United States Office of Air Quality EPA-453/R-96-011b
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards August 1998
Agency _ Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Air
>?/ EPA Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Automobile
Refinishing -- Background
Information for Promulgated Standards
-------
EPA-453/R-96-011b
vJ
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Automobile Refinishing --
Background Information for
Promulgated Standards
Emissions Standards Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
August 1998
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
eg'?5' UbrafV (PL- 12J)
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division
of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available from
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS 1-1
2 .0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 2-1
2.1 LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY 2-1
2.2 PROPOSED STANDARDS 2-4
2.2.1 Applicability 2-4
2.2.2 Definitions 2-14
2.2.3 Standards 2-16
2.2.4 Compliance Requirements 2-22
2.2.5 Labeling Requirements 2-23
2.2.6 Reporting Requirements 2-24
2.2.7 Variances 2-25
2.2.8 Test Methods 2-26
2.2.9 Miscellaneous 2-28
LIST OF TABLES
1-1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOBILE REFINISH COATINGS 1-2
Xll
-------
1.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS
A list of the commenters, their affiliations, and the EPA
docket number assigned to their correspondence is given in
table 1-1.
l-l
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOBILE REFINISH COATINGS
Docket number9- Commenter and affiliation
IV-D-01 Dr. K.E. Hine
Director of Safety, Health, and
Environmental Affairs
ICI Paints
Westlake, Ohio
IV-D-02 H. Hieb
Spokesman
Central Coast Independent
Autobody Coalition
Santa Maria, California
IV-D-03 R.T. Winstead
Roxboro, North Carolina
IV-D-04 L. Simpson, V. Pratt, and K. Kerr
Florida International University
Student Body
IV-D-05 B.M. Richards
Manager, Automotive Refinishing
Coatings R&D
BASF Corporation
Whitehouse, Ohio
IV-D-06 M.S. Kruzer
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
The Sherwin-Williams Company
Cleveland, Ohio
IV-D-07 J.A. Hackney
Technical Services & Environmental
Regulatory Affairs
American Standox, Inc.
Plymouth, Michigan
IV-D-08 D.L. Stein
Senior Product Responsibility Specialist
3M Company
Saint Paul, Minnesota
IV-D-09 B. Mathur
Chief, Bureau of Air
State of Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Springfield, Illinois
1-2
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOBILE REFINISH COATINGS
(CONTINUED)
Docket number5 Commenter and affiliation
IV-D-10 B.A. Kwetz
Director, Division of Air Quality
Control
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
Boston, Massachusetts
IV-D-11 L. Cole
Executive Vice President and
General Manager
Surface Protection Industries, Inc.
Los Angeles, California
IV-D-12 D. Stringham
Director, Regulatory and State
Government Affairs
Safety-Kleen
Elgin, Illinois
IV-D-13 K. Schultz
Environmental Consultant
Dupont Automotive
Wilmington, Delaware
IV-D-14 J. Sell
Senior Counsel
National Paint & Coatings Association
Washington, DC
IV-D-15 B. Adler
Adler's Antique Autos, Inc.
Stephentown, New York
IV-D-16 Automotive Services Association
Bedford, Texas
IV-D-17 D.I. Greenhaus
Director, Environment, Health and Safety
National Automobile Dealers Association
McLean, Virginia
IV-F-01 Michael Callahan
Safety-Kleen Corporation
Chicago, Illinois
IV-F-01 Howard Berman
The Jefferson Group
1-3
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOBILE REFINISH COATINGS
(CONTINUED)
Docket number5 Commenter and affiliation
VI-B-01 K. Schultz
Environmental Consultant
Dupont Automotive
Wilmington, Delaware
VI-B-02 Herb Morrison
BASF Corporation
Whitehouse, Ohio
VI-B-03 Bernard Zysman
Technical Services Specialist
Occidental Chemical Corporation
Niagara Falls, New York
VI-B-04 Ronald Walton
Clariant Corporation
Charlotte, North Carolina
VI-B-05 James Kantola
Safety, Health & Environmental Manager
ICI Paints
Westlake, Ohio
VI-B-06 Douglas Greenhaus
Director, Environment, Health & Safety
National Automobile Dealers Association
McLean, Virginia
VI-B-07 Jim Sell
Senior Counsel
National Paint & Coatings Association
Washington, DC
VI-B-09 B. Mathur
Chief, Bureau of Air
State of Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Springfield, Illinois
a The docket number for this rule is A-95-18.Category IV-D
includes public comments on the April 30, 1996, proposed rule;
Category IV-F includes comments made at the public hearing;
Category VI-B includes comments on the December 30, 1997,
supplemental proposed rule.
1-4
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
The EPA received a total of 26 comment letters on the
proposed standards and the technical support document for the
proposed standards. The EPA also received comments during the
public hearing for this rule. This document contains summaries
and responses to comments mainly concerning the provisions of the
proposed automobile refinish coatings rule. However, at the time
of proposal of the rule, the EPA specifically requested comment
on certain topics concerning section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act
(Act) in general. Therefore, those comments and responses are
discussed in this document as well. In order to avoid
duplication, most comments that pertain to the EPA's study,
Report to Congress, and schedule for regulations under
section 183(e) of the Act are discussed in a separate comment
response document, Response to Comments on Section 183(e) Study
and Report to Congress (EPA-453/R-98-007) also referred to as the
183-BID.
The comments have been categorized under the following
topics:
Section 183(e) Requirements
Applicability
Definitions
Standards
Compliance Requirements
Labeling Requirements
Reporting Requirements
Variances
Test Methods
Cost Impacts
Miscellaneous
2.1 LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-14)
responded to the EPA's request for comments on the use of control
techniques guidelines (CTG) to address automobile refinish
coatings. These commenters support a national rule instead of
CTG-based State rules. One commenter (IV-D-09) stated a CTG-
based approach would complicate rule development and enforcement
2-1
-------
because States could adopt different rules. One commenter (IV-D-
14) stated that in light of the national distribution system of
refinish coatings, the large number of diverse coatings used by
the industry, and the need to avoid differing and potentially
conflicting State regulations that would disrupt the orderly
interstate movement of coatings, a national rule approach is
appropriate for automobile refinish coatings. Another commenter
(IV-D-09) stated that a national rule will reduce VOC emissions
in ozone attainment areas that, because of pollutant transport,
contribute to ozone formation in nonattainment areas.
Response: The EPA has concluded that a national rule is the
more effective approach for reducing emissions from consumer
products, automobile refinish coatings, and architectural
coatings. First, the EPA believes that a national rule is an
appropriate means to deal with the issue of products that are, by
their nature, easily transported across area boundaries and
typically are widely distributed and are used by widely varied
types of end-users. For many such products, the end-user may use
them in different locations from day-to-day. Because the
products themselves are easily transportable, a national rule
would preempt opportunities for end-users to purchase such
consumer and commercial products in attainment areas and then use
them in nonattainment areas, thereby circumventing the
regulations and undermining the intended decrease in VOC
emissions. The EPA, therefore, believes that a national rule
with applicability to products regardless of where they are
marketed is a reasonable means to ensure that the regulations
result in the requisite degree of VOC emission reduction.
Second, the EPA believes that rules applicable only in
nonattainment areas would be unnecessarily complex and burdensome
for the regulated entities to comply with and for the Agency to
administer. The potentially regulated entities under
section 183 (e) of the Act are the manufacturers, processors,
wholesale distributors, or importers of consumer and commercial
products. Any regulations that would differentiate between
2-2
-------
products destined for attainment and nonattainment areas would
require that regulated entities have sufficient ability to track
their products and control their distribution, sale, and ultimate
use to ensure that only compliant products go to nonattainment
areas. Although the EPA recognizes that some product lines in
some product categories may only be distributed regionally in
areas that are already in attainment, the large majority of the
product lines will be distributed nationally. Regulations
targeted only at nonattainment areas could thus impose
significant additional burdens upon regulated entities to achieve
the goals of section 183(e) of the Act.
By comparison, existing State regulations in some instances
apply to a broader range of entities, including retail
distributors and end users. Given the limitations of
section 183(e) of the Act as to regulated entities, the EPA
believes that regulations applicable to both attainment areas and
nonattainment areas are a reasonable means to ensure use of
complying products where necessary, while avoiding potentially
burdensome impacts and less reliable mechanisms to achieve the
goals of section 183(e). Several of the trade associations of
the industries for whom the EPA has proposed national rules
(i.e., architectural coatings, consumer products, and automobile
refinish coatings) have supported national rules that apply to
all areas as the most efficient regulatory mechanism from the
perspective of marketing and distribution of products. The EPA's
consideration of this factor, however, is not meant to imply that
it would be inappropriate for States to develop more stringent
levels of controls where necessary to attain the ozone standard.
Instead, the national standard is expected to reduce the number
of States needing to develop separate rules for these categories.
Third, the EPA believes that national rules with nationwide
applicability may help to mitigate the impact of ozone and ozone
precursor transport across some area boundaries. Recent modeling
performed by OTAG and others suggests that in some circumstances
VOCs emitted outside nonattainment area boundaries can contribute
2-3
-------
to ozone pollution in nonattainment areas, e.g., by traveling
relatively short distances into neighboring nonattainment areas.
The EPA has recognized the potential for VOC transport in the
December 29, 1997, Guidance for Implementing the 1-hour Ozone and
Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS concerning credit for VOC emission
reductions towards rate of progress requirements. The guidance
indicates that the EPA may give credit for VOC reductions within
100 kilometers of nonattainment areas. In addition, the
June 1997 recommendations made by OTAG supported the EPA's use of
VOC regulations that apply to both nonattainment and attainment
areas to implement section 183(e) of the Act for certain
products. The particular product categories OTAG cited for
national VOC regulations are automobile refinishing coatings,
consumer products, and architectural coatings. The EPA believes
that regulation of products in attainment areas is necessary to
mitigate VOC emissions that have the potential to contribute to
ozone nonattainment in accordance with section 183 (e) of the Act.
Finally, the arguments in this section supporting the EPA's
authority and rationale for regulating both nonattainment and
attainment areas under section 183(e) of the Act are not intended
to imply that the EPA would not consider using its discretion to
develop a CTG (which would affect VOC emissions only in
nonattainment areas) for a category in lieu of a regulation. The
EPA recognizes that patterns of distribution and use will vary
among categories of products. Therefore, the EPA intends to use
its discretion to determine the most efficient and effective mode
of regulation for each of the categories listed for regulation
under section 183(e) of the Act.
2.2 PROPOSED STANDARDS
2.2.1 Applicability
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-02, IV-D-03, IV-D-06, IV-
D-13, IV-D-14, IV-D-15) claimed that lacquer topcoats should be
exempt from the rule because they account for only 5-10% of
coating usage, and their use is decreasing because automobile
manufacturers use other coating types on new automobiles. These
2-4
-------
commenters indicated that lacquers are used mainly ._by hobbyists
who wish to restore vehicles to their original condition,
including the paint finish. One commenter (IV-D-13) stated that
the use of lacquers to refinish modern vehicles is untenable
because of inferior durability and aesthetics. Another commenter
(IV-D-09) suggested that the EPA should classify lacquer coatings
as specialty coatings and consider limiting their production,
since an exemption for lacquers would create inconsistencies
between the national rule and State rules that do not exempt
them. The commenter stated that limiting lacquer production
would aid in the compliance with State rules.
Response: The EPA has determined that it is appropriate to
exempt lacquer topcoats from the final rule. The EPA agrees
lacquer topcoats are less desirable than other coating types for
refinishing modern automobiles, and that their use is therefore
not likely to increase since they are not used on new
automobiles. Lacquers are not as durable as other coatings.
Since they dry by solvent evaporation alone (rather than through
chemical crosslinking), they are not resistant to solvent attack.
Although other coatings generally can be used to refinish antique
and classic automobiles, the finish would not be the "original"
finish desired by users in this niche of automobile refinishing.
The EPA exempted lacquer topcoats from the final rule because
their use is decreasing, their contribution to the total VOC
emissions is small, they fill a niche in the automobile refinish
industry, and they cannot be reformulated to meet the VOC content
limit for topcoats.
Including lacquer topcoats in a specialty coating category
and limiting their production, as suggested by one commenter,
does not appear to be a viable option. First, production limits
set significantly below current usage levels would cause
shortages of lacquer topcoats. Such shortages would restrict
consumer access to the product. Second, production limits set at
or near current usage levels would be equivalent to an exemption,
since lacquer topcoat usage is not likely to increase. The
2-5
-------
additional recordkeeping necessary to make a production limit
enforceable would be burdensome on both regulated entities and
the EPA. For these reasons, the EPA decided against the creation
of a specialty category with limits on production for lacquer
topcoats.
One commenter noted that an exemption would lead to an
inconsistency between State and federal rules for this coating
type. The EPA acknowledges that an exemption for lacquer
topcoats under the national rule may make the rule less stringent
than some State rules, but the EPA notes that States may still
choose to be more stringent than the national rule by the
inclusion of such coatings in their own rules.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-01) disagreed with the EPA's
statement that the distribution of coatings has no effect on
whether compliant coatings are used. The commenter stated that
distributors may bring noncompliant products into the United
States via Mexico or Canada without a manufacturer's knowledge.
Response: The example given by the commenter appears to be
one of importation rather than distribution. Both the proposed
and final rule apply to importers of automobile refinish coatings
and coating components and thus require importers to ensure that
their recommended use of coatings or coating components for
automobile refinishing would be compliant.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-01, IV-D-05, IV-D-06, IV-
D-07, IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-13, IV-D-14) supported including
manufacturers and importers of automobile refinish coating
components, such as thinners and hardeners, as regulated
entities. The commenters stated that excluding coating component
manufacturers and importers would likely result in the use of
coatings with VOC levels higher than the proposed standards,
since these components would not be required to be part of a
compliant coating system under the proposed rule.
Response: The EPA agrees with the concern raised by these
commenters. Regulated entities under the April 30, 1996,
proposed rule included only manufacturers and importers of
2-6
-------
complete automobile refinish coatings. The VOC content of an
automobile refinish coating depends, however, on the VOC content
levels of all components that make up the coating. Coating users
sometimes combine components made by multiple manufacturers when
preparing a coating. Since components themselves are not
coatings, a manufacturer who produces only hardeners, for
example, would not have been subject to the April 1996 proposed
rule. Such a manufacturer could recommend that its hardener be
combined with components of other manufacturers, possibly
resulting in a coating that exceeds the VOC content standards of
the rule. Such a situation could essentially undermine the VOC
emission reductions of the rule.
To address the concern raised by these commenters, the EPA
proposed in a supplemental notice (December 30, 1997, 62 FR
67784) to include as regulated entities all manufacturers and
importers of automobile refinish coatings or coating components.
The EPA also proposed a mechanism for determining compliance with
the rule for coatings consisting of components made or imported
by multiple entities. Under this approach, manufacturers and
importers of coatings or coating components must comply with the
VOC content limits for complete coatings by calculating the VOC
content of coatings that result from the use of their components
in accordance with their recommendations.
Determining compliance for coatings consisting of components
made or imported by one regulated entity is relatively easy. In
general, compliance would be determined by "spot checking," where
the EPA (or the regulated entity, if requested by the EPA) would
obtain coating components, mix the components in the ratios
recommended by the regulated entity (on the containers or in any
product literature), and analyze the resulting coating using
Method 24. The EPA considered requiring regulated entities to
perform VOC testing of their coatings on a regular basis (e.g.,
every nth batch) to demonstrate compliance with the rule, but
believes that such a requirement would be economically
burdensome. The EPA believes that random spot checks will be
2-7
-------
adequate to encourage regulated entities to assure that all of
their coating batches are compliant.
Determining the compliance of coatings that consist of
components made or imported by multiple regulated entities is
more difficult. The EPA considered several options for
determining compliance in these cases. The EPA considered
requiring regulated entities (that recommend the use of their
components with those of other regulated entities) to use Method
24 to test the coatings resulting from their recommendations.
Using this information, the entities could establish the maximum
allowable VOC content of their components, and the EPA would spot
check components to determine compliance. However, the EPA
currently has no method for determining the VOC content of
individual components. Also, the VOC content of a coating is not
simply the sum of the VOC contents its components, so component
VOC content is not necessarily an indicator of the VOC content of
the overall coating. Therefore, the EPA believes it is
technically infeasible to determine compliance using component
VOC content information.
Because of the technical infeasibility of the approach
described above, the EPA has concluded that the responsibility
for coatings should be based on product recommendations. In
other words, if an entity recommends a combination of components
(made or imported by one or more regulated entities), then that
entity is responsible for the compliance of the resulting
coating. There may be cases where a coating resulting from an
entity's recommendation is noncompliant because of the components
of other regulated entities. Since this occurrence may be beyond
the control of the recommending entity, the Agency determined
that it would be appropriate to provide regulated entities with a
means to establish their compliance with the rule, and the Agency
solicited comments on such a mechanism. In this event, the final
rule provides regulated entities the opportunity to submit new or
existing Method 24 test data demonstrating the compliance of the
coating resulting from their recommendation. This option is
2-8
-------
technically feasible, and is appropriate since compliance is
determined in essentially the same way for all regulated
entities.
It is important to note that regulated entities would be
liable only for the VOC content of the coatings that result from
their recommendations. For example, if a regulated entity
recommends that three of its coating components be combined and
used in automobile refinishing, it is responsible for the coating
that results from that combination. If a regulated entity
recommends the substitution of one of its components for that of
another regulated entity, the former entity is responsible for
the resulting coating. A regulated entity is not responsible for
coatings resulting from the recommendations of others, even if
such recommendations involve the use of components of that
regulated entity.
Comment: One commenter (VI-B-04) requested clarification of
the term "component." The commenter questioned whether raw
materials, such as dry pigments, are considered to be components,
and whether raw material manufacturers and importers would be
regulated entities under the rule.
Response: The EPA did not intend to include raw material
manufacturers or importers as regulated entities. Although some
raw materials may affect the VOC content of coating components,
the VOC content of a coating is determined by the manufacturer
that uses raw materials in the production of coating components
supplied to distributors for sale and application by end-users.
The EPA intends to regulate automobile refinish coating component
manufacturers and importers that market such components to
distributors and end-users in the automobile refinish industry.
Raw material suppliers do not make recommendations to end-users
of coatings, but make recommendations to manufacturers of coating
components regarding the possible use of raw materials in the
production of such components. The EPA has included in the final
rule a definition for automobile refinish coating component that
excludes raw materials.
2-9
-------
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-07, VI-B-01, VI-
B-02, VI-B-05, VI-B-06, VI-B-07) supported exempting touch-up
coatings from the rule. Some of these commenters stated such
coatings are sold in small containers, applied by brush, and used
routinely for minor scratches or nicks that do not require more
extensive repair. One commenter (VI-B-07) stated that the
definition of touch-up coatings should not include an upper limit
on container size. The commenter stated that such a limit would
impose an artificial restriction on the selection of the most
economical container size, and would serve no purpose.
Response: Touch-up coatings differ from typical refinish
topcoats in that they are typically used by automobile owners to
repair minor scratches or nicks, require no mixing prior to
application, and are sold in small containers. Most touch-up
coatings are lacquers, which are exempt from the final rule.
Since touch-up coatings are an insignificant emissions source,
the EPA is exempting them in the final rule. The definition of
touch-up coatings in the final rule states that such coatings are
applied by brush, air-brush, or non-refillable aerosol can to
cover minor surface damage. This definition is very similar to
that included in the South Coast Air Quality Management District
Rule 1151. The EPA has no information indicating that touch-up
coatings are packaged in containers larger than eight ounces.
However, since the definition of such coatings states that they
are applied by brush, air-brush, or nonrefillable aerosol spray
can, it is unlikely that this coating category can be abused even
without a limit on container size. Therefore, the definition of
touch-up coatings in the final rule does not contain a limit on
container size.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-07, IV-D-13, IV-
D-14) recommended exempting coatings used at training facilities
from the rule. The commenters stated such facilities are used to
train international coatings users, some of whom use coatings
that do not meet the VOC content standards of the proposed rule.
2-10
-------
Response: Most international coating users trained in the
United States are from Mexico or Canada. The EPA has no
information indicating that coatings compliant with the national
rule cannot be used to train such users. Training for Canadian
users probably should be done with coatings compliant with the
national rule, since Canada is currently developing a similar
rule. The EPA is not exempting coatings or coating components
used at training facilities in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07) requested clarification of
applicability of the rule to coatings that are imported into the
United States and then exported to another country.
Response: The EPA did not consider in the proposed rule the
scenario described by the commenter. Coatings manufactured in
this country for export were exempted because section 183 (e) of
the Act contemplates regulation of products for sale or
distribution in the United States. The EPA does not consider it
necessary to regulate the VOC content of coatings that are
brought into the United States and subsequently shipped outside
of the United States. Therefore, the final rule includes an
exemption for coatings and coating components that are
manufactured in or outside the United States for sale or
distribution outside the United States.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) questioned whether the
rule would apply only in the 48 contiguous states, or include the
District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
Response: All States and territories are covered by the
Act. Accordingly, this rule applies to the United States of
America, including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) stated that the term
"automobile refinish coating" needs to be more fully defined.
Specifically, the commenter questioned whether a coating having
the phrase "automotive finishes" in its brand name would be
2-11
-------
considered an automobile refinish coating if no suggestion is
made on the label or in any product literature that the coating
be used for automobile refinishing.
Response: The final rule applies to automobile refinish
coating and coating component manufacturers and importers. The
final rule requires that coatings resulting from recommendations
for automobile refinish use made by manufacturers and importers
must comply with the VOC content limits of the rule. In some
product literature, the trade or brand name is the only
indication that a product is intended for automobile refinishing.
If the reference to automobile refinishing were allowed in the
trade or brand name of coatings that exceed the VOC content
standards, then noncompliant coatings could continue to be used
for automobile refinishing. The following definition was added
in the final rule for clarification:
automobile refinish coating component means any portion of a
coating, such as a reducer or thinner, hardener, additive,
etc., recommended (by its manufacturer or importer) to
distributors or end-users for automobile refinishing. The
raw materials used to produce the components that are mixed
by the end-user to prepare a coating for application are not
considered automobile refinish coating components. Any
reference to automobile refinishing made by a manufacturer
or importer on a container or in product literature
constitutes a recommendation for automobile refinishing.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-02) questioned the exemption
for original equipment coating manufacturers. The commenter
stated: "autobody shops are not exempt, so why should coating
manufacturers and assembly line operations be exempt?"
Response: Coatings used by automobile manufacturers are
different from automobile refinish coatings. Separate
regulations address the automobile industry, including New Source
Performance Standards (40 CFR, Subpart MM), and requirements for
some new or modified sources to install Best Available Control
Technology (ozone attainment areas) or achieve the Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) (ozone nonattainment areas).
Also, a source category for regulation under section 112(d) of
the Act includes auto and light duty truck surface coating. In
2-12
-------
short, these types of automobile finishing operations are
regulated by other means to achieve emissions reductions.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that the definition
of "assembly line coating operations" was too restrictive because
it does not include situations where original coating finishes
are applied without having the vehicle conveyed along a moving
belt or track. The commenter stated that in the custom van
market an original finish is applied without using a moving belt
or track.
Response: In the proposed rule there was an exemption for
coatings that are manufactured for use by original equipment
manufacturers for assembly line coating operations. Since the
meaning of this exemption is not changed by removing the
reference to assembly line coating operations, this language has
been removed in the final rule. The exemption from the final
rule is for coatings manufactured or imported for use by original
equipment manufacturers. Since van customizers apply coatings to
a vehicle that already has an original finish applied by the van
manufacturer, coating application during van customization is
considered automobile refinishing.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) stated that additives
should be exempt from the rule because there is no good mechanism
available to additive manufacturers to guarantee compliant
coatings when the end user uses additives. The commenter stated
when additives are used, only about 1 to 2 ounces per ready-to-
spray gallon are added. The commenter stated since the input of
additives on VOC is minimal, they should be exempt.
Response: For the purposes of the national rule, additives
are considered to be coating components. The VOC content limits
of the rule are for coatings prepared according to their mixing
instructions, including all components. As coating component
manufacturers or importers, additive manufacturers or importers
would only be potentially out of compliance if their
recommendation for use resulted in coatings that are
noncompliant.
2-13
-------
2.2.2 Definitions
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-01, IV-D-06, IV-D-07, IV-
D-13, IV-D-14 ) recommended the definition of specialty coatings
be revised to include the phrase "including but not limited to."
The commenters stated that such an open-ended definition would
allow refinish coating manufacturers to continue to produce new
coatings compatible with new substrates and coatings of original
equipment manufacturers (OEM) . Several of the commenters stated
that abuse of an open-ended definition is not likely because the
VOC limits of the rule are reasonable, giving coating users no
reason to use specialty coatings for purposes other than their
intended use.
Response: The EPA agrees that an open-ended definition for
specialty coatings would allow refinish coating manufacturers and
importers to produce (import) coatings compatible with new OEM
substrates and coatings; however, the EPA believes such a
definition could lead to abuse. Even with reasonable VOC limits,
an incentive to abuse an open-ended specialty coating definition
exists because noncompliant primers and topcoats could continue
to be used if they are recommended for a special purpose.
The rule allows coating manufacturers and importers to apply
for a variance if, for technical or economic reasons, they cannot
comply with the requirements of the rule. Such variances may be
obtained for new coatings that do not comply with the VOC content
standards. Variances are discussed more in section 2.2.7. An
open-ended definition of specialty coatings is not included in
the final rule.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-13, IV-D-14)
stated the definition of specialty coatings should be revised to
include "cut-in" clearcoats or "jambing" clearcoats. The
commenters stated this coating is necessary for clearcoating door
jambs and other areas of automobiles where heavy contours, seams,
or protrusions make sanding, buffing, and polishing infeasible.
The commenters stated that the use of standard clearcoats is not
practical for these areas because they dry slower, have higher
2-14
-------
film builds, and impact the gloss and texture of other areas (due
to overspray effects caused by the unique surface
configurations). Another commenter (IV-D-08) recommended the
addition of water hold-out coatings as a specialty coating, and
suggested the following definition from Rule 1151 of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD):
A water hold-out coating is a coating applied to the
interior cavity areas of doors, quarter panels and rocker
panels for the purpose of corrosion resistance to prolonged
water exposure.
Response: The final rule includes cut-in, or jambing,
clearcoats as specialty coatings. Since jambing clearcoats are
ready-to-spray, they are defined as ready-to-spray clearcoats
applied to surfaces such as door jambs and trunk and hood edges.
Water hold-out coatings are used as rust preventers, and are
applied by aerosol spray or application wand to specific areas
that are difficult to reach. Water hold-out coatings are
included in the specialty coating category of the final rule, and
the definition used in SCAQMD Rule 1151 is used in the rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) recommended either the
inclusion of low-gloss coatings in the specialty coating
category, or the revision of the current definition of anti-
glare/safety coatings to reflect that such coatings are low-gloss
and not "no" gloss.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter. In a December
30, 1997, supplemental proposal, the EPA proposed to replace
anti-glare/safety coatings with low-gloss coatings, defined as
topcoats with specular gloss values of 25 or less with a 60°
gloss meter. The EPA proposed that ASTM Test Method D 523-89 be
used for the determination of specular gloss of coatings. This
method is used by industry for this purpose. The EPA has
included the definition of "low-gloss coatings" and the above-
mentioned test method in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter (VI-B-01) stated that the EPA's
proposed use of ASTM Method 0523-89 to determine the specular
gloss of coatings is appropriate and has been used by the
2-15
-------
industry for a long time. The commenter supports the proposed
specular gloss value of 25 (on a 60° gloss meter) for defining
which coatings have low gloss. Another commenter (VI-B-07)
stated that the specular gloss value for defining low-gloss
coatings should be 50 (on a 60° gloss meter). The commenter
stated that at this value coatings are at best semi-gloss in
appearance; therefore, the higher value would not result in
cheating by allowing the use of high-VOC coatings for an
unintended purpose.
Response: The EPA has included the proposed specular gloss
value of 25 (on a 60° gloss meter) in the final rule to define
low-gloss coatings. Several State rules use this gloss value,
and the EPA assumes that coatings with gloss values higher than
25 are able to comply with those rules. The EPA therefore
believes that such coatings can comply with the final rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-08) recommended the name
"rubberized asphaltic underbody coatings" be changed to "underbody
coatings" because not all underbody coatings are based on
rubberized asphalt.
Response: The EPA agrees, and the final rule includes a
definition for underbody coatings.
2.2.3 Standards
Comment: One commenter (VI-B-03) stated that the VOC
content limits of the proposed rule do not represent "best
available controls" because more stringent requirements in some
State rules have been proven to be technologically and
economically feasible. The commenter stated that some of the
coatings formulated to meet these more stringent requirements
contain solvents, such as parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF),
that are not VOC's.
Response: The EPA agrees that some States have developed
rules with lower VOC content limits than those in the proposed
national rule. Although some States may have such rules, the EPA
is required by section 183(e) of the Act to set limits that take
into account a variety of factors. The EPA believes that the
2-16
-------
final rule represents best available controls (BAC)^. The Act
defines "best available controls" as "the degree of emissions
reduction that the Administrator determines on the basis of
technological and economic feasibility, health, and energy
impacts, is achievable." The statute thus explicitly authorizes
the EPA to take into consideration various factors and to
exercise its discretion to choose achievable VOC content limits.
In developing the rule, the EPA considered many factors in
evaluating the economic and technological feasibility of
different VOC content levels. These factors included:
• Limits in State/local regulations
• VOC content and sales information
• Performance considerations
• Cost considerations
• Market impacts
The sources of information for these factors included:
• Pre-proposal letters
• Public comments on the proposed rule
• Follow-up discussions with commenters to gather
additional technical information
• EPA expertise
Considering all these factors, the EPA concluded that the VOC
content limits in table 1 of the rule represent BAG for
automobile refinish coatings. In evaluating the degree of
emission reduction that represents BAG, the EPA took into
consideration that these requirements would apply to all areas of
the country and to all manufacturers and importers of automobile
refinish coatings and coating components within a specific time
frame (i.e., 4 months after promulgation). The EPA's process for
developing BAG was described in the proposal preamble (61 FR
19005) .
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-07, IV-D-13, IV-
D-14) stated that production of specialty coatings should not be
limited. One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that monitoring the
amount of specialty coatings would be cumbersome and difficult to
accomplish accurately, since some specialty coatings are prepared
by the mixing ordinary primers, topcoats, etc., with components
2-17
-------
that give the coating the special desired properties. Another
conmnenter (IV-D-07) stated limiting production of specialty
coatings would impair the coating manufacturers' ability to meet
the growing demand for coatings to refinish plastic parts.
Another commenter (IV-D-14) stated production of specialty
coatings should not be limited because it is a significant
portion of some companies' production. One commenter (IV-D-10)
stated that the EPA should not limit production of specialty
coatings in the rule because abuse of the category may not occur;
they suggested limiting production in the future if evidence of
abuse is discovered.
Response: In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA
discussed the difficulties associated with specialty coating
production limits. Since some specialty coatings are just
modifications of other coatings, it is unclear what should be
limited. Also, production limits would adversely affect
manufacturers and importers that produce primarily specialty
coatings. Several commenters reiterated these concerns, but no
comments were received suggesting production limits or how such
limits could be determined or enforced practically. Therefore,
the final rule does not include production limits for specialty
coatings.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-06, IV-D-07, IV-
D-13, IV-D-14) recommended clarification of a provision dealing
with coatings having multiple uses. One commenter (IV-D-06)
stated that a topcoat modified for a specific purpose, thus
making it a specialty coating, can be interpreted to be
noncompliant under the current provision if it does not meet the
topcoat limit, which is the lowest applicable VOC content
standard.
Response: To avoid confusion, the EPA has removed the
provision mentioned by the commenters. The EPA's intent in the
proposed provision was to clarify that if the same combination
and mixing ratio of coating components were recommended for use
in more than one coating category, then the lowest VOC content
2-18
-------
standard would apply. Different combinations and/or mixing
ratios of coating components are considered different coatings.
The modified topcoat described by a commenter is not considered a
topcoat if it meets the definition of a specialty coating;
therefore, it would not be required to meet the topcoat VOC
content standard. A provision has been added to the final rule
(§ 59.102(b)) for clarification.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-06, IV-D-07, IV-
D-13, IV-D-14) suggested the use of English units for VOC
content, because they claim that this is the industry standard.
Response: The EPA agrees that information in English units
would be helpful, and English units have been included in the
final rule. The English units are provided for information only.
Compliance will be determined based on the VOC content limit, as
expressed in metric units.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-06, IV-D-07, IV-
D-10, IV-D-14) supported the VOC content limit proposed for
primers and primer surfacers. The commenters stated that the
proposed limit is necessary to maintain productivity within the
refinish industry for all ambient conditions, and will enable the
use of tintable primers that assist in color matching, resulting
in lower VOC emissions because less topcoat is necessary to
achieve the desired color. One commenter (IV-D-07) stated that
since primer sealers are also tintable, they should have the same
VOC content standard as primers and primer surfacers.
Response: The EPA has adopted the VOC content limit
proposed for primers and primer surfacers in the final rule. The
EPA does not agree that primer sealers require the same VOC limit
as primers and primer surfacers; information available to the EPA
indicates there are tintable primer sealers capable of complying
with the VOC content standard in the proposed rule.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-13, IV-D-14)
encouraged the inclusion of a separate category, and a VOC
content standard of 5.5 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating, for
precoat primers. One commenter (IV-D-14) stated that precoat
2-19
-------
primers are needed for cut through areas where bare metal has
been exposed in order to pacify the metal before waterborne
coatings are applied. The commenter stated there has been some
confusion about the ability of a pretreatment coating to serve
the same purpose as a precoat. The commenter stated that a
pretreatment primer is not recommended for application over
existing paint films because of its acidity. This commenter also
stated that State rules that currently recognize precoats might
be invalidated by the absence of the coating category in the
national rule.
Response: The EPA has no information indicating a need for
a separate category for coatings applied to bare metal prior to
waterborne coating application, and the final rule does not
include such a category. Metal conditioners can be used to
prevent corrosion to "cut through" bare metal surfaces, or a
regular primer can be applied. Also, information available to
the EPA indicates that some pretreatment primers can be applied
over existing painted surfaces. One of the first rules for
automobile refinishing was SCAQMD Rule 1151. This rule contained
a precoat category with the VOC limit suggested by the
commenters. The precoat category was removed from this rule in
January 1995. Reported abuses of the precoat category
contributed to its removal. The EPA does not view the exclusion
of a precoat category as an invalidation of some State rules.
The EPA views it as merely a situation where the Federal rule is
more stringent than some State rules.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-11, VI-B-01, VI-B-02, VI-
B-05) stated support for a separate coating category in the rule
for multi-colored topcoats, which are wear-resistant coatings
used mainly for lining the cargo beds of pickup trucks and other
utility vehicles. One commenter (IV-D-11) stated that the SCAQMD
rule 1151 has a separate category and VOC content standard (5.7
Ib. VOC/gal. coating) for multi-colored topcoats, and recommended
the EPA either include a separate category for these coatings or
include them in the definition of specialty coatings. Another
2-20
-------
coinmenter (VI-B-01) stated that the term "multi-colored splatter
finish" would better describe the function of such a coating.
The cortunenter suggested the following definition: "multi-colored
splatter finish means a coating that exhibits more than one
color, that is packaged in a single container, and that
camouflages surface defects on areas of heavy use, such as cargo
beds and other surfaces of trucks and other utility vehicles."
Response: The EPA has considered the issues raised by the
commenters and has modified the rule accordingly. Because of
their special use as protective coatings, multi-colored topcoats
could be classified as specialty coatings. However, since such
coatings can meet a VOC content standard lower than that for
specialty coatings, they are included in a separate category in
the final rule. The EPA has no information indicating multi-
colored topcoats can meet VOC content standards lower than the
limit recommended by the commenter.
The EPA believes that the term "multi-colored topcoat" is
satisfactory in describing such coatings. The word "splatter" is
ambiguous, and the EPA does not believe that it would better
describe such coatings. The EPA is, however, revising the
definition of multi-colored topcoats in the final rule to be more
consistent with some State rules, and to address the public
comments. The definition in the final rule states that such
coatings exhibit more than one color, are packaged in a single
container, and camouflage surface defects on areas of heavy use,
such as cargo beds and other surfaces of trucks and other utility
vehicles.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-08) suggested the addition of
a separate coating category for impact-resistant coatings,
instead of including them in the specialty coatings category.
The commenter stated that waterborne and solventborne impact-
resistant coatings have been developed with VOC contents lower
than 250 grams VOC/liter coating, and that such coatings dry
without heating or forced drying. However, the commenter
recommended a VOC content limit of 840 grams VOC/liter coating
2-21
-------
until January 1, 1998, when the commenter claimed that all
impact-resistant coatings would be capable of meeting the lower
limit. The commenter suggests the same be done for underbody
coatings.
Response: The EPA appreciates the interest of the commenter
in reducing potential VOC emissions from these coatings, but the
EPA has concluded that the suggested changes are not appropriate
at this time. Impact-resistant coatings and underbody coatings
were included in the specialty coating category in the proposed
rule because of their special uses, and because the EPA had no
information indicating that most of such coatings could meet a
lower VOC limit. Information supplied by the commenter indicates
that there are waterborne impact-resistant coatings and underbody
coatings capable of meeting the limit suggested by the commenter;
however, in low temperature and/or high humidity situations, such
coatings could have significant dry times. Drying equipment may
be necessary for the use of such coatings in some situations.
The EPA has no information indicating that there are solventborne
coatings for such purposes that can meet the VOC limit suggested
by the commenter. Impact-resistant coatings and underbody
coatings are in the specialty coatings category in the final
rule.
2.2.4 Compliance Requirements
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-08) supported delaying the
compliance date of the rule to allow companies to prepare and
submit variance applications, and possibly to receive variances,
before the compliance date of the rule. The commenter also
recommended explicit provisions that would protect companies from
enforcement action while variance applications are being reviewed
by the EPA. The commenter stated that air pollution districts in
California typically do not take enforcement action when a
variance application is pending. The commenter suggested the
following addition to the variance provisions of the rule:
Where a person has applied for a variance, no notices of
violation shall be issued during the period between the date
2-22
-------
of filing for the variance and the date of decision by the
EPA, for violations covered by the variance application.
Response: As discussed in section 2.2.7, variances were
included in the rule mainly because new automobile substrates or
coatings may necessitate the development of new compatible
refinish coatings, and there is no way to determine prospectively
whether all new refinish coatings can comply with the VOC content
limits of the rule. Regulated entities may thus need additional
time to formulate compliant coatings in such situations, which
would be available through the variance procedure. Since most,
if not all, of the concerns over coatings that may not be able to
comply with the rule have been addressed in the rulemaking
process, the EPA does not expect that regulated entities that
will need to obtain variances before the compliance date of the
rule.
While the rule is silent on the issue of whether a regulated
entity is in violation while a variance application is pending,
the EPA will bear the commenter's concern in mind in reviewing
such applications. It is generally not the EPA's practice to
take enforcement action against a source that has filed a good
faith variance request until the Agency has acted upon the
request negatively.
2.2.5 Labeling Requirements
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-07, IV-D-13, IV-
D-14) recommended that the labeling provisions be revised to
allow the date or batch code to appear on the bottom of the
coating container. The commenters stated that labels sometimes
peel off, and the lids of some coating containers (e.g., toners)
are sometimes replaced with lids that allow for the mixing and
agitation of the coating.
Response: The EPA agrees that it is appropriate to allow
the required information to appear on alternative places on the
product to avoid such problems. Accordingly, the final rule
requires the date or batch code appear on a coating component
2-23
-------
container or package, but the rule does specify where on the
container it must appear.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that clarification
was needed in the proposed rule to emphasize that the requirement
for batch/date codes on coating containers applies only to
coating manufacturers and importers. The commenter provided an
example where a coating distributor prepares a custom color for a
user, which involves mixing several coating components. The
commenter noted that although the components may have batch/date
codes on their original containers, the prepared coating may be
placed in a separate container with no such codes. The commenter
stated that coating manufacturers and importers have no control
over, and should not be liable for, what distributors or coating
users may do with coatings.
