................................................... PCS 1.05
Pleasure Craft Topcoats ................................................................................................ PCT 0.60
Polyolefin Adhesion Promoters ...................................................................................... PAP 2.50
Shellac Sealers, Clear ................................................................................................... SSC 1.00
Shellac Sealers, Pigmented ........................................................................................... SSP 0.95
Slip-Resistant Coatings .................................................................................................. SRC 2.45
Spatter/Multicolor Coatings ............................................................................................ SMC 1.05
Vinyl/Fabric/Leather/Polycarbonate Coatings ................................................................ VFL 1.55
Webbing/Veiling Coatings .............................................................................................. WFC 0.85
Weld-Through Primers ................................................................................................... WTP 1.00
Wood Stains ................................................................................................................... WSP 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.—REACTIVITY FACTORS

Reactivity
Compound CAS No. factor
1-Butanol .................................................................................................................................................................. 71–36–3 3.34

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ........................................................................................................................................... 95–63–6 7.18
2-Butanol (s-Butyl alcohol) ...................................................................................................................................... 78–92–2 1.60
2-Butoxy-1-Ethanol (Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) ........................................................................................... 111–76–2 1.67
2-Propoxyethanol (ethylene glycol monopropyl ether) ............................................................................................ 2807–30–9 3.52
Acetone (Propanone) ............................................................................................................................................... 67–64–1 0.43
Amyl 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
Diethanolamine ........................................................................................................................................................ 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 monoethyl 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 Isomers .................................................................................................................................................. 107–83–5 1.80
Isopropyl alcohol (2-Propanol) ................................................................................................................................. 67–63–0 0.71
Methanol .................................................................................................................................................................. 67–56–1 0.71
Methyl amyl ketone .................................................................................................................................................. 110–43–0 2.80
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) ........................................................................................................................... 78–93–3 1.49
Methyl isobutyl ketone ............................................................................................................................................. 108–10–1 4.31
Methyl n-Propyl Ketone (2-Pentanone) ................................................................................................................... 107–87–9 3.07
N,N-Dimethylethanolamine ...................................................................................................................................... 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 monomethyl ether acetate ........................................................................................................... 108–65–6 1.71
Texanol (1,3 Pentanediol, 2,2,4-trimethyl, 1-isobutyrate) ....................................................................................... 25265–77–4 0.89

Toluene .................................................................................................................................................................... 108–88–3 3.97
Vinyl Chloride ........................................................................................................................................................... 75–01–4 2.92
Xylene, meta- ........................................................................................................................................................... 108–38–3 10.61
Xylene, ortho- .......................................................................................................................................................... 95–47–6 7.49
Xylene, para- ........................................................................................................................................................... 106–42–3 4.25
TABLE 2B TO SUBPART E OF PART 59.—REACTIVITY FACTORS FOR ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBON SOLVENT MIXTURES
Average Reactivity
Bin boiling point * Criteria factor
(degrees F)
1 ............. 80–205 Alkanes (< 2% Aromatics) ................................................................................................................... 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% Aromatics) ........................................................................................................... 2.24
5 ............. 80–205 Alkanes (8 to 22% Aromatics) ............................................................................................................. 2.56
6 ............. >205–340 Alkanes (< 2% Aromatics) ................................................................................................................... 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) ........................................................................................................... 1.62
10 ........... >205–340 Alkanes (8 to 22% Aromatics) ............................................................................................................. 2.03
11 ........... >340–460 Alkanes (< 2% Aromatics) ................................................................................................................... 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
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
* 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
Boiling range Reactivity
Bin Criteria
(degrees F) factor
21 ........... 280–290 Aromatic Content (≥98%) .................................................................................................................... 7.37

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Rule: National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards For Aerosol Coatings

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Rule: National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards For Aerosol Coatings

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Monday,

March 24, 2008

prolonged (6 to 8 hour) exposures to CAA section 183(e) directs EPA to

Standards for Architectural Coatings’’ 63 FR 48848,

11 ‘‘Initial Statement of Reasons for the California

EPA’s Report to Congress (EPA–453/R– by mass of no more than 7,500

requirements to facilitate date(s) the batch was manufactured, the

through a reporting requirement or incorporates EPA Method 24 for

authority to regulate VOC emissions

expansion in a small quantity additional reporting requirements, in rule incorporating reactivity-based

Compounds in Aerosol Coating rule will not have disproportionately

§ 51.100 Definitions. Table 2C to Subpart E of Part 59—Reactivity manufactured on or after January 1,

WRFi = RFi × WFi Equation 1

PWR p = ( WRF )1 + ( WRF )2 + • • • + ( WRF )n Equation 2

Where: 2005) (incorporated by reference in VOC is listed on the appropriate table,

includes your compliance date, if brand names;

section. required. The formulation data must Compliance Assistance, 290

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

Coating category Category code a Reactivity limit

Clear Coatings ............................................................................................................... CCP 1.50

Corrosion Resistant Brass, Bronze, or Copper Coatings .............................................. CRB 1.80

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

Coating category Category code a Reactivity limit

High Temperature Coatings ........................................................................................... HTC 1.85

TABLE 2A TO SUBPART E OF PART 59.—REACTIVITY FACTORS

1-Butanol .................................................................................................................................................................. 71–36–3 3.34

Texanol (1,3 Pentanediol, 2,2,4-trimethyl, 1-isobutyrate) ....................................................................................... 25265–77–4 0.89

1 ............. 80–205 Alkanes (< 2% Aromatics) ................................................................................................................... 2.08

21 ........... 280–290 Aromatic Content (≥98%) .................................................................................................................... 7.37

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

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi