& EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-453/R-99-003
July 1999
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/
183 e/aim/aimpg. html
Air
SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE GUIDE
National Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Standards for Architectural
Coatings
-------
Small Entity Compliance Guide
Disclaimer
This guide was prepared pursuant to section 212 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121. This guide is
intended solely to help regulated entities comply with the published national regulation,
"National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings"
(Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 176, pages 48848-48887, September 11, 1998,
included here in Appendix A). Technical corrections were published on June 30, 1999
(Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 125, pages 34997-35002, included here in Appendix A.)
This guide is not intended to replace the regulation and corrections and may not
cover all parts of the regulation and corrections. Final authority rests solely with the
regulation and corrections to the regulation. However, in any civil or administrative
action against a small business, small government, or small non-profit organization for a
violation of the architectural coatings regulation, the content of this guide may be
considered as evidence of the reasonableness or appropriateness of proposed fines,
penalties or damages.
Acknowledgments
This document was prepared by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and approved for publication. This
document was provided for review to State Small Business Assistance Programs, the
Small Business Administration, the National Paint and Coatings Association, and a
number of small business owners.
-------
Small Entity Compliance Guide
CONTENTS
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION 7
1.1 Who should use this guide? 8
1.2 What does the guide cover? 8
1.3 How do I use the guide? 9
1.4 How do I obtain a complete copy of the regulation? 10
2.0 WHAT DOES THE REGULATION REQUIRE? 11
2.1 What environmental or human health issues does this regulation
address? 11
2.2 Why is it important to regulate architectural coatings? 13
2.3 Summary of the architectural coatings regulation 14
2.4 How do I demonstrate compliance? 19
2.5 Compliance timetable 20
2.6 How does the national architectural coatings regulation relate to State and
local requirements? 21
3.0 STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE REGULATION 23
3.1 How do I determine if I am subject to the regulation? 24
3.1.1 Am I a manufacturer? 25
3.1.2 Am I an importer? 26
3.1.3 Is the coating that I manufacture or import an architectural
coating? 27
3.1.4 Is the architectural coating that I manufacture or import exempt
from the regulation? 29
3.1.5 How does the regulation apply to me if I am a toll manufacturer or a
private-label manufacturer? 30
3.2 What requirements must I meet? 37
3.3 When do I need to comply? 39
3.4 What do I need to do to comply? 40
3.5 How do I determine the category for my coating? 41
3.6 How do I determine the VOC content of my coating? 42
3.7 What must I do if all of my coatings meet the VOC content limits? .... 49
3.8 How can I use the tonnage exemption? 51
3.9 How can I use the exceedance fee? 57
3.10 How can I use more than one compliance option? 64
3.11 What reports and records are required? 71
3.12 How do I comply with the container labeling requirements? 76
3.13 How does the regulation affect me if I apply traffic markings? 78
-------
Small Entity Compliance Guide
4.0 OTHER QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 81
4.1 How might I conduct a self-audit to help me evaluate whether I am in
compliance with this regulation? 81
4.2 If I am subject to this regulation, do I have to obtain a Federal
operating permit? 84
4.3 What are the implications for my existing operating permits? 84
4.4 What is pollution prevention and how can it affect my operations? ... 85
4.5 Are there opportunities for flexibility or waivers? 86
4.6 Where do I go for further assistance? 86
5.0 THE COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE PROCESS 87
5.1 How will EPA determine compliance? 87
5.2 If I discover a violation, how can I work with the EPA to correct it? ... 88
5.3 If EPA discovers a violation, what might be its response? 89
5.4 What is the legal status of this guide? 90
-------
Small Entity Compliance Guide
FIGURES
Figure
1 Volatile organic compound (VOC) content limits for architectural
coatings 17
2 State and local architectural coatings regulations 22
3 Who is responsible when more than one coating company is
involved in manufacturing a coating? 31
4 What must I do if all of my coatings meet the VOC content limits? 50
5 How can I use the tonnage exemption? 53
6 How can I use the exceedance fee? 58
7 Self-audit checklist for determining compliance 82
-------
Small Entity Compliance Guide
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:
Appendix H:
Appendix I:
Appendix J:
Appendix K:
Appendix L:
Final rule: National Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Architectural Coatings (40 CFR Part 59, Subpart D,
63 FR 48848, September 11,1998)
Final rule; corrections and amendments. National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings;
Correction (40 CFR Part 59, Subpart D, 64 FR 34997, June 30,
1999)
Fact sheets for each architectural coating category, including the
definitions and VOC content limits
Summary of the exceptions to meeting the most restrictive coating
category VOC content limit
Organic compounds that have been exempted from EPA's
definition of a VOC in 40 CFR 51.100
EPA's Test Method 24: Determination of volatile matter content,
water content, density, volume solids, and weight solids of surface
coatings
When do I include or exclude water, exempt compounds, and
colorant from my coating VOC and volume calculations?
EPA Regional Office addresses for information and sending
notifications, reports, and fees
Worksheets for estimating and computing total mass of VOC for
the tonnage exemption and calculating exceedance fees
Initial notification report template
Contacts and resources
Glossary
Questionnaire: How useful was this guide?
-------
1.0 Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
After reading this introduction, you should know whether you need to use
this guide, what this guide covers, and where to get the latest information on
the regulation.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the regulation
entitled "National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural
Coatings" (Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 176, pages 48848-48887) on September 11,
1998 under authority of Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act. This guide explains how to
tell if you are subject to the regulation and what to do if you are required to comply.
The EPA published this document as a compliance guide for small entities, as
required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. As you
use the guide, you should know that the information in this guide was written and
published in July 1999. The EPA published technical corrections to the architectural
coatings final regulation. The technical corrections were published in the Federal
Register on June 30, 1999 (64 FR 34997). This guide incorporates the regulation
corrections, which are noted with an asterisk (*) and a footnote to explain the correction.
You can determine whether EPA has published further corrections to the regulation or
revised the information in this guide by checking the architectural coatings web site at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/183e/aim/aimpg.html.
The regulation applies to manufacturers and
importers of architectural coatings—not to
distributors or users. An architectural coating is a
coating recommended for field application to
stationary structures, their appurtenances, to
portable buildings, to pavements or to curbs.
The Office of Federal Register (OFR) tracks whether any part of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) changed. To see if EPA has published changes to this
-------
1.0 Introduction
regulation (40 CFR part 59, subpart D), browse the OFR list of CFR sections affected at
http://www.access.gpo/nara/lsa/browslsa.html. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you can contact EPA's Clean Air Technology Center (CATC) at 919-541-0800.
1.1 Who should use this guide?
If you manufacture or import an architectural coating for sale or distribution in the
United States, then you should use this guide to help you understand the requirements
you are subject to under EPA's architectural coatings national regulation. As the
manufacturer or importer of an architectural coating, you may have to meet certain
requirements limiting the amount of pollutants (i.e., volatile organic compounds) in the
products that you manufacture or import on or after September 13, 1999. If you apply
traffic marking coatings, you are not subject to the regulation, but you should read
section 3.13 of this guide to determine how you may be affected indirectly.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act (SBREFA) requires the EPA to
prepare this compliance guide to help small businesses comply with the regulation.
The regulation has the same requirements for all affected manufacturers and importers
regardless of the size of the company. Therefore, this guide is also helpful for large
businesses that must comply and to government staff who must implement and enforce
the regulation.
1.2 What does the guide cover?
The purpose of this guide is to help small entities and others affected by the
architectural coatings regulation comply with the regulation. This guide answers the
following questions:
• Why is the architectural coatings regulation important?
• Am I subject to the architectural coatings regulation?
• What must I do to comply with the architectural coatings regulation?
8
-------
1.0 Introduction
1.3 How do I use the guide?
This guide is organized into 5 major sections and 12 appendices.
• Section 1 introduces you to this guide and the architectural coatings regulation.
You should be able to determine if you are affected by the architectural coatings
regulation, and therefore, whether you need to use this guide.
• Section 2 provides an overview of the regulatory requirements. This section
explains the environmental and health issues that this regulation addresses.
Section 2 also explains how EPA's national architectural coatings regulation
relates to other architectural coating regulations at the State and local levels.
• Section 3 gives step-by-step procedures for determining if you are subject to the
regulation and how to demonstrate compliance.
• Section 4 covers facility-specific questions regarding topics such as self-audits
and existing air permits.
• Section 5 discusses how the EPA will determine compliance and how the EPA
will enforce the regulation.
The appendices of this guide contain tools and information that will be useful to
you in complying with the architectural coatings regulation.
Regulation provisions are cited using brackets, i.e., [§ 59.400] so you can cross
reference the regulation if necessary.
-------
1.0 Introduction
1.4 How do I obtain a complete copy of the regulation?
A complete copy of the regulation and technical corrections is included in
Appendix A. The National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings (40 CFR part 59, Subpart D) was published in the Federal
Register, Vol. 63, No. 176, pages 48848 - 48887 on September 11, 1998. The
technical corrections were published in the Federal Register. Vol. 64, No. 125,
page 34997 on June 30, 1999. You may also obtain a copy of the regulation and
technical corrections on the Internet at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
10
-------
2.0 What does the regulation require?
2.0 WHAT DOES THE REGULATION REQUIRE?
After reading section 2, you should understand the benefits of this
regulation, the general requirements of the regulation, compliance dates, and
how this national regulation relates to State and local architectural coatings
regulations.
2.1 What environmental or human health issues does this regulation
address?
The architectural coatings regulation is part of an integrated EPA approach to
reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, or "VOC," which have been
associated with a variety of health and welfare impacts. Section 183(e) of the Clean Air
Act directs EPA to list and schedule for regulation categories of consumer and
commercial products because of their potential VOC emissions. VOC react with
nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone (a primary
component of smog). To protect the public health and welfare, EPA has established
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS are a measure of
acceptable and unacceptable levels of certain pollutants across the country. More than
half of the U.S. population lives or works in areas that exceed the national standards for
ozone. In order to reduce national ground-level ozone levels, emissions of VOC and
NOX must be reduced.
Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with agricultural crop loss and
damage to forests and ecosystems. Human exposure to ozone primarily affects the
lungs. Exposure to ozone is responsible for reduced exercise performance, increased
susceptibility to respiratory infection, and pulmonary inflammation. When ozone levels
are high, more asthmatics have asthma attacks that require a doctor's attention or the
use of additional asthma medication.
About one out of every three people in the United States is at a higher risk of
experiencing ozone-related health effects. Four groups of people are particularly
11
-------
2.1 Health and environmental issues
sensitive to ozone: children; adults who are active outdoors; people with respiratory
diseases such as asthma; and people with unusual susceptibility to ozone. These
groups become sensitive to ozone when they are active outdoors because physical
activity (such as jogging or outdoor work) causes people to breathe faster and more
deeply. During activity, ozone penetrates deeper into the parts of the lungs that are
more vulnerable to injury.
Ozone's most perceptible effects on human health are acute respiratory
symptoms such as coughing and painful deep breathing. These acute health effects
are induced by short-term exposures to ozone (observed at concentrations as low as
0.12 parts per million [ppm]), generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or
heavy exertion. Acute health effects also are induced by prolonged exposures to ozone
(observed at concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm), typically while individuals are
engaged in moderate exertion. Moderate exertion levels are more frequently
experienced by individuals than heavy exertion levels.
Exposure to ozone may make it uncomfortable to breathe, causing throat
irritation or more rapid and shallow breathing. Ozone can also inflame and temporarily
damage the lining of the lung. Scientists are concerned that repeated short-term
damage from exposure to ozone may permanently change the lung. For example,
there is concern that repeated ozone impacts on the developing lungs of children may
lead to reduced lung function as adults.
Elevated concentrations of ozone are also associated with adverse welfare
effects. Among the welfare impacts from exposure to ozone are damage to selected
commercial timber species and economic losses for commercially valuable crops, such
as soybeans and cotton. The typical concentration level of ozone found in rural areas
is thought to depress crop yields and cause visible damage to other plant life such as
premature aging and leaf loss.
12
-------
2.2 Why is it important to regulate architectural coatings?
2.2 Why is it important to regulate architectural coatings?
In many States, architectural coatings represent one of the largest identifiable
sources of unregulated VOC emissions. Consequently, EPA and many States consider
the regulation of architectural coatings to be an important component of the overall
approach to reducing those emissions that contribute to excess levels of ozone.
Architectural coating regulations are already in place in a number of States, and
other States may develop regulations in the future. For the companies that market
architectural coatings in different States, trying to fulfill the differing requirements of
State regulations has created administrative, technical, and marketing problems. Both
large and small manufacturers have noted the additional burden associated with
differences in State and local requirements. These industry representatives have noted
that a national regulation would provide some degree of consistency, predictability, and
administrative ease for the industry. For a list of States that have architectural coatings
regulations in place, see Section 2.6.
The architectural coatings standards will reduce
nationwide emissions of VOC by 103,000 megagrams
per year (Mg/yr) (113,500 tons per year [tpy]). These
reductions are from a 1990 "baseline" emissions
estimate and represent a 20 percent reduction in VOC
emissions from architectural coatings .
13
-------
2.3 Summary of regulation
2.3 Summary of the architectural coatings regulation
The architectural coatings regulation sets VOC content limits for 61 categories of
architectural coatings that are manufactured on or after September 13, 1999 (March 13,
2000 for products subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act).
The regulation has... for...
and you must comply by...
VOC content limits
61 categories of architectural
coatings listed in Figure 1
choosing one or more of the
following for coatings that do not
meet the limits:
• reformulate the coating to
meet the limit
• designate a limited volume as
exempt using the tonnage
exemption
• pay an annual exceedance fee
on the amount of VOC in
excess of the limit
Labeling requirements
each coating sold or
distributed in the United States
providing specific information on
each container
Coating categories. Manufacturers and importers must classify each of their
architectural coatings as belonging to at least one of the categories. The 61 categories
of architectural coatings are listed in Figure 1. Manufacturers and importers should
classify their coatings into categories based on the definitions in the regulation. If a
coating meets the definition of more than one coating category, the manufacturer or
importer must comply with the lowest applicable VOC content limit, unless one of the
specified exceptions applies. Section 3.5 and Appendices B and C of this guide
provide information to help you determine the category and VOC content limit for each
of your coatings. [§§ 59.400, 59.401, 59.402]
VOC content limits. Manufacturers and importers may either reformulate their
coatings to meet the VOC content limits in Figure 1 or choose to comply by using one of
the compliance options described below. Manufacturers and importers who reformulate
their coatings to meet the VOC content limits in Figure 1, or whose coatings already
meet the limits, are only required to submit an initial report and meet the labeling
requirements. However, manufacturers who choose to comply with the regulation by
using the "tonnage exemption," paying the "exceedance fee," or using the adjusted
14
-------
2.3 Summary of regulation
VOC content of recycled coatings must keep records and submit further reports in
addition to submitting the initial report and meeting the labeling requirements.
[§ 59.402]
Tonnage exemption. This compliance option allows each manufacturer and
importer to sell or distribute limited quantities of architectural coatings that do not
comply with the VOC content limits and for which no exceedance fee is paid. The
tonnage exemption can be used for multiple products, but the total mass of VOC
allowed under the tonnage exemption is a specified total limit each year. The total
mass of VOC is calculated based on the volume of coatings manufactured or imported
and the total amount of VOC contained in each of the coatings for which an exemption
is claimed. [§ 59.404]
Exceedance fee. This compliance option is an economic incentive approach
whereby manufacturers and importers may choose to comply with the regulation by
paying an annual fee in lieu of meeting the VOC content limits for their coating
products. The fee is $0.0028 per gram, or approximately $2,500 per ton, of excess
VOC. The fee is calculated using the coating's amount of VOC in excess of the
applicable VOC content limit and the volume of coating manufactured. The
exceedance fee is paid annually. [§ 59.403]
Labeling. Each container of architectural coating sold or distributed in the
United States must be clearly labeled with the following information: date of
manufacture (or a date code), recommendations for thinning, and VOC content of the
coating. If the coating is an industrial maintenance coating, then the container must
also display one of the specified statements that indicates the coating is not intended
for general consumer use. If the manufacturer or importer claims a credit for recycled
coatings, then the container must indicate the post-consumer content in percent by
volume. [§ 59.405]
Reporting and recordkeeping. All manufacturers and importers of affected
coatings must submit an initial report to EPA listing the coating categories from Figure 1
that they manufacture or import. They must also report the locations of their facilities
that produce, package, or repackage architectural coatings in the United States. The
regulation does not require periodic records or reports, unless the manufacturer or
15
-------
2.3 Summary of regulation
importer chooses to use the adjusted VOC content of recycled coatings, pays an
exceedance fee, or uses the tonnage exemption. [§§ 59.407, 59.408]
Recycled coatings. Manufacturers or importers who recycle post-consumer
coatings into their products may take credit for the recycled coating content and meet
less stringent VOC content limits. [§ 59.406(a)(3)]
If you reformulate your coatings to meet the
VOC content limits, or your coatings already
meet the VOC content limits, then you are
subject to fewer recordkeeping and reporting
requirements than if you use the tonnage
exemption or exceedance fee.
Limits are expressed in grams of VOC per liter of coating
thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation
excluding the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or
colorant added to tint bases, except for low solids stains
and low solids wood preservatives.
16
-------
2.3 Summary of regulation
FIGURE 1. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONTENT LIMITS
ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS
Coating category
Antenna coatings
Anti-fouling coatings
Anti-graffiti coatings
Bituminous coatings and mastics
Bond breakers
Calcimine recoater
Chalkboard resurfacers
Concrete curing compounds
Concrete curing and sealing compounds
Concrete protective coatings
Concrete surface retarders
Conversion varnish
Dry fog coatings
Extreme high durability coatings
Faux finishing/glazing
Fire-retardant/resistive coatings:
Clear
Opaque
Flat coatings:
Exterior
Interior
Floor coatings
Flow coatings
Form release compounds
Graphic arts coatings (sign paints)
Heat reactive coatings
High temperature coatings
Impacted immersion coatings
Industrial maintenance coatings
Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers)
Magnesite cement coatings
Mastic texture coatings
Metallic pigmented coatings
Multi-colored coatings
Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and surface protectants
Nonflat coatings:
Exterior
Interior
Nuclear coatings
Pretreatment wash primers
Grams per liter
530
450
600
500
600
475
450
350
700
400
780
725
400
800
700
850
450
250
250
400
650
450
500
420
650
780
450
680
600
300
500
580
870
380
380
450
780
FOR
Pounds per gallon
4.4
3.8*
5.0
4.2
5.0
4.0
3.8
2.9
5.8
3.3
6.5
6.0
3.3
6.7
5.8
7.1
3.8
2.1
2.1
3.3
5.4
3.8
4.2
3.5
5.4
6.5
3.8
5.7
5.0
2.5
4.2
4.8
7.3
3.2
3.2
3.8
6.5
17
-------
2.3 Summary of regulation
Coating category
Primers and undercoaters
Quick-dry coatings:
Enamels
Primers, sealers, and undercoaters
Repair and maintenance thermoplastic coatings
Roof coatings
Rust preventative coatings
Sanding sealers (other than lacquer sanding sealers)
Sealers (including interior clear wood sealers)
Shellacs:
Clear
Opaque
Stains:
Clear and semitransparent
Opaque
Low solids
Stain controllers
Swimming pool coatings
Thermoplastic rubber coatings and mastics
Traffic marking coatings
Varnishes
Waterproofing sealers and treatments
Wood preservatives:
Below ground wood preservatives
Clear and semitransparent
Opaque
Low solids
Zone marking coatings
Grams per liter
350
450
450
650
250
400
550
400
730
550
550
350
120a
720
600
550
150
450
600
550
550
350
120a
450
Pounds per gallon
2.9
3.8
3.8
5.4
2.1
3.3
4.6
3.3
6.1
4.6
4.6
2.9
1.0a
6.0
5.0
4.6
1.3
3.8
5.0
4.6
4.6
2.9
1.0a
3.8
aUnits are grams of VOC per liter (pounds of VOC per gallon) of coating, including water and exempt compounds, thinned to
the maximum thinning recommended by the manufacturer.
* Regulation correction [Table 1 to Subpart D], see page 7 for where to get the latest information. The correct VOC
content limit for anti-fouling coatings is 450 grams per liter and 3.8 pounds per gallon, rather than 3.3 pounds per gallon.
English units are provided for information
only. Regulation enforcement will be based
on the metric levels. **
**Regulation correction [§ 59.402(a)], see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that the EPA will
determine compliance with the VOC content limits in metric units, expressed in grams
of VOC per liter of coating, rather than English units.
18
-------
2.4 Demonstrating compliance
2.4 How do I demonstrate compliance?
The regulation does not require an initial compliance test. If your coatings
already meet the VOC content limits or if you reformulate your coatings to meet the
limits, then you must only submit the initial report and comply with the labeling
requirements. Even though the regulation does not require you to keep records or
submit periodic reports if your coatings meet the VOC content limits, you are
responsible for ensuring that your coatings continue to meet the VOC content limits and
you may choose any means to do so. You should consider keeping voluntary records
that show compliance with the regulation. Such records would be helpful to you should
an EPA inspector select one or more of your coatings for a compliance determination.
Your records could document the actions you have taken to comply with the regulation
and could clarify any uncertainties that might otherwise occur.
The EPA will determine compliance with the VOC content limits in metric units*
using EPA Method 24 as the reference method (or an alternative method that would be
approved on a case-by-case basis). The EPA may request at any time that you
conduct a Method 24 test to demonstrate compliance. See Appendix E of this guide for
a copy of Method 24, "Determination of volatile matter content, water content, density,
volume solids, and weight solids of surface coatings."
For coatings that do not meet the VOC content limits in Figure 1, your steps for
demonstrating compliance depend on how you choose to comply. You may
reformulate your coatings or use one of the compliance options of the regulation,
specifically the tonnage exemption or exceedance fee. If you choose to use one of the
compliance options or if you choose to use the adjusted VOC content for recycled
coatings, you must maintain records and submit an annual report in addition to
submitting the initial notification report and meeting labeling requirements.
*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(a)], see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that the EPA will
determine compliance with the VOC content limits in metric units, expressed in grams
of VOC per liter of coating, rather than English units.
19
-------
2.5 Compliance timetable
2.5 Compliance timetable
Each manufacturer and importer must submit the initial notification report and
comply with the labeling requirements. Additional records and reports vary depending
on whether the manufacturer or importer reformulates its coatings, uses the adjusted
VOC content for recycled coatings, pays the fee, or uses the tonnage exemption. Refer
to section 3 of this guide for how to use each compliance option and the compliance
times. FIFRA coatings are coatings that must be registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
Date
Requirement
September 13, 1999 Initial notification report [§ 59.408(b)],
VOC content limits and labeling requirements
for non-FIFRA coatings [§ 59.408(b)]
March 1, 2000 First annual reports for manufacturers and
importers using the adjusted VOC content of
recycled coatings [§ 59.408(c)] or paying the
exceedance fee [§ 59.408(d)]
March 13, 2000 Initial notification report for FIFRA coatings
[§ 59.408(b)],* VOC content limits and
labeling requirements for FIFRA coatings
_[§ 59.400(b)]
March 1, 2001 First annual report for manufacturers and
importers using the tonnage exemption
_[§ 59.408(e)]
March 1, 2001 and all subsequent years Annual report for manufacturers and
importers using adjusted VOC content of
recycled coatings [§ 59.408(c)], paying the
exceedance fee [§ 59.408(d)], or using the
tonnage exemption [§ 59.408(e)]
No later than 30 days after first use Report to explain any new date codes
[§ 59.408(b)(4)]
*Regulation correction [§ 59.408(b)]; see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that the deadline for
submitting the initial notification report for coatings registered under FIFRA is March 13,
2000, rather than September 13, 1999.
20
-------
2.6 State and local requirements
2.6 How does the national architectural coatings regulation relate to
State and local requirements? [§ 59.410]
This compliance guide explains your compliance obligations with respect to
EPA's national architectural coatings regulation as published on September 11, 1998.
You should check State or local requirements that apply to you that are different from,
or more stringent than, the national requirements. Architectural coating regulations are
already in place in some States and other States may develop regulations in the future.
Figure 2 lists States that have architectural coatings regulations in place.
Compliance with the national regulation does not necessarily constitute
compliance with State regulations, nor does the national regulation supersede State
regulations. For more information on the regulations that apply in your State, check
with your State or local small business assistance program. The EPA's Small Business
Assistance Program web site provides information on State and local small business
programs: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/sbap.
\ ? /> The national architectural coatings regulation does not
x- ^~— supersede any applicable State or local regulations. You
should contact your State or local agency regarding any
conflicts between the national regulation and your State or
local architectural coatings regulations.
21
-------
2.6 State and local requirements
FIGURE 2. STATE AND LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS REGULATIONS
State
Arizona
California
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
Affected Area/Counties
Maricopa County
18 out of the 35 air districts in CA have
architectural coatings regulations
Antelope Valley
Bay Area
Butte County
Colusa County
El Dorado County
Feather River
Imperial County
Kern County
Mojave Desert
Monterey Bay
Placer County
Sacramento Metropolitan
San Diego County
San Joaquin County
Santa Barbara County
South Coast
Ventura County
Yolo-Solano County
Jefferson County
Statewide
St. Louis Metropolitan area
Statewide
Metropolitan area only
Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth,
El Paso, and Houston/Galveston
Vancouver
Non-attainment areas only (seasonal)
Rule
Rule 335
Rule 11 13
(most stringent)
1113
8-3
240
2.26
215
3.15
424
410.1
1113
426
218
442
67.0
4601
323
1113
74.2
2.14 -"Rule 66"
Reg. 1.16
310 CMR 7:25
10CSR 10-5.450
NJAC 7:27-23
6NYCCR Part 205
115.421(11)
SWAPCA 493-200
NR 422.1 7
Effective Date of
Rule
July 13, 1998
September 2, 1977
March 1978
July 1979
1979
September 1994
June 1991
November 1982
April 1972
February 1979
May 1979
June 1979
December 1978
November 1997
April 1991
October 1971
September 2, 1977
June 1979
January 17, 1996
October 1, 1995
May 28, 1995
February 21, 1989
September 15, 1988
December 31, 1989
May 25, 1996
April 30, 1996
22
-------
3.0 Step-By-Step Procedures for Compliance With The Regulation
3.0 STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURES FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATION
After reading section 3, you should know if you are subject to the regulation
and what steps you must take to comply.
This section of the guide will help you determine if you are subject to the
architectural coatings regulation and what you must do to comply. This section also
tells you how you will be affected if you apply traffic marking coatings. Use this section
of the guide to answer the following questions.
3.1 How do I tell if I am subject to the regulation?
3.2 What requirements am I subject to?
3.3 When do I need to comply?
3.4 What do I need to do to comply?
(Sections 3.5 through 3.12 explain the step-by-step procedures for
complying.)
3.13 How will the regulation affect me if I apply traffic markings?
23
-------
3.1 Am I subject?
3.1 How do I determine if I am subject to the regulation?
To determine whether you are subject to the regulation, answer these questions
by following the guidance in each section. Consider your answer for each coating that
you manufacture or import.
3.1.1 Am I a manufacturer?
3.1.2 Am I an importer?
3.1.3 Is the coating that I manufacture
or import an architectural
coating?
3.1.4 Is the architectural coating
that I manufacture or
import exempt from the
regulation?
3.1.5 How does the regulation apply to
me if I am a toll manufacturer or
private-label manufacturer?
24
-------
3.1 Am I subject?
3.1.1 Am I a manufacturer? [§ 59.401]
If you...
Then...
Produce, package, or repackage an architectural coating you are a manufacturer
for sale or distribution in the United States
Repackage an architectural coating by transferring it you are NOT a
from one container to another and you do not alter the manufacturer
coating VOC content and you do not sell or distribute the
coating to another party
Repackage an architectural coating as part of a paint you are NOT a
exchange, and do not produce, package, or repackage manufacturer
any other architectural coatings for sale or distribution in
the United States
Thin and apply architectural coatings
you are NOT a
manufacturer
Paint exchange means a program in which consumers,
excluding architectural coating manufacturers and
importers, may drop off and pick up usable post-consumer
architectural coatings to reduce hazardous waste.
Repackage means to transfer an architectural coating
from one package to another.
The architectural coatings regulation does not regulate the
application of coatings by consumers, painting
contractors, or original equipment manufacturers.
25
-------
3.1 Am I subject?
3.1.2 Am Ian importer? [§59.401]
If you... Then...
Bring an architectural coating into the you are an importer
United States for sale or distribution
within the United States
26
-------
3.1 Am I subject?
3.1.3 Is the coating that I manufacture or import an architectural
coating? [§ 59.401]
If the coating that you manufacture or
import is...
Then...
Recommended for field application to
stationary structures and their
appurtenances, to portable buildings, to
pavements, or to curbs
the coating is an architectural coating
An adhesive
the coating is NOT an architectural
coating
A coating recommended by the
manufacturer or importer solely for shop
applications or solely for application to
non-stationary structures, such as
airplanes, ships, boats, and railcars
the coating is NOT an architectural
coating
The architectural coatings regulation does
not apply to any coating that is intended
solely for shop application.
Appurtenance means any accessory to a stationary
structure, whether installed or detached at the proximate
site of installation. Appurtenances include bathroom and
kitchen fixtures; cabinets; concrete forms; doors;
elevators; fences; hand railings; heating equipment, air
conditioning equipment, and other fixed mechanical
equipment or stationary tools; lamp posts; partitions; pipes
and piping systems; rain gutters and downspouts;
stairways, fixed ladders, catwalks, and fire escapes; and
window screens.
27
-------
3.1 Am I subject?
Adhesive means any chemical substance that is applied
for the purpose of bonding two surfaces together other
than by mechanical means. Adhesives are not considered
to be architectural coatings under the architectural
coatings regulation.
Shop application means that a coating is applied to a
product or a component of a product in a factory, shop, or
other structure as part of a manufacturing, production, or
repairing process (e.g., original equipment manufacturing
coatings).
Coating means a material applied onto or impregnated
into a substrate for protective, decorative, or functional
purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to,
paints, varnishes, sealants, inks, maskants, and
temporary coatings. Protective, decorative, or functional
materials that consist only of solvents, acids, bases, or
any combination of these substances are not considered
coatings under the architectural coatings regulation.
28
-------
3.1 Am I subject?
3.1.4 Is the architectural coating that I manufacture or import exempt
from the regulation? [§59.400(c)]
If the architectural coating that you manufacture or import meets any of the
following criteria, it is exempt from the regulation.
• Manufactured before September 13, 1999. Coatings manufactured prior to
September 13, 1999 can continue to be sold until the stocks are depleted.
• Export. If a coating is manufactured for sale or distribution outside of the United
States, it is exempt from the regulation. Coatings for export cannot be sold or
distributed in the United States as architectural coatings.
• Aerosol container. If a coating is sold in a nonrefillable aerosol container, then
it is exempt from the regulation.
• Small volume. If a coating is sold in a container that has a capacity of 1 liter or
less, then it is exempt from the regulation.
• Paint exchange. If a coating is collected and redistributed in a paint exchange,
then it is exempt from the regulation. A paint exchange is where architectural
coating consumers drop off and pick up useable post-consumer architectural
coatings to reduce hazardous waste. (A "post-consumer" coating is one that has
been purchased or distributed to a consumer but not applied, and reenters the
marketplace.)
Manufactured means that coating
ingredients have been combined and put into
containers that have been labeled and made
available for sale or distribution.
If all of the architectural coatings that you
manufacture and import meet any of the
criteria for exemption, you are not subject to
any of the regulation's requirements.
29
-------
3.1 Am I subject?
3.1.5 How does the regulation apply to me if I am a toll manufacturer
or a private-label manufacturer?
If you are a toll manufacturer or private-label manufacturer of architectural
coatings, then the regulation applies to you. You are responsible for submitting an
initial report, meeting the VOC content, and meeting labeling requirements. Depending
on the circumstances, more than one manufacturer can be subject to the regulation for
a single product.
What is a toll manufacturer?
Typically, a toll manufacturer produces a coating in bulk for another
manufacturer using a specified formula. For example, a coating manufacturer may hire
a toll manufacturer to make a coating in order to meet a short-term increase in demand.
The hiring manufacturer receives the coating in bulk "totes" and then packages and
labels the coating for sale. Two examples of tolling relationships are illustrated as
cases 1 and 2 in Figure 3.
What is a private-label manufacturer?
Typically, a private-label manufacturer produces a coating for a retailer. For
example, the retailer may provide such specifications as the price, quality, and
performance requirements of the coating. The manufacturer delivers a coating already
packaged, ready to be put on the shelf, and labeled to meet both the retailer's
specifications and all necessary legal requirements. A private-label relationship is
illustrated as case 3 in Figure 3.
30
-------
3.1 Am I subject?
Gise 1 - Typical 'Toll Manufacturing"
Produces Coating
in Bulk
Packages Coating
Case 2 - "Toll Mmufacturing" with Product Modification
Produces Coating
In Bulk
Alters VOC Content and
Packages Coating
Case 3 - Typical 'Private-Label Manufacturing"
Produces and
Packages Coaling
Specifies the Product
and Label
Sales
Who is responsible for the
following:
- submit initial report
-meet VOC content
- label product
AandB
Sales
Sales
AandB
A only
Figure 3. Who is responsible when more than
one company is involved in manufacturing a coating?
31
-------
3.1 Am I subject?
Who is subject to the regulation?
The regulation defines the regulated entity as the "manufacturer or importer of an
architectural coating." A manufacturer is any person who "produces, packages, or
repackages architectural coatings for sale or distribution in the United States."
Therefore, in the case of toll manufacturing, the toll manufacturer and the manufacturer
that packages the coating are both subject to the regulation. A private-label
manufacturer is subject to the regulation, but not the person who hires the
manufacturer.
The three cases summarized in Figure 3 illustrate who is responsible when more
than one company is involved in manufacturing a coating. While within these three
cases there may be different business relationships with regard to who owns the
formula, whose name is on the label, or who is responsible for compliance with other
government regulations, these are not factors in determining applicability for the
architectural coatings regulation.
32
-------
3.1 Am I subject?
What happens when two companies are subject to the regulation for a
single product?
Each manufacturer must comply with all requirements of the regulation, including
labeling and all reporting requirements. Compliance responsibility will be based on the
three principles listed below.
1. Each coating must be in compliance when it
leaves the custody of a manufacturer, either by
meeting the VOC limit, paying fee in the future, or
using the tonnage exemption. If the manufacturer
uses the tonnage exemption or exceedance fee
option, it is responsible for the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements associated with these
options.
Implication: A manufacturer
that produces a coating under
contract must know what
coating it is producing and
ensure that the coating
complies.
Each manufacturer is accountable for its own
actions, but no manufacturer is accountable for
the actions of another manufacturer.
Implication: A manufacturer
that produces a coating under
contract will not be held
responsible if its client mislabels
or alters the VOC content of the
coating.
3. Once a coating is in compliance, it remains in
compliance as it passes to the custody of another
manufacturer. The coating stays in compliance
unless a second party (i.e., manufacturer or
retailer) does anything to make it non-compliant,
in which case the second party is responsible.
Implication: A packager or
repackager can rely on the
certification of a toll
manufacturer that the coating
meets the VOC content
indicated on the label or is in
compliance through the
tonnage exemption or
exceedance fee.
33
-------
3.1 Am I subject?
What are the compliance responsibilities of the toll manufacturer and
the hiring manufacturer?
Both manufacturers must comply with all aspects of the regulation, (VOC content
limits, labeling, and reporting). Each manufacturer is accountable only for its own
actions.
Example 1: The toll manufacturer that produces a coating in bulk is responsible
for meeting the VOC content limit or complying with the regulation
through use of the tonnage exemption or payment of the
exceedance fee. The toll manufacturer must label the product (i.e.,
the bulk totes) according to the regulation and submit to EPA an
initial report and any other reports that are required. When the
coating passes to another manufacturer (who packages the
coating), it would be wise for this second manufacturer to obtain a
certification of compliance from the toll manufacturer that states the
method by which the coating complies with the regulation. The
second manufacturer can rely on the certification of the toll
manufacturer that the coating as received is in compliance and that
the VOC content is in accordance with the label on the tote. The
second manufacturer would be held accountable only for a
subsequent action that would change the compliance status (e.g.,
addition of solvent, improper labeling, or representations of
intended coating use that would change the coating category and
the applicable VOC limit).
34
-------
3.1 Am I subject?
Can a toll manufacturer claim more than one tonnage exemption?
No. Each manufacturer may claim only one tonnage exemption. A
manufacturer cannot pass its exemption to another manufacturer. When a
manufacturer conveys a product covered by the tonnage exemption to another
manufacturer, the product itself remains in exempt status.
Example 2: A toll manufacturer can exempt coatings up to the VOC tonnage
limit in the regulation and no more. For example, the regulation
provides for a VOC tonnage exemption of 23 megagrams for the
period from September 13, 1999 through December 31, 2000. The
toll manufacturer can exempt coatings containing up to
23 megagrams of VOC that it sells under its name or that it
produces for another manufacturer to sell. Once it reaches the
23 megagram limit, the toll manufacturer cannot claim additional
tonnage exemptions, even for coatings produced for another
manufacturer who has not claimed any exemption.
Example 3: A toll manufacturer exempts up to the 23 megagram limit for
coatings produced under contract to Manufacturer B.
Manufacturer B can package and sell these toll-manufactured
coatings and rely on the certification of the toll manufacturer that
the coatings are in compliance by way of tonnage exemption. In
addition, Manufacturer B can take an exemption up to the
23 megagram limit on other coatings that it produces.
35
-------
3.1 Am I subject?
Who pays an exceedance fee in a tolling relationship?
The manufacturer who produces the coating must pay the exceedance fee.
Example 4: A toll manufacturer is under contract to Manufacturer B to produce
10,000 liters of a coating that exceeds the VOC content limit. The
toll manufacturer would pay the fee and submit the annual fee
report to EPA for the 10,000 liters it produces. Upon passing the
coating to Manufacturer B, the toll manufacturer would certify the
VOC content of the coating along with a statement that the fee will
be paid to EPA on the excess VOC. Manufacturer B can rely on
this certification that the coating is in compliance. Manufacturer B
does not have to pay a fee to EPA for this product.
Example 5: In the previous example, Manufacturer B also produces
40,000 liters of the same coating in excess of the VOC content
limits of the regulation. Manufacturer B pays the exceedance fee
only on the 40,000 liters that it produces. Manufacturer B would
submit an annual report to EPA for the 40,000 liters. To protect its
interests, Manufacturer B should (although not required by the
regulation) maintain purchase records from the toll manufacturer
along with the toll manufacturer's fee certifications as proof that the
other 10,000 liters (from the toll manufacturer) it sells is in
compliance.
Example 6: A toll manufacturer is under contract with Manufacturer B to
produce a coating that is 50 grams VOC per liter in excess of the
VOC content limit. The toll manufacturer would pay the fee based
on the volume produced and the excess 50 grams VOC per liter,
and would submit an annual fee report to EPA. Manufacturer B
then blends the coating with other compounds to modify the
product and in doing so, adds 10 grams VOC per liter to the
coating. Manufacturer B would pay a fee and report only on the
additional 10 grams VOC per liter that it added (and the total
volume produced).
36
-------
3.2 Requirements
3.2 What requirements must I meet?
You are required to submit an initial report identifying yourself as someone
subject to the regulation and you must meet certain container labeling requirements
that vary for different types of coatings. Each architectural coating that you
manufacture or import must comply by one of the three options below (unless a coating
is exempt as discussed in section 3.1.4). Additional requirements vary depending on
which compliance option you choose.
If you choose this
compliance
option...
your primary requirements are to...
and these are additional
requirements associated
with the compliance option
VOC content limits
Submit the initial notification report.
Meet the labeling requirements.
Meet the VOC content limits in the
regulation by reformulating if your
coatings do not already meet the limits.
None
Tonnage exemption
Submit the initial notification report.
Meet the labeling requirements.
Designate a limited volume of coatings
as exempt. See Section 3.8 for a
discussion on how to comply with the
tonnage exemption option.
Submit an annual report.
Retain records of exemption
calculations for 3 years.
Exceedance fee
Submit the initial notification report.
Meet the labeling requirements.
Pay an annual exceedance fee on the
excess VOC content. See Section 3.9
for a discussion on how to comply with
the exceedance fee option.
Submit an annual report.
Retain records of fee
calculations for 3 years.
If you reformulate your coatings to meet the VOC content
limits or your coatings already meet the limits, then you
must submit the initial report and meet the container
labeling requirements. You are not required to keep further
records or submit reports unless you change your date
code. However, you should consider keeping voluntary
records that show compliance with the regulation.
37
-------
3.2 Requirements
You may use more than one compliance option. For example, if you manufacture five
coatings that do not currently meet the VOC content limits, you could comply as follows:
• reformulate three coatings to comply with the VOC content limits,
• use the tonnage exemption for one coating, and
• pay an exceedance fee for one coating.
Or if you manufacture only one coating and it does not meet the VOC content limit you
could comply by using two of the three compliance options, as follows:
• use the tonnage exemption (up to the maximum volume of coating that
the regulation allows), and
• pay an exceedance fee for the remaining production volume
Section 3.10 illustrates an example of how to use multiple compliance options.
38
-------
3.3 When to comply
3.3 When do I need to comply?
You must comply with this requirement... On or before this date...
Initial report [§ 59.408(b)], VOC content, and
labeling requirements for non-FIFRA coatings
[§ 59.400(b)]
September 13, 1999
Initial report [§ 59.408(b)] and VOC content and March 13, 2000*
labeling requirements for coatings registered
under FIFRA [§ 59.400(b)]
Initial report if you first manufacture or import Within 180 days after the date that the first
architectural coatings after September 13, 1999 architectural coating is manufactured or
(March 13, 2000 for Fl FRA coatings) imported
[§ 59.408(b)]
Recycled coatings (if option is used)
- first annual report
[§ 59.408(c)]
- subsequent annual report
[§ 59.408(c)]
March 1, 2000 (for September 13, 1999
through December 31, 1999)
March 1 of each year following the calendar
year you choose the compliance option
Exceedance fee (if option is used)
- first annual report
[§ 59.408(d)]
- subsequent annual report
[§ 59.408(d)]
March 1, 2000 (for September 13, 1999
through December 31, 1999)
March 1 of each year following the calendar
year you choose the compliance option
Tonnage exemption (if option is used)
- first annual report
[§ 59.408(e)]
- subsequent annual report
[§ 59.408(e)]
March 1, 2001 (for September 13, 1999
through December 31, 2000)
March 1 of each year following the calendar
year you choose the compliance option
Report to explain new date code
[§ 59.408(b)(4)]
No later than 30 days after first use
*Regulation correction [§ 59.408(b)]; see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that the deadline for
submitting the initial notification report for coatings registered under FIFRA is March 13,
2000, rather than September 13, 1999.
39
-------
3.4 Steps to comply
3.4 What do I need to do to comply?
As the manufacturer or importer of an architectural coating, you must follow the
appropriate steps listed below for each architectural coating that you manufacture or
import. Sections 3.5 through 3.12 explain the step-by-step procedures for complying.
3.5 Determine the
category for each
architectural coating
3.11 Submit the initial
report for all coatings
3.6 Determine the VOC
content of each
architectural coating or,
optionally, determine
the adjusted VOC
content for each
recycled coating
Choose how you will comply
or
or
or
3.7 Meet VOC content
limit
I
3.8 Take tonnage
exemption
1
3.9 Pay
exceedance
fee
3.10 Use
combination of
options
I 1
3.1 1 Keep records and submit reports
1
3.12 Meet the labeling requirement
40
-------
3.5 Coating category
3.5 How do I determine the category for my coating?
[§§59.401,59.402]
You determine the applicable category and the corresponding VOC content limit
based on both the technical criteria in the regulation's definitions and any
representations that you make about the uses of a coating. Appendix B of this guide
contains fact sheets that will help you determine which category definition and VOC
content limit applies.
1 . Compare your coating to the definitions of all categories in the regulation.
2. Determine all of the coating definitions that apply. There are two ways
that a coating is considered to be part of a category in Figure 1 (page 17).
• the coating meets the technical criteria of the definition
• you make any representation that indicates that your coating meets the
definition of a coating category in Figure 1 . "Any representation" means a
representation made anywhere on the container; on any label or sticker
affixed to the container; or in any sales, advertising, or technical literature
supplied by you or anyone acting on your behalf.
3. If your coating meets the definition of more than one category, then you
must comply with the most restrictive VOC content limit, with some
exceptions as illustrated in Appendix C.
4. The flat and nonflat coating categories serve as default categories for
coatings that do not meet any other definitions (see Appendix B). For
such a coating, you must determine the gloss level of the coating to find
out whether it is a flat or nonflat coating and comply with the requirements
for that category.
Appendix C summarizes the exceptions to
meeting the most restrictive VOC content
limit. These exceptions are also summarized
in Appendix B with each category definition
for which one of the specified exceptions
apply.
41
-------
3.6 VOC content
3.6 How do I determine the VOC content of my coating?
[§ 59.406]
To determine the VOC content of a coating, you must first determine the
composition of the coating, then use the appropriate equation in the regulation. Follow
these two steps.
Step 1 - Choose a means of determining the coating composition. You may
use any reasonable means to determine the composition of a coating. The composition
includes the weight of volatiles, water, and "exempt" compounds; and the volume of
coating, water, and exempt compounds [§ 59.406(b)]. Exempt compounds are listed in
the definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100. The list of exempt compounds, as of
July 1998, is contained in Appendix D of this guide. This list is periodically updated.
You should check the list of CFR sections affected to see if 40 CFR part 51 has been
amended: http://www.access.gpo/nara/lsa/browslsa.html.
You may use any of the following means to determine the coating composition:
• use batch processing and quality assurance records,
• use EPA Method 24 to test the coating, or an alternative test method that is
approved by EPA on a case-by-case basis, according to § 59.406(c) of the
regulation,
• use formulation data, or
• use any other reasonable means to ensure that the coating complies with the
VOC content limits.
The EPA will use EPA Method 24 to determine
compliance with the VOC content limits,
expressed in grams of VOC per liter of
coating.
42
-------
3.6 VOC content
Although you may use any means to determine the VOC content of a coating,
EPA Method 24, "Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density,
Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings" is the reference method EPA
will use for determining compliance. Therefore, if you use something other than
Method 24, be sure that its results are consistent with Method 24 results. If there is an
inconsistency between the results of your approach and a Method 24 test (or an
alternative test method approved by EPA for you), the Method 24 or approved
alternative test governs for compliance determinations. See Appendix E for a copy
of Method 24.
In the case of methacrylate multicomponent coatings used as traffic marking
coatings, the reference method is the modification of Method 24 that is published as
Appendix A to the regulation (see Appendix A of this guide for the complete text).
Determine the composition of the coating as
mixed according to the maximum thinning
recommendation.
Step 2 - Use the appropriate equation. Select the appropriate equation based
on the type of coating and then calculate the VOC content of your coating using the
information from Step 1. There are three different equations from which to choose and
an example of each type follows.
Example 1: Any architectural coating, except low solids stains and low solids
wood preservatives
Example 2: Low solids stains and low solids wood preservatives
Example 3: Recycled coatings.
Before beginning to calculate the VOC content of your coating, you should follow the
guidance in Appendix F to determine whether to include water, exempt compounds,
and colorant added to tint bases (this occurs at the retail store or site of coating
application).
43
-------
3.6 VOC content
When determining the VOC content of coatings
(except low solids stains and wood
preservatives), exclude the weight and volume
of water and exempt compounds and the weight
and volume of colorants added to tint bases.
However, when determining the VOC content of low solids
stains and wood preservatives, exclude the weight but
include the volume of water and exempt compounds.
See Appendix F to determine whether to include or exclude
water and exempt compounds when calculating VOC
content, VOC amount, and volume manufactured or
imported.
44
-------
3.6 Example 1: Determine VOC content
Determine VOC Content
Example 1 — Any architectural coating
except low solids stains and low solids wood preservatives [§ 59.406(a)(1)]
For these coatings, you determine the VOC content in grams of VOC per liter of coating
thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation and excluding the weight and volume
of any water and exempt compounds. Use the following equation:
VOC Content
Wc - W,
w
'ec
V
m
This term...
VOC content
Ws
ww
Wec
vm
vw
Vec
means...
grams of VOC per liter of coating thinned to the
manufacturer's maximum recommendation and excluding
the weight and volume of any water and exempt
compounds
weight of volatiles
weight of water
weight of exempt compounds (exempt compounds are
specified in Appendix D of this guide)
volume of coating
volume of water
volume of exempt compounds
expressed in...
grams/liter (g/«)
grams (g)
grams
grams
liters («)
liters
liters
Example. A Method 24 analysis of a sample of an exterior flat coating shows that the coating
has the following composition:
We
W,
*w
ec
0.4510 grams
0.4145 grams
0 grams
m
w
ec
0.0005 liters
0.0004 liters
0 liters
0.4510 g - 0.4145 g - 0 g 0.0365 g
0.0005 « - 0.0004
0
0.0001
45
-------
3.6 Example 2: Determine VOC content
Determine VOC Content
Example 2 — Low Solids Stains and Wood Preservatives
[§ 59.406(a)(2)]
For low solids coatings, you determine the VOC content in grams of VOC per liter of
coating thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation and excluding the weight but
including the volume of any water and exempt compounds. Use the following equation:
VOC Content|S
Wc - W,
w
"ec
V,
m
This term...
means...
expressed in...
VOC content|S
grams of VOC per liter of coating thinned
to the manufacturer's maximum
recommendation and including the
volume of any water and exempt
compounds
grams/liter (g/£)
ws
ww
Wec
Vm
weight of volatiles
weight of water
weight of exempt compounds
volume of coating
grams(g)
grams
grams
liters (I)
Example: A method 24 analysis of a sample of a low solids wood preservative shows the
following composition:
ws =
ww =
Wec =
0.4400 g
0.4400 g
0.2300 g
0.1555g
- 0.2300 g
- 0.1555 g
0.0005 {
V
m
0.0005
0.0545 g
0.0005 {
109 grams VOC per liter
46
-------
3.6 Example 3: Determine VOC content
Determine VOC Content
Example 3 — Recycled Coatings
[§ 59.406(a)(3)]
For recycled coatings, you have the option of calculating an adjusted VOC content.
adjusted VOC content provides some credit for the amount of post-consumer materials
contained in the coating.
The
Percent
Post-consumer =
Coating
Volume of Post-consumer Coating
Volume of
Post-consumer
Coating
Volume of
Virgin Materials
100 Percent
(1)
Adjusted
VOC Content
Actual
VOC Content
Actual
VOC Content
Percent
Post-consumer Coating
100
(2)
This term...
means...
expressed in...
Adjusted VOC
content
The VOC content assigned to the
recycled coating for purposes of
complying with the VOC content limits
(calculated using equation 2)
grams/liter (g/£)
Actual VOC The VOC content of the coating as
content determined using the equations in
examples 1 and 2
grams/liter
Percent post-
consumer coating
The volume percent of a recycled coating
that is post-consumer coating materials
(calculated using equation 1)
percent (%)
Volume of post-
consumer coating
The volume of post-consumer coating
materials used in the production of a
recycled coating
liters (£)
Volume of virgin
materials
The volume of virgin coating materials
used in the production of a recycled
coating
liters
47
-------
3.6 Example 3: Determine VOC content
Determine VOC Content
Example 3 — Recycled Coatings (Continued)
Example. A manufacturer produces 100 liters of an interior nonflat coating and
40 liters of the coating material is made up of post-consumer coatings. The VOC
content determined using the equation in Example 1 is 425 g/l. Determine the adjusted
VOC content as follows.
Percent Post-Consumer Material =
40 liters
(40 liters + 60 liters)
x 100 =40 percent
Adjusted VOC Content = 425 g/« - 425 g/« x
100
255 grams VOC per liter
Returned goods, i.e., unsold coatings returned to a
manufacturer from a retail store, are not considered to be
post-consumer coating and cannot be used to compute an
adjusted VOC content.
If you use post-consumer coatings in addition to virgin
materials, you have the option of using the recycled coating
equation, which gives you credit for the amount of post-
consumer material in the coating. Using the equation is not
required, however, if you do use it, then special labeling,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements apply.
48
-------
3.7 If my coatings meet the limits
3.7 What must I do if all of my coatings meet the VOC content limits?
If your coatings already meet the VOC content limits or if you reformulate your
coatings to meet the limits before September 13, 1999 (March 13, 2000 for FIFRA-
registered coatings), then you must submit the initial report and comply with the labeling
requirements. A compliance test is not required. However, you are responsible for
ensuring that each of your coatings does in fact meet the VOC content limits on a
continuous basis.
You have the flexibility to use any means that you choose to ensure compliance
with the VOC content limits. For example, you could use batch production records or
quality assurance tests of product formulations. However, EPA will enforce the
regulation using EPA Method 24 as the reference method (or an alternative method that
would be approved on a case-by-case basis). If there is any discrepancy between the
results of a Method 24 test or alternative method test and any other means of
determining VOC content, the Method 24 (or approved alternative) test results will
govern. In addition, EPA may request at any time that you conduct a Method 24 test to
demonstrate compliance.
Figure 4 explains the steps you must follow if your coatings meet the VOC
content limits before the compliance deadline.
49
-------
3.7 If my coatings meet the limits
Submit the initial
report
[§ 59.408(b)]
I
Comply with the
labeling
requirements
[§ 59.405]
I
Confirm that each
coating meets the
applicable VOC
content limits of
Figure 1
[§ 59.402]
The initial report must list the coating
categories for your coatings, and your
manufacturing locations, and an explanation
of any date code you use on your coating
containers.
(See Section 3.11.)
The label must show the VOC content in
grams per liter, the date or date code, and
other specific information for certain coatings.
(See section 3.12).
The EPA may test your product at any time,
inspect your production records, or may
require at any time that you demonstrate that
your coatings meet the VOC content limits
using Method 24 (Appendix E of this guide) or
other EPA approved method.
Figure 4. What Must I Do If All Of My Coatings Meet the VOC Content Limits?
50
-------
3.8 Tonnage exemption
3.8 How can I use the tonnage exemption?
[§59.404]
The tonnage exemption option allows you to exceed the applicable VOC content
limits of the regulation for a limited quantity of coatings. You can use the tonnage
exemption for multiple coatings, but the total megagrams of VOC (VOC amount)
contained in all the coatings you claim under the exemption combined may not exceed
the amounts listed below. You do not have to pay the exceedance fee on the volume of
coatings that use this exemption.
You may exempt a total volume of
coatings that contain this amount of
VOC... During this time period...
23 megagrams (25.3 tons) VOC September 13, 1999 through December 31, 2000
18 megagrams (19.8 tons) VOC January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001
9 megagrams (9.9 tons) VOC Each subsequent calendar year
A megagram is a metric ton (also referred to
as a tonne), which is equal to the following:
• 1000 kilograms
• 2204 pounds
• 1.102 English tons
To convert English tons to megagrams, multiply by 1.102.
The VOC amount* that is counted toward the tonnage exemption is based on the
total amount of VOC contained in each of the coatings for which you claim an
exemption. This is in contrast to the exceedance fee, which is based on the difference
between the VOC content of each coating and the applicable VOC content limit in the
*Regulation correction; see page 7 for where to get the latest information. The
technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that "VOC content" is used for
calculating the grams VOC per liter of each coating to determine compliance with the
VOC content limits. "VOC amount" is used for calculating the grams VOC per liter of
each coating claimed under the tonnage exemption.
51
-------
3.8 Tonnage exemption
regulation. You must include the manufacturer's maximum thinning recommendation
for both VOC content and VOC amount determinations.
The "VOC content" is used to determine compliance with
the VOC content limits and to determine the "excess VOC"
for the exceedance fee. The "VOC amount" is only used
for calculating the "megagrams of VOC" for the tonnage
exemption.
Figure 5 explains the steps that you must follow to use the tonnage exemption.
You are not required to declare to EPA in advance that you are choosing this option,
nor is any advance approval required. You simply submit a report by March 1 of the
year after you claim the tonnage exemption. For example, if you use the tonnage
exemption option for the year 2001, then you submit a report on March 1, 2002.
Section 3.1.5 of this guide describes how to use the tonnage exemption in toll
and private-label manufacturing.
When determining the VOC amount for the tonnage exemption (regardless of
the type of coating), include the volume of water and exempt compounds and exclude
the volume of colorants added to tint bases. When determining the volume
manufactured or imported for the tonnage exemption, include the volume of water and
exempt compounds (see Appendix F).
A company made up of divisions and subsidiaries is
considered to be a single manufacturer and is allowed only
one tonnage exemption per year.
The tonnage exemption will be enforced in the metric units
of megagrams, which is equal to 2,204 pounds.
Volumes include water and exempt
compounds.
52
-------
3.8 Tonnage exemption
Determine which
coatings will use the
tonnage exemption
Compute the total
mass of VOC in all the
coatings you choose to
exempt
Confirm that the total
mass of VOC for all
coatings you choose to
exempt does not
exceed the exemption
allowance in the
regulation
Submit an annual
report to EPA listing
the coatings you
choose to exempt and
relevant information on
their VOC content
Retain records to
support the mass VOC
calculations for
coatings you choose to
exempt
Comply with labeling
requirements
This is your choice. You should plan ahead to ensure
that the VOC tonnage you anticipate exempting will not
exceed the limit allowed in the regulation. Any coating
that exceeds the VOC content limits and exceeds the
tonnage exemption allowance must be covered by an
exceedance fee.
See the example below for how to compute total mass.
A worksheet for computing total mass of VOC is provided
in Appendix H.
The exemption allowance in the regulation applies to the
total mass of VOC claimed by a single manufacturer for
the coatings chosen for exemption. Divisions of a
company, subsidiaries, and parent companies are
considered to be a single manufacturer.
Submit the report on or before March 1 following the
calendar year in which the exemption is used. Submit the
report to the EPA Regional Office (Appendix G) for the
region in which your corporate headquarters is located.
See Section 3.11 for the reporting requirements.
Retain records for VOC content, volume manufactured or
imported and total mass VOC calculations for 3 years.
See Section 3.11 for the recordkeeping requirements.
Label must show the VOC content. See Section 3.12 for
the labeling requirements.
Figure 5. How Can I Use the Tonnage Exemption?
53
-------
3.8 Example: Tonnage Exemption
Tonnage Exemption — Example Calculation
[§ 59.404]
This example uses coatings manufactured by a fictitious company - Company A.
Company A is claiming the exemption for the period of September 13, 1999 to
December 31, 2000. Therefore, it may exempt coatings that, in total, contain no more
than 23 megagrams (25.3 tons) of VOC. Company A identified three products that
exceed the VOC content limits in the regulation and for which they will comply using the
tonnage exemption.
Tonnage Exemption — Step 1 - Identify the coatings for which you want to
use the tonnage exemption. For each coating, determine the volume that was
manufactured or imported including the volume of any water and exempt compounds
and excluding the volume of any colorant added to tint bases for the time period for
which you are claiming the exemption.* (See Appendix F to determine whether to
include or exclude water and exempt compounds when calculating VOC content, VOC
amount, and volume manufactured or imported.) For example, between September 13,
1999 and December 31, 2000, Company A manufactured 40,000 liters of Coating 1;
10,000 liters of Coating 2; and 5,000 liters of Coating 3.
Coating
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
A
Volume Manufactured or Imported (liters)
40,000
10,000
5,000
*Regulation correction [§ 59.404, Equation 4]; see page 7 for where to get the
latest information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that the
volume manufactured or imported includes the volume of any water and exempt
compounds and excludes the volume of any colorant added to tint bases.
54
-------
3.8 Example: Tonnage Exemption
Tonnage Exemption — Example Calculation [§ 59.404]
(Continued)
Tonnage Exemption —Step 2 - Determine the amount of VOC contained in
1 liter of each coating. Determine the VOC amount, which is the mass (grams) of
VOC in each liter of coating.* For this calculation, it is not necessary to exclude the
volume of water and exempt compounds. For example, the VOC contained in
Coating 1 is 350 grams per liter thinned to the manufacturer's maximum
recommendation, including the volume of water and any exempt compounds*
Coating
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
A
Volume
Manufactured or
Imported (liters)
40,000
10,000
5,000
B
VOC Amount
[Grams VOC per
liter of coating
(grams per liter)]
350
600
400
*Regulation correction [§ 59.404, Equation 4]; see page 7 for where to get the
latest information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) replaces "VOC
content" with "VOC amount" to distinguish this term from the term "VOC content" used
elsewhere in the regulation [§ 59.404(b)].
55
-------
3.8 Example: Tonnage Exemption
Tonnage Exemption — Example Calculation [§ 59.404]
(Continued)
Tonnage Exemption — Step 3 - Calculate the total VOC. Now that you have
collected all the necessary information, you are ready to calculate the grams VOC for
the coatings that you have chosen. Calculate the total VOC in grams by multiplying the
volume of coating manufactured or imported (liters) by the amount of VOC in 1 liter of
coating (grams per liter). For example, for Coating 1, the grams of VOC is:
(40,000 liters) (350 grams/liter) = 14,000,000 grams
Next, convert the result from above to megagrams by dividing by 1,000,000. For
example, for Coating 1 the resulting megagrams of VOC is:
(14,000,000 grams) - (1,000,000 grams permegagram) = 14 megagrams of VOC
Coating
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
A
Volume
Manufactured or
Imported (liters)
40,000
10,000
5,000
B
VOC Amount
(Grams VOC per
liter of coating
[grams per liter])
350
600
400
C
(C = AXB)
Grams of
VOC
14,000,000
6,000,000
2,000,000
TOTAL
D
(D = C-M x106)
Megagrams of
VOC
14
6
2
22
From the table above, the three products that Company A has chosen to exempt
contain a total of 22 megagrams of VOC. Therefore, Company A is within the allowed
23 megagram exemption for these three coatings for the period of September 13, 1999
through December 31, 2000.
Appendix H contains a worksheet for computing the annual tonnage exemption.
Appendix H also contains a table for quickly estimating the megagrams of VOC for a
coating.
End of Annual Tonnage Exemption Example
56
-------
3.9 Exceedance fee
3.9 How can I use the exceedance fee?
[§ 59.403]
The exceedance fee compliance option allows you to exceed the applicable VOC
content limits of the regulation by paying a fee on the amount of VOC in excess of the
VOC content limits. The fee is calculated and paid annually and you can pay the fee on
an unlimited number of coatings. The fee is $0.0028 per gram (or about $1.27 per
pound) of excess VOC. The fee for a coating is computed as follows:
Annual volume of
coating manufactured
or imported that does
not meet the VOC
content limit (liters)
VOC content in excess
of the applicable limit
(grams/liter)
0.0028
(dollars/gram)
When determining the volume manufactured or imported for the exceedance fee,
include the volume of water and exempt compounds and exclude the volume of
colorants added to tint bases. (See Appendix F to determine whether to include or
exclude water and exempt compounds when calculating VOC content, VOC amount,
and volume manufactured or imported.)
Figure 6 explains the steps that you must follow to use the exceedance fee
option. You are not required to declare to EPA in advance that you are choosing this
option, nor is any advance approval required. You simply pay the fee and submit the
required report by March 1 of the year after you claim the fee. For example, if you use
the exceedance fee option for the year 2001, then you submit payment and a report on
March 1, 2002. The EPA expects the address for submitting the exceedance fee to
change. A notice will be published in the Federal Register. See the architectural
coatings web site for the latest information
(http://www.epa/gov/ttn/uatw/183e/aim/aimpg.html).
If you represent a coating as both a shop coating and as an
architectural coating, you must pay the exceedance fee on the
entire volume that does not meet the limit. However, if you
label and represent the coating as two separate coatings, you
must pay the exceedance fee only on the volume that is labeled
and represented as an architectural coating.
57
-------
3.9 Exceedance fee
Determine which
coatings will use
the fee option
I
Compute the fee
I
Submit an annual
report to EPA and
pay the fee
I
Retain records and
data to support the
fee calculations
I
Comply with
labeling
requirements
This is your choice. You may decide at any
time to pay the fee or to reformulate your
product to comply with the limits. You do not
pay a fee for any volume of coatings for which
the tonnage exemption is claimed.
The fee must be computed at the end of
each calendar year. See example below for
how to compute fee. A worksheet for
computing the fee is provided in Appendix H.
Submit the report and pay the fee on or before
March 1 following the calendar year in which
you use the fee option. Submit the report to the
EPA Regional Office (Appendix G) for the
region in which your corporate headquarters is
located. See section 3.11 for the reporting
requirements.
Retain records for VOC content, volume
manufactured or imported, and fee calculations
for 3 years. See Section 3.11 for the
recordkeeping requirements.
Label must show the VOC
content in grams per liter. See Section 3.12 for
the labeling requirements.
Figure 6. How Can I Use the Exceedance Fee?
58
-------
3.9 Example: Exceedance fee
Annual Exceedance Fee — Example Calculation
[§ 59.403]
This example uses coatings manufactured in one year by a fictitious company -
Company B. For simplicity, it is assumed that Company B has already identified three
coatings for which the exceedance fee option will be used.
Exceedance Fee —Step 1 - Determine the annual volume of the coatings
for which you have chosen the exceedance fee option. For each coating,
determine the volume that was manufactured or imported for the calendar year
(January 1 through December 31) for which you are calculating the fee. For example,
Company B manufactured 5,000 liters of coating 1. They manufactured 75,000 liters of
Coating 2, but reformulated during the year, such that 25,000 liters complied with the
regulation. Therefore, the fee will be paid on only 50,000 liters of Coating 2. They
manufactured 30,000 liters of Coating 3. The volume manufactured or imported per
year, in liters, includes the volume of any water and exempt compounds and excludes
the volume of any colorant added to tint bases.* See Appendix F to determine whether
to include or exclude water and exempt compounds when calculating VOC content,
VOC amount, and volume manufactured or imported.
Coating
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
A
Annual Volume Manufactured or
Imported (liters)
5,000
50,000
30,000
If you choose to use the exceedance fee option beginning on
September 11,1999 (when the regulation takes effect), you must
calculate the fee for the period September 11,1999 through
December 31,1999 and submit the report and pay the fee by
March 1, 2000. For subsequent years, you must pay the fee for
the entire calendar year for coatings that you choose this option.
*Regulation correction [§ 59.403, Equation 2]; the technical correction notice
(Appendix A) clarifies that the volume manufactured or imported includes the volume of
any water and exempt compounds and excludes the volume of any colorant added to
tint bases.
59
-------
3.9 Example: Exceedance fee
Annual Exceedance Fee — Example Calculation [§ 59.403]
(Continued)
Exceedance Fee — Step 2 - Determine the VOC content of each coating.
Determine the VOC content of each of your coatings using the procedure described in
Section 3.6 of this guide. For example, the VOC content of Coating 1 is 400 grams per
liter.
Coating
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
A
Annual Volume
Manufactured or
Imported (liters)
5,000
50,000
30,000
B
VOC Content
(grams per
liter)
400
550
350
60
-------
3.9 Example: Exceedance fee
Annual Exceedance Fee — Example Calculation [§ 59.403]
(Continued)
Exceedance Fee — Step 3 - Identify the VOC content limit in the regulation
that applies to each coating. The amount of the fee is based on the difference
between the VOC content of each coating and the applicable VOC content limit in the
regulation. Therefore, you need to identify the coating category and the applicable limit.
For additional guidance on determining the applicable coating category for your
coatings, see Section 3.5 of this guide. For example, Company B has determined that
Coating 1 meets the definition of the concrete curing compounds category and is,
therefore, subject to a VOC content limit of 350 grams per liter.
Coating
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
A
Annual
Volume
Manufactured
or Imported
(liters)
5,000
50,000
30,000
B
VOC Content
(grams per liter)
400
550
350
C
Category and Applicable
VOC Content Limit in
Regulation
(grams per liter)
concrete curing compound
350
anti-fouling coating
450
flat - exterior coating
250
61
-------
3.9 Example: Exceedance fee
Annual Exceedance Fee — Example Calculation [§ 59.403]
(Continued)
Exceedance Fee — Step 4 - Calculate the VOC content that is above the
limit (i.e., excess VOC). Subtract the applicable VOC content limit from the VOC
content of the coating. For example, for Coating 1, the VOC content above the limit is:
400 grams per liter - 350 grams per liter = 50 grams per liter
Coating
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
A
Annual Volume
Manufactured or
Imported (liters)
5,000
50,000
30,000
B
VOC Content
(grams per liter)
400
550
350
C
Category and Applicable
VOC Limit in Regulation
(grams per liter)
concrete curing compound
350
anti-fouling coating
450
flat - exterior coating
250
D
(D = B-C)
VOC Content
Above the Limit
(grams per liter)
50
100
100
62
-------
3.9 Example: Exceedance fee
Annual Exceedance Fee — Example Calculation [§ 59.403]
(Concluded)
Exceedance Fee — Step 5 - Calculate the exceedance fee for each coating
and the total exceedance fee for all coatings. To calculate the exceedance fee, first
multiply the volume manufactured or imported by the VOC content that is above the
limit (i.e., "excess VOC"). This represents the total grams of VOC exceeding the limit
for the volume of the coating that was manufactured. For example, for Coating 1 this
would be:
5,000 liters x 50 grams per liter = 250,000 grams
Next, multiply the number of grams of VOC exceeding the limit by the fee rate to
determine the fee for that product for that year. For example, for Coating 1 this would
be:
250,000 grams x $0.0028 per gram = $700
Finally, determine the total exceedance fee by adding up the fee for all of the
products for which you have chosen the fee compliance option. For Company B, the
total exceedance fee is:
$700 + $14,000 + $8,400 = $23,100
Coating
Coating 1
Coating 2
Coating 3
A
Annual Volume
Manufactured
or Imported
(liters)
5,000
50,000
30,000
B
VOC Content
Exceeding the
Limit (grams per
liter)
50
100
100
c
(C = A X B)
Grams of
VOC
Exceeding
the Limit
250,000
5,000,000
3,000,000
D
Fee Rate
(dollars per
gram of
excess VOC)
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
TOTAL
E
(E = C x D)
Amount of
Fee Owed for
Each Coating
(dollars)
$700
$14,000
$8,400
$23,100
End of Annual Exceedance Fee Example
63
-------
3.10 Combination of options
3.10 How can I use more than one compliance option?
[§§ 59.402, 59.403, and 59.404]
The regulation allows you to use more than one compliance option for your
coatings. For example, you can meet the VOC content limits for some coatings, use
the tonnage exemption for some coatings, and pay the exceedance fee for some
coatings. In fact, you can even claim the tonnage exemption for a part of a coating's
volume and pay the exceedance fee for the rest of its volume.
The following example shows how a fictitious company, Company C, has
determined how it will comply with the regulation for the September 13, 1999 through
December 31, 2000 time frame.
64
-------
3.10 Example: Combination
Combination of Compliance Options — Example Calculation
Combination of Options — Step 1 - Assemble information on your coatings.
Assemble the following information for each of your coatings: the volume manufactured
or imported, the VOC content, the category, and the applicable VOC content limit in the
regulation. The table below shows this information for all 10 coatings that are
manufactured by Company C between September 13, 1999 and December 31, 2000.
Coating
Coating A
Coating B
Coating C
Coating D
Coating E
Coating F
Coating G
Coating H
Coating I
Coating J
Volume
Manufactured or
Imported (liters)
5,000
40,000
25,000
100,000
150,000
35,000
60,000
300,000
75,000
15,000
VOC Content
(grams per liter)
325
550
500
700
275
400
500
400
700
600
Category and Applicable VOC
Limit in Regulation (grams per
liter)
Opaque Stain - 350
Nuclear Coating - 450
Bond Breaker - 600
Metallic Pigmented - 500
Exterior Flat - 250
Roof Coatings - 250
Varnish - 450
Varnish - 450
Concrete Surface Retarder - 780
Industrial Maintenance - 450
65
-------
3.10 Example: Combination
Combination of Compliance Options — Example Calculation
(Continued)
Combination of Options — Step 2 - Identify coatings that meet the VOC
content limits in the regulation. Identify those coatings that are already in
compliance with the VOC content limits in the regulation. Also, identify those coatings
that you plan to reformulate to meet the limits. As shown below, Company C has four
coatings that already meet the VOC content limits (Coatings A, C, H and I) and two
coatings that they will reformulate to meet the limits (Coatings E and G). The
remaining coatings (Coatings B, D, F and J) exceed the VOC content limits and will not
be reformulated (at least not in time to comply with the limits).
Coating
Coating A
Coating B
Coating C
Coating D
Coating E
Coating F
Coating G
Coating H
Coating I
Coating J
Volume
Manufactured
or Imported
(liters)
5,000
40,000
25,000
100,000
150,000
35,000
60,000
300,000
75,000
15,000
VOC
Content
(grams per
liter)
325
550
500
700
275
400
500
400
700
600
Category and
Applicable VOC Limit
in Regulation (grams
per liter)
Opaque Stain - 350
Nuclear Coating - 450
Bond Breaker - 600
Metallic Pigmented - 500
Exterior Flat - 250
Roof Coatings - 250
Varnish - 450
Varnish - 450
Concrete Surface
Retarder - 780
Industrial Maintenance -
450
Chosen
Compliance
Option
Already
meets limit
~
Already
meets limit
~
Reformulate
to meet limit
~
Reformulate
to meet limit
Already
meets limit
Already
meets limit
~
66
-------
3.10 Example: Combination
Combination of Compliance Options — Example Calculation
(Continued)
Combination of Options — Step 3 - Determine the coatings that will comply
using the tonnage exemption . Now that you have identified the coatings that exceed
the VOC content limits and cannot be reformulated during this time period, you must
decide whether you will choose the annual tonnage exemption or exceedance fee
compliance option for these coatings.
Since the tonnage exemption is free, it makes sense to first identify the coatings
for which you can use the tonnage exemption. Since the tonnage exemption is based
on the VOC amount (grams of VOC per liter of coating excluding the weight, but
including the volume of water and exempt compounds), determine the VOC amount for
each coating. Then, for each coating, determine the total megagrams of VOC using the
procedure in Section 3.8 of this guide. The total megagrams of VOC for Company C's
coatings that exceed the VOC content limits are shown in the table below.
Coating
Coating B
Coating D
Coating F
Coating J
Volume
Manufactured
or Imported
(liters)
40,000
100,000
35,000
15,000
VOC Amount
(grams of VOC per
liter of coating
[grams per liter])
550
700
400
600
TOTAL
Total
Megagrams
of VOC
22
70
14
9
115
67
-------
3.10 Example: Combination
Combination of Compliance Options — Example Calculation
(Continued)
Since Company C is complying in the September 13, 1999 through
December 31, 2000 time frame, they are limited to a tonnage exemption of
23 megagrams. Since the total megagrams for coatings B, D, F, and J is
115 megagrams, Company C must choose which ones to exempt. They can choose
any combination of the coatings as long as the total megagrams do not exceed the
23 megagram level. For example, three examples of valid options for Company C are:
Option 1: Claim an exemption for Coating B (22 megagrams)
Option 2: Claim an exemption for Coating F and Coating J
(14 megagrams + 9 megagrams = 23 megagrams)
Option 3: Claim the tonnage exemption for a part of Coating D's volume and
then pay the exceedance fee on the remaining part of the volume.
For example, Company C could claim the tonnage exemption for the
fraction of Coating D's volume that equals 23 megagrams. The
volume that equates to 23 megagrams is determined by:
Step 1 - Convert the annual tonnage exemption level from
megagrams to grams.
(23 megagrams) (1,000,000) = 23,000,000 grams
Step 2 - Divide the annual tonnage exemption level in grams by the
VOC content of the coating
(23,000,000 grams) / 700 grams per liter = 32,857 liters
Therefore, Company C can exempt 32,857 liters of Coating D and
pay the fee on the remaining 67,143 liters of Coating D and all of
Coatings B, F, and J.
For the purposes of this example, we assume that Company C chooses option 2 and
claims all of Coating F and all of Coating J under the tonnage exemption. Therefore,
the fee must be paid on Coatings B and D.
68
-------
3.10 Example: Combination
Combination of Compliance Options — Example Calculation
(Continued)
Combination of Options — Step 4 - Calculate the exceedance fees due.
You must now calculate the amount of fee that is due for all the coatings that do not
meet the VOC content limits, that will not be reformulated, and that will not be claimed
under the tonnage exemption. For Company C, these are Coatings B and D. The fee
should be determined using the procedure in Section 3.9 of this guide.
Coating
Coating B
Coating B
Coating D
Coating D
Volume
Manufactured
or Imported
(liters)
8,000(9/13/99
thru 12/31/99)
32,000 (1/1/00
thru 12/31/00)
20,000(9/13/99
thru 12/31/99)
80,000 (1/1/00
thru 12/31/00)
VOC
Content
(grams per
liter)
550
550
700
700
Category and
Applicable VOC
Limit in
Regulation
(grams per liter)
Nuclear Coating
450
Nuclear Coating
450
Metallic Pigmented
500
Metallic Pigmented
500
TOTAL
Exceedance
Fee Due
(dollars)
$2,240
$8,960
$11,200
$44,800
$67,200
If you choose to use the exceedance fee option beginning
on September 13, 1999 (when the regulation takes effect),
you must calculate the fee for the period September 13,
1999 through December 31, 1999 and submit the report and
pay the fee by March 1, 2000. For subsequent years, you
must pay the fee for the entire calendar year for coatings
using this option.
69
-------
3.10 Example: Combination
Combination of Compliance Options — Example Calculation
(Concluded)
Combination of Options — Step 5 - Summary. The following table summarizes
the compliance options that Company C has chosen in this example. These options
are not the only ones that could have been chosen for this array of products. This
example, however, demonstrates the flexibility that the regulation offers to
manufacturers and importers for determining the most cost-effective compliance
strategy.