Response: The applicability provisions state that
manufacturers and importers are subject to the rule.
Distributors are not subject to the rule. Compliance with the
labeling provisions of the rule would be determined by inspecting
the coating components as supplied by a manufacturer or importer,
not as supplied by a distributor.
2.2.6 Reporting Requirements
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07) stated that the rule does
not identify where regulated entities are to send the required
reports. The same commenter requested confirmation that no
reports will be required other than those specified in the
proposed rule. Another commenter (IV-D-10) expressed concern
about the minimal reporting requirements of the rule, and
recommended that the EPA consider requiring submittal of reports
that include the mixing instructions and VOC content of coatings
subject to the rule. The commenter stated this information would
be helpful in detecting regulatory misunderstandings or
misinterpretations on the part of coating manufacturers and
importers.
Response: The proposed rule did not identify where reports
are to be submitted, but the final rule includes these addresses.
2-24
-------
The rule specifies exactly what information is required to be
reported. Compliance with the VOC content limits of the rule
will be determined by "spot-checking" regulated entities, and the
EPA believes that there will be sufficient information available
from the regulated entity at the time of spot-checking to
determine product recommendations and mixing instructions. To
determine which coatings each regulated entity manufactures or
imports, the EPA has included in the final rule a requirement to
submit in the initial report a list of coating types manufactured
or imported by the entity.
2.2.7 Variances
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-06, IV-D-13, IV-
D-14) supported including variance provisions in the final rule,
but some stated that the proposed provisions should be revised to
allow permanent variances for situations where a coating is
needed to refinish a new substrate or OEM finish. One commenter
(IV-D-10) stated that variances are not needed because the
proposed rule is not technology-forcing; compliant products have
been available for years.
Response: Because of the need to provide for new coatings,
the EPA has retained the temporary variance provisions. The
allowance of permanent variances was considered, but rejected
because it may remove the incentive for the formulation of new
compliant coatings. The temporary variances allowed in the final
rule can last up to five years, which the EPA believes should
allow manufacturers sufficient time to develop compliant
coatings. In the event that a regulated entity developed a new
coating that genuinely could not meet the limits of the rule
after the expiration of a variance, that entity could petition
the EPA to consider revision of the rule or extension of a
variance.
With respect to the other commenter, the EPA notes that
although the rule is not currently technology-forcing, it could
be in the future if new automobile substrates or coatings
necessitate the development of compatible refinish coatings. The
2-25
-------
EPA believes it is appropriate to include a variance mechanism
for such situations. The EPA considered having an open-ended
definition of specialty coatings that would allow the addition of
new coatings; however, this option was not chosen because of the
potential abuse of such a definition.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-06, IV-D-13)
stated that the proposed rule did not address the likelihood
that, after the compliance date, there would be an imbalance of
available stock that needs to be used. If these coatings are not
used, then significant amounts of solid waste will be created.
An example provided by one commenter (IV-D-13) is the use of
multiple tinting colors to create a topcoat. The commenter
stated that some of these colors will be depleted before others,
and that if no more is allowed to be produced, users would have
to dispose of the remaining colors. This commenter suggested
that the EPA include a mechanism by which, after the compliance
date, sufficient amounts of noncompliant coatings can be produced
to "re-balance" existing inventories. The commenter suggested a
provision requiring manufacturers to notify the EPA, 30 days in
advance, that a specific amount of noncompliant coatings will be
produced to balance existing stocks. Another commenter (IV-D-05)
stated that such re-balancing can be achieved using the variance
provisions of the proposed rule, but the variance would need to
be approved quickly, in less than eight weeks.
Response: The EPA does not believe that there will be
significant imbalances in existing stock after the compliance
date of the rule. Most State rules contain VOC content limits
identical to the national rule. These State rules typically have
not caused products to be removed from the market, but have
instead caused modification of existing coatings. The tinting
colors used before the compliance date of the rule likely will be
used after the compliance date. For the few products expected to
be removed from the market that may require "re-balancing," the
anticipated national rule compliance date of December 1998 should
2-26
-------
provide coating manufacturers and importers ample time for this
purpose.
2.2.8 Test Methods
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-06, IV-D-07, IV-
D-13, IV-D-14, VI-B-03) stated that EPA Method 24 should be
updated to account for the exclusion of acetone and other exempt
compounds. Several commenters stated that alternate test methods
or coating formulation data should be included as a means of
determining VOC content. One commenter (IV-D-05) stated that VOC
content standards can not be defined beyond two significant
figures because of the uncertainty associated with EPA Method 24.
Response: EPA Method 24 includes a method for determining
the amount of exempt compounds in coatings, but does not
specifically mention acetone because it was just recently added
to the list of exempt compounds. However, the method can be used
to determine the amount of acetone in coatings.
Regulated entities may use any means to determine VOC
content to ensure themselves of their compliance, including the
use of formulation data. However, since formulation data does
not account for "cure volatiles" that may be emitted during the
chemical reactions that occur in many coatings, Method 24 will
govern if there are any inconsistencies between the results of a
Method 24 test and any other means for determining VOC content.
The EPA notes that it may use other credible evidence to
establish violation of the rule. The EPA agrees that Method 24
is accurate to two significant figures. The VOC content limits
in the final rule contain only two significant figures.
Comment: Several commenters (VI-B-01, VI-B-02, VI-B-07)
agreed with the EPA's proposal to determine the acid content of
pretreatment wash primers by using ASTM Method 1613-91 to
determine the acid content of the non-pigmented component of such
primers. However, one commenter (VI-B-01) stated that paint
companies are attempting to develop single component pretreatment
wash primers, since single component coatings are easier to use.
The commenter stated that the EPA should allow a regulated entity
2-27
-------
to sell such coatings if it submits to the EPA an effective,
repeatable method for determining acid content.
Response: ASTM Method 1613-96 is the most current version
of the method for determining acid content, and the final rule
references this version. The proposed rule stated that the
Administrator may approve, on a case-by-case basis, alternative
methods of determining the VOC content of coatings. The final
rule makes this provision more general to allow the use of
alternative methods for determining acid content and specular
gloss.
2.2.9 Miscellaneous
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-02) did not support the rule,
stating that automobile refinish coatings are not a significant
source of VOC's, and that they do not contribute to the formation
of ozone. This commenter stated that automobile exhaust is
responsible for pollution, not automobile refinish coatings.
Response: The EPA has concluded that VOC emissions from
consumer and commercial products, which include automobile
refinish coatings, have the potential to contribute to ozone
nonattainment, based on the section 183(e) study and a large body
of scientific knowledge on photochemical reactivity and the role
of VOC in ozone formation.
The EPA is not alone in its assessment. A 1989 report by
the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, "Catching Our
Breath: Next Steps for Reducing Urban Ozone," identified VOC
emissions from solvents in paints and coatings, and from other
types of products, as a significant contributor to the ozone
pollution problem that had largely escaped regulation at the
federal level. Several states have moved on their own to limit
VOC emissions from paints and coatings because they contribute to
ozone pollution. In June 1997, the 37-state Ozone Transport
Assessment Group (OTAG) recommended that the EPA proceed with
finalizing the proposed national rules for architectural
coatings, consumer products, and automobile refinish coatings,
2-28
-------
and even develop more stringent future requirements for these
categories.
The following considerations and scientific studies are
among those supporting the EPA's position that the VOC in
consumer and commercial products have the potential to contribute
to the ozone pollution problem:
• Ozone pollution is caused by the reaction of VOC and
nitrogen oxides (NOx). All VOC species have the potential
to form ozone (i.e., are reactive) to some degree. Since
the late 1940s, the scientific community has recognized this
basic tenet of atmospheric chemistry. For example, the 1996
EPA document entitled "Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants" and its 1970 and 1977
predecessors include discussions of the atmospheric
chemistry leading to formation of ozone and the important
role of VOC in that formation. These documents have been
extensively reviewed by independent scientific experts on
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
• The EPA's consumer and commercial products study includes a
broad inventory of VOC emissions from consumer and
commercial products. The study showed that emissions from
consumer and commercial products in 1990 were large --an
estimated 28 percent of total manmade VOC emissions
nationwide. In ozone nonattainment areas, these emissions
in 1990 totaled 3.3 million tons per year. These totals
consist of contributions from a large number of individual
pollution sources that are relatively small. About 97,400
tons per year of VOC's are emitted from the application of
automobile refinish coatings
• In the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress established a
program requiring the EPA to regulate volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from consumer and commercial
products because these emissions were an increasingly large
percentage of the man-made VOC emissions, the EPA had not
previously regulated them, and industry was starting to be
faced with a "patchwork" of State regulations of these
products. EPA and State regulations have long controlled
both Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and VOC emissions to reduce ozone
levels. However, these previous control strategies focused
on stationary sources (e.g., factories) and motor vehicles.
In this context, it is relevant to note that the types of
VOC in consumer and commercial products are not unique - -
these same VOC are among the pollutants emitted by major
industrial facilities. Consumer and commercial products are
made from VOC-containing chemical feed stocks made at
chemical manufacturing plants and refineries, for which VOC
2-29
-------
emission control regulations are comprehensive and
stringent.
These issues are discussed in more detail in the other document
supporting this rule, the "Response to Comments on Section 183(e)
Study and Report to Congress" (EPA-453/R-98-007).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) asked the EPA to explain
how the proposed rule will affect existing State automobile
refinish rules. Some commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-13, IV-D-14)
stated that Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District
Rule 66 (Rule 66) is inconsistent with the proposed national rule
because it considers the photochemical reactivity of compounds,
whereas the national rule does not. One commenter (IV-D-14)
stated that reconciling the national rule with such inconsistent
ancient State requirements would be disruptive to industry.
Response: Section 183(e) of the Act directs the EPA to
promulgate rules to reduce VOC emissions from consumer and
commercial products, including automobile refinish coatings.
These rules do not preempt any existing or future State or local
rules. Thus any existing State or local rules shall remain in
effect, unless the relevant State or locality chooses to rescind
them. If the national rule is more stringent than a State or
local rule, then regulated entities must comply with it. If
State or local rules are more stringent than the national rule,
then regulated entities must comply with them as well. The EPA
notes that several State and local air pollution agencies have
developed automobile refinish rules over the past several years.
With the exception of California rules, most State rules contain
VOC content standards very similar to those in the proposed
national rule. California districts generally have rules more
stringent than the national rule.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-02, IV-D-05, IV-D-06, IV-
D-13, IV-D-14) stated that the EPA's cost estimates are
misleading because they do not reflect the cost increase for
"ready-to-spray" coatings. One commenter (IV-D-13) asserted that
coating manufacturers will be perceived as price gouging their
2-30
-------
customers since the EPA's estimated cost increase is much lower
than the cost increase for ready-to-spray coatings. This
commenter also disagreed with the EPA's contention that the rule
will have no productivity impacts on body shops. The commenter
stated that although many shops currently use coatings not
significantly different from compliant coatings, about 30% of
shops use cheaper, more productive coating formulations that are
easier to apply, faster drying, and easier to sand. The
commenter claimed that some of these coatings would be eliminated
under the proposed rule. Another commenter (IV-D-05) stated that
cost increases for compliant coatings result from research and
development, coating production process modifications, training,
and raw materials. This commenter also stated that in parallel
to solvent reduction, compliant coatings will be applied with
higher solids content, making the expensive portions of the
coating more concentrated. This higher solids concentration will
translate to less coating being needed to complete a job, but the
apparent price will be higher.
Response: The cost per gallon of coating was estimated
simply by dividing the annual cost of the national rule by the
number of gallons of coatings used annually. The purpose of such
an estimate was to roughly gauge how the total cost of the rule
compares to the cost of coatings. The annual cost of the rule,
as stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, consists of
training costs and manufacturer process modification costs.
Research and development costs were not included because coatings
compliant with the national rule have already been developed to
comply with State and local rules or for other reasons.
The EPA agrees that the estimated increase in cost per
gallon of coating could be misleading. The "ready-to-spray" (or
apparent) costs of coatings vary significantly. Since
conventional coatings have relatively high solvent content, the
amount of surface coverage achievable with such coatings is lower
than that of coatings with less solvent content. The amount of
surface coverage of coatings should be considered when
2-31
-------
determining the actual cost of a coating. For example, a coating
with twice the surface coverage and apparent cost of another
coating has the same actual cost, because the same amount of
coating covers twice the surface area. The EPA did not intend to
suggest that coating users would always have a small increase in
apparent costs, but the EPA anticipates that the actual cost
increase will be nominal.
The EPA does not agree that the national rule will have
productivity impacts, even though some coatings dry faster than
others. According to a 1993 Automatic Data Processing refinish
study (IV-j-l), even though there are specific differences
attributed to various steps within each paint type, there is no
significant difference displayed in overall refinish time that
could be attributed to paint type.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-16) stated that proper control
of the transfer of VOC products through the distribution and
usage chain must be achieved before any meaningful reduction in
VOC emissions is realized. The commenter believes that the EPA
must establish the procedural means to limit the transfer of
products containing VOC's to those who are properly trained and
certified to sell, apply, and dispose of such products, similar
to the EPA's approach to control the sale of products containing
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's). The commenter stated that the EPA
should limit the sale of coatings to commercial entities with
controlled air spray systems, spray gun cleaners, and enclosed
containers for storing clean-up and surface preparation materials
and contaminated cloth and paper.
Response: The EPA does not agree that the sale of coatings
must be restricted to trained, certified users to achieve VOC
reductions. The VOCs present in coatings will eventually be
emitted to the atmosphere regardless of whether coatings are
applied by a private citizen or a professional painter at a body
shop. The EPA believes the best way to reduce VOC emissions from
these products is to lower the VOC content of coatings. The
amount of CFCs emitted to the atmosphere from air conditioning
2-32
-------
system recharging depends on an individual's skill and
experience; therefore, emission reduction strategies for CFCs are
different from those for VOCs.
Although a private citizen will not likely obtain the
services of a licensed waste hauler to dispose of waste coatings,
many communities have recycling centers that accept them. The
authority of the Act under which the national rule is written
does not allow for the regulation of coating users. However, the
EPA encourages the use of spray gun cleaners and high-transfer-
efficiency spray guns by coating users.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) recognized that the
authority under which the national rule is written does not allow
the issuance of a regulation regarding the work practices of
painters, such as the use of high volume low pressure (HVLP)
spray equipment and enclosed spray gun cleaners. The commenter
stated that these practices are the easiest and most cost-
effective methods for reducing emissions from body shops. The
commenter stated that the final rule should include an
endorsement of work practices.
Response: As the commenter recognizes, the EPA does not
have the authority to regulate coating users under section 183 (e)
of the Act. However, the EPA encourages coating users to reduce
emissions any way they can. The EPA agrees that work practices
and equipment described by the commenter are cost-effective ways
to reduce emissions.
Comment; One commenter (VI-B-01) stated that requiring
regulated entities to perform an annual certification of their
coatings would help to ensure compliance. The commenter also
stated that requiring regulated entities to provide users with
compliance materials, such as wall charts for body shops, would
reinforce the use of compliant coatings. Another commenter (VI-
B-07) stated that the EPA should issue guidance for States to
consider adopting that would allow enforcement of the VOC limits
at the distributor and end-user levels. The commenter stated
2-33
-------
that State adoption of such guidance will assist in complying
with the VOC limits of the national rule.
Response: The EPA believes that coating certifications (by
coating component manufacturers and importers) may help ensure
compliance with State rules. Since end-users subject to State
rules have the opportunity to use either compliant or
noncompliant coatings, information from coating certifications,
wall charts, etc., can assist them in determining which coatings
are compliant. Of course, the certifications do not prevent end-
users from using noncompliant coatings, but they do inform the
State and the end-user of the compliant coatings are being sold
in the regulated area. For the national rule, all coatings must
be compliant. Therefore, the EPA sees less value in coating
certifications that explain which coatings are compliant. The
final rule does not include requirements for coating
certifications.
As one of the commenters acknowledges, the EPA does not have
the authority under section 183(e) of the Act to regulate end-
users. However, the EPA published an Alternative Control
Techniques document in April 1994 (document no. EPA/R-94-031) for
automobile refinishing that described various ways to achieve VOC
emission reductions at the end-user level. Several States used
this guidance in developing rules for automobile refinishing.
Some of the State rules contain the same VOC content limits as
the proposed national rule. The EPA believes that there is
information available to the States that would allow them to
implement their own control and enforcement measures for
automobile refinishing.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10) stated that the
EPA should continue to consider VOC emissions in attainment areas
in cost-effectiveness calculations. One of the commenters (IV-D-
09) stated VOC emissions reductions in attainment areas should
not be ignored because VOC's can be transported to nonattainment
areas. Another commenter (IV-F-01) stated, "Congress wanted EPA
to examine the cost-effectiveness of controlling consumer and
2-34
-------
commercial product VOCs that potentially contribute to ozone
areas which violate the ozone standard."
Response: Cost-effectiveness is a measure used to compare
alternative strategies for reducing pollutant emissions, or to
provide a comparison of a new strategy with historical
strategies. The EPA's established method of calculating cost-
effectiveness of a rule with nationwide applicability is to
divide the total cost of the rule by total emissions reductions.
In the proposed rule, the EPA requested comment on alternatives
to this method, including basing cost-effectiveness on VOC
reductions in ozone nonattainment areas only, and basing it on
seasonal(versus year-round) VOC reductions. After considering
these comments, The EPA does not plan to adopt alternative
approaches to calculating cost-effectiveness for rules with
nationwide control requirements, for reasons that are presented
below.
One issue is whether the EPA's traditional measure creates a
bias against strategies that apply in a limited geographic area
(e.g. in nonattainment areas) relative to nationwide strategies,
or against seasonal strategies relative to year-round strategies.
This issue would arise if the Agency used cost-effectiveness
figures to compare the desirability of these dissimilar types of
strategies. In fact, the EPA did not use cost-effectiveness
estimates in this way in developing the automobile refinish
coatings rule. In the case of the automobile refinish coatings
rule, the EPA considered applying restrictions to such coatings
only in nonattainment areas (either by rule or through control
techniques guidelines for states). The Agency believes that
geographically targeted restrictions for these nationally
distributed products would pose substantial implementation
difficulties for government, would impose substantial compliance
burdens on regulated entities, and would be less effective at
reducing emissions than a national rule. Because the EPA
believes that a strategy applicable only to nonattainment areas
would be less desirable than a national rule, the EPA did not see
2-35
-------
a need to invest resources to pursue that strategy and calculate
its cost-effectiveness.
Another issue is whether the alternative methodology is
appropriate for comparing nationwide and target geographic
strategies, and year-round and seasonal strategies, for reducing
ozone pollution. The EPA believes that these alternative
methodologies would not be appropriate for such comparisons. The
EPA has the following concerns with the two alternative
approaches:
• First, VOC emission reductions have benefits other than
reducing ozone levels in nonattainment areas. As a
result, The EPA believes the cost-effectiveness
calculation for a nationwide, year-round rule should
not exclude VOC emission reductions in attainment areas
or outside the ozone season. The EPA recognizes a
primary objective of Section 183(e) of the Clean Air
Act is to reduce VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment
areas. However, as previously explained, in the
development of the automobile refinish coatings rule
the EPA believes that the best policy alternative is to
implement a nationwide rule. Therefore, emission
reductions from this rule will not only be realized in
ozone nonattainment areas, but also in all other parts
of the country in which such products are distributed
and consumed.
In general, the benefits of VOC reductions in ozone
attainment areas include reductions in emissions of VOC
air toxics, reductions in the contribution from VOC
emissions to the formation of fine particulate matter,
and reductions in damage to agricultural crops, forests
and ecosystems from ozone exposure. Emission
reductions in attainment areas help to maintain clean
air as the economy grows and new pollution sources come
into existence. Also, ozone health benefits can result
from reductions in attainment areas, although the most
certain health effects from ozone exposure below the
NAAQS appear to be both transient and reversible. The
closure letter from the Clean Air Science Advisory
Committee (CASAC) for the recent review of the ozone
NAAQS states that there is no apparent threshold for
biological responses to ozone exposure [Source: U.S.
EPA; Review of NAAQS for Ozone, Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff
Paper; document number: EPA-452\R-96-007].
2-36
-------
• Second, under either alternative approach, emission
reductions in ozone attainment areas would not be
included in the calculation. This appears to imply
that emissions reductions in attainment areas do not
contribute to cleaner air in nonattainment areas. VOC
sources in regions adjacent to nonattainment areas may
contribute to ozone levels in nonattainment areas. As
a result, a cost-effectiveness comparison based on the
alternative approaches sometimes could create a bias
against a nationwide rule relative to a strategy that
applies in nonattainment areas only.
The EPA also considers it impractical to apply a
weighting factor to account for differences in the
extent to which emissions inside and outside
nonattainment areas contribute to ozone formation in
nonattainment areas. The EPA is concerned that in
order to calculate cost-effectiveness using this
concept, the Agency would have to conduct extensive and
costly air quality modeling to estimate ozone
reductions resulting from each candidate control
strategy and that this would require extensive data on
the location of emissions. Such detailed analysis is
appropriate for some policy decisions, but not for
others. As a result, The EPA is skeptical that this
weighting approach would represent a generally useful
analytical tool for decision making.
The EPA, of course, agrees that differences in the location
and timing of emission reductions are a significant consideration
in choosing among alternative strategies. The extent of ozone
reductions and other benefits resulting from VOC emission
reductions varies, partly based on location and season. In
considering nationwide vs. geographically targeted controls, and
year-round vs. seasonal controls, the Agency considers available
information on the effectiveness of those strategies in reducing
ozone - - as well as other health and environmental
considerations, economic considerations, and other relevant
factors --in making a holistic assessment of which strategy is
most desirable from an overall public policy standpoint.
There are instances where the EPA does provide an estimate
of cost-effectiveness of a control strategy during the ozone
season -- generally, when a control strategy is feasible to apply
on a seasonal basis, or when limits are set on a seasonal basis.
2-37
-------
Although these figures are useful for comparing different
seasonal strategies, The EPA does not plan to use cost-
effectiveness figures for inappropriate (i.e., apple to orange)
comparisons between seasonal and year-round strategies for the
183(e) program for the reasons presented above. In regard to the
automobile refinish coatings rule, the EPA notes that the nature
of the emissions does not allow for control strategies that
reduce emissions only during the ozone season to be an objective
for consideration. One reason is that the shelf life and
consumption rate of automobile refinish coatings varies greatly
and one cannot predict that a certain percentage of a product
made with a specified formulation will be consumed and thus
emitted during the ozone season. Because the EPA has concluded
that an ozone season-based approach is not a viable control
strategy for such products, the EPA did not believe it was
appropriate to develop a seasonal-based approach to measuring
cost-effectiveness for the automobile refinish coatings rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-01) stated it is unfair to
single out waterborne coatings as having potential to increase
water pollution. The commenter asserted that waterborne coatings
are sold with clear instructions to dispose of waste materials
according to local laws using a licensed waste hauler.
Response: The EPA did not mean to imply that waterborne
coating users are more likely to pollute than solventborne
coating users. The EPA is merely suggesting that if a coating
user does not dispose of waste according to applicable laws or
regulations, waterborne coatings, since they are water soluble,
are more likely to be poured down a drain than solventborne
coatings. In identifying potential adverse environmental
impacts, the EPA believes that it is appropriate to include this
as a consideration.
2-38
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, 1L 60604-3590
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-453/R-96-011b
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Automobile Refinishing — Background Information
for Promulgated Standards
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
August 1998
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A final rule for the regulation of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from automobile refmishing is being
promulgated under the authority of Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act. This document contains comments
received from the public, and the EPA's responses to these comments.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Volatile Organic Compounds
Automobile Refinishing
Consumer and Commercial Products
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified 45
Release Unlimited 20 SECURITY CLASS ^
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
2-39
------- |