Coating
Coating A
Coating B
Coating C
Coating D
Coating E
Coating F
Coating G
Coating H
Coating I
Coating J
Volume
Manufactured
or Imported
(liters)
5,000
40,000
25,000
100,000
150,000
35,000
60,000
300,000
75,000
15,000
VOC Content
(grams per liter)
325
550
500
700
275
400
500
400
700
600
Category and Applicable
VOC Limit in Regulation
(grams per liter)
Opaque Stain - 350
Nuclear Coating - 450
Bond Breaker -600
Metallic Pigmented - 500
Exterior Flat - 250
Roof Coatings -250
Varnish - 450
Varnish - 450
Concrete Surface Retarder-
780
Industrial Maintenance - 450
Compliance
Options
Selected
Already meets
limit
Pay total
exceedance
fee of $1 1 ,200
Already meets
limit
Pay total
exceedance
fee of $56,000
Reformulate
to meet limit
Claim tonnage
exemption
Reformulate
to meet limit
Already meets
limit
Already meets
limit
Claim tonnage
exemption
End of Combination of Compliance Options Example
70
-------
3.11 Reports and records
3.11 What reports and records are required?
[§§ 59.407, 59.408]
You must submit an initial notification report to EPA if you manufacture or import
coatings in any of the categories of architectural coatings in Figure 1. This initial report
must include the following information:
• your name and address,
• the street address of each one of your facilities in the United States that is
producing, packaging, or repackaging any architectural coating subject to the
regulation,
• a list of categories from Figure 1 for which your coatings meet the definitions in
the regulation, and
• an explanation of any date code used on a container to represent the date of
manufacture of the coating.
The initial report must be submitted by the later of the following two deadlines:
• September 13, 1999 (for coatings registered under FIFRA, the initial report must
be submitted by March 13, 2000*), or
• 180 days after the date you manufacture or import an architectural coating for
the first time.
If you submit an initial notification report, then you are not required to submit
subsequent notification reports for coatings that you manufacture for the first time after
your initial notification. However, if you introduce a new date code for your coating
containers that was not explained in the initial notification report, then you must submit
an explanation of the new date code no later than 30 days after you first use it.
*Regulation correction [§ 59.408(b)]; see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) clarifies that the deadline for
submitting the initial notification report for coatings registered under FIFRA is March 13,
2000, rather than September 13, 1999.
71
-------
3.11 Reports and records
You must submit your reports and other correspondence to the Regional Office
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that serves the State or Territory where
your corporate headquarters is located. Appendix G lists each Regional Office and the
States and Territories it serves. Appendix I contains an example template you may
use, if desired, for the initial notification report.
The EPA expects the address for submitting the exceedance fee to change. A
notice will be published in the Federal Register. See the architectural coatings web site
for the latest information (http://www.epa/gov/ttn/uatw/183e/aim/aimpg.html).
If your manufactured, repackaged, or imported coatings meet the VOC content
limits in Figure 1, then you submit the initial report, but you do not have to prepare
periodic reports or records. If you choose to comply using one or more of the other
options provided in the regulation, then you must prepare certain periodic reports and
records as shown in the following table.
A parent company must ensure that an initial
report and any required periodic reports and
exceedance fee payments are submitted by the
deadlines for all its divisions and subsidiaries.
v v / The date code is the only information in the
x-"-=-— initial report you must report again if a change
occurs. If you change the date code, then you
must submit an explanation of the new date
code no later than 30 days after first use.
72
-------
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements [§§ 59.407, 59.408]
If you choose this option... then you must report...
by this date...
and for 3 years keep a record of...
Pay an annual exceedance
fee
CO
the coatings and associated categories
in Figure 1 for which fee is used
VOC content of each coating that
exceeds the limits in Figure 1
excess VOC content of each coating in
grams of VOC per liter of coating
total volume of each coating
manufactured or imported per calendar
year, in liters, including the volume of
any water and exempt compounds and
excluding the volume of any colorant
added to tint bases*
annual fee for each coating
total annual fee for all coatings
March 1 after each
calendar year you
use exceedance fee
the coatings and associated
categories for which fee is used
VOC content of each coating in
grams of VOC per liter of coating
excess VOC content of each
coating in grams of VOC per liter of
coating
total volume of each coating
manufactured or imported per
calendar year, in liters, including
the volume of any water and
exempt compounds and excluding
the volume of any colorant added
to tint bases *
annual fee for each coating
total annual fee for all coatings
calculations of the annual fee for
each coating and calculations of
the total annual fee as determined
using the procedure in the
.regulation
*Regulation correction [§§ 59.407, 59.408]; see page 7 for where to get the latest information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A)
clarifies that the VOC amount includes the volume of any water and exempt compounds and excludes the volume of any colorant added to tint
bases.
-------
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements [§§ 59.407, 59.408]
(Continued)
If you choose this option... then you must report... by this date... and for 3 years keep a record of...
Claim a tonnage exemption • all coatings in Figure 1 for which March 1 after each • all coatings in Figure 1 for which
exemption is claimed year you use exemption is claimed
tonnage exemption
• the VOC amount in grams of VOC per • the VOC amount in grams VOC per
liter of coating thinned to the liter of coating thinned to the
manufacturer's maximum manufacturer's maximum
recommendation including the volume recommendation including the
of any water and exempt compounds volume of any water and exempt
and excluding the volume of any compounds and excluding the
colorant added to tint bases * volume of any colorant added to tint
bases *
• volume manufactured or imported**, in
liters, for each coating for which • volume manufactured or
exemption is claimed for the time imported**, in liters, for each
period the exemption is claimed coating for which exemption is
claimed for the time period the
• total megagrams of VOC contained in exemption is claimed
all coatings for which the exemption is
claimed for the time period the • total megagrams of VOC contained
exemption is claimed in each coating for which the
exemption is claimed, and for all
coatings combined for which the
exemption is claimed, for the time
period the exemption is claimed
*Regulation correction [§§ 59.407, 59.408]; see page 7 for where to get the latest information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A)
clarifies that the VOC amount includes the volume of any water and exempt compounds and excludes the volume of any colorant added to tint
bases.
"Regulation correction [§§ 59.407, 59.408]; see page 7 for where to get the latest information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A)
requires you to keep a record and report the volume manufactured or imported, rather than actual sales.
-------
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements [§§ 59.407, 59.408]
(Continued)
If you choose this option... then you must report...
by this date...
and for 3 years keep a record of...
Use the adjusted VOC
content for recycled coating
minimum volume % of post-consumer
coating content for each recycled coating
volume of post-consumer coating received
for recycling
volume of unusable post-consumer coating
received
volume of virgin materials
volume of the final recycled coating
manufactured or imported
March 1 after each
calendar year you
use the adjusted
VOC content
01
minimum volume % of post-consumer
coating content for each recycled coating
volume of post-consumer coating
received for recycling
volume of unusable post-consumer
coating received
volume of virgin materials
volume of the final recycled coating
manufactured or imported
calculations of the adjusted VOC content
as determined using equation 7 in the
.regulation
-------
3.12 Labeling
3.12 How do I comply with the container labeling requirements?
[§ 59.405]
The label or lid of each container in which a coating is sold or distributed must
contain the applicable information from the following table.
If the coating is... Then the container must indicate...
Any architectural coating Date
subject to the regulation Date that the coating was manufactured (may also be provided on the bottom
of the container). Alternatively, a date code may be used instead of the date if
you provide EPA with an explanation of the date code in the initial notification
report and no later than 30 days after a new or revised date code system is
used. The explanation will allow EPA to read the date code and determine the
date the coating was manufactured.
VOC content of the coating
You have two options:
1. The VOC content of the coating in grams of VOC per liter or pounds of
VOC per gallon*, or
2. The applicable VOC content limit in Table 1 with which the coating
complies.
NOTE: You must use the first option for each coating that does not meet the
VOC content limit (i.e., those for which you are using the tonnage exemption
or exceedance fee provisions).
Thinning Recommendation
A quantitative thinning recommendation is required only if you recommend
thinning with an organic solvent, not water. If solvent thinning is not
necessary, specify that the coating is to be applied without thinning.
Industrial maintenance The information above and one or more of the following statements:
coating 1. "For industrial use only"
2. "For professional use only"
3. "Not for residential use," or "Not intended for residential use"
4. "This coating is intended for use under the following condition(s):" and list
any of these conditions that apply:
Immersion in water, wastewater, or chemical solutions (aqueous and
nonaqueous solutions), or chronic exposure of interior surfaces to
moisture condensation;
Acute or chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic, or acidic agents, or
to chemicals, chemical fumes, or chemical mixtures or solutions;
Repeated exposure to temperatures above 120 °C (250 °F);
Repeated (frequent) heavy abrasion, including mechanical wear and
repeated (frequent) scrubbing with industrial solvents, cleansers, or
scouring agents; or
Exterior exposure of metal structures and structural components
*Regulation correction [§ 59.405(a)(3)(i)]; see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) allows you to label the VOC
content in either metric or English units, rather than just metric units.
76
-------
3.12 Labeling
If the coating is... Then the container must indicate...
Recycled coating The VOC content and thinning information above and "Contains not less than
(if you use the adjusted X percent by volume post-consumer coating"
VOC content)
You may label the VOC content in either metric or
English units, however, the regulation will be enforced
in metric units.*
*Regulation correction [§ 59.405(a)(3)(i)]; see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) allows you to label the VOC
content in either metric or English units, rather than just metric units.
77
-------
3.13 Traffic markings
3.13 How does the regulation affect me if I apply traffic markings?
[§ 59.406(d)]
If you apply traffic markings you are not subject to the regulation unless you also
manufacture or import coatings. However, you may be indirectly affected by the
regulation due to changes in the availability of the traffic markings you apply.
The regulation contains a 150 gram per liter VOC content limit for traffic
markings. Traditional solventborne traffic markings contain VOC in excess of the
150 gram per liter limit. In some cases, manufacturers may continue to produce traffic
markings that exceed this limit by using the tonnage exemption or the exceedance fee
provisions. However, traffic markings that exceed the 150 gram per liter limit are likely
to be in short supply after September 13, 1999, when the regulation takes effect.
Therefore, if you apply one of these coatings and it is no longer available, you
will need to switch to a traffic marking that complies with the VOC content limit.
Low-VOC traffic markings that typically meet the
150 gram per liter limit include, but are not limited to:
• waterborne paints • thermoplastics
• acetone-based • permanent markers
solventborne paints • polyesters, and
• epoxies • preformed tapes
If you apply solventborne traffic markings now, you may need to modify your
application equipment or purchase new application equipment in order to apply traffic
markings that comply with the limit. For example, many older solventborne traffic
striping trucks cannot apply waterborne traffic markings without modifications. The
table below outlines the changes that are required for switching from solventborne
traffic marking paint to another technology.
78
-------
3.13 Traffic markings
Check with your supplier of traffic markings concerning any possible changes in
the availability of the markings that you apply. If you need to switch to a different traffic
marking, contact the manufacturer of your application equipment regarding any
equipment modifications or purchases that may be necessary.
If you switch from
solventborne traffic
paint to...
then the following equipment changes are needed...
Waterborne traffic paint
If your striper is capable of applying waterborne paint:
No changes are necessary.
If your striper is not capable of applying waterborne paint:
Retrofit your existing striper by increasing pump size and
motor power, adding temperature controls, replacing metal
parts and tanks with stainless steel, nickel-coated or
Teflon®-coated parts and tanks.
OR
Purchase a new striper that can apply waterborne traffic
paint.
Acetone-based traffic paint No changes are required.
Epoxies
Thermoplastics
Permanent Markers
Polyesters
Preformed Tapes
Purchase a new striper that is designed to apply this type
of traffic marking.
79
-------
3.13 Traffic markings
Traffic marking coating means a coating formulated
and recommended for marking and striping streets,
highways, or other traffic surfaces including, but not
limited to, curbs, berms, driveways, parking lots,
sidewalks, and airport runways.
Most traffic striping machines manufactured after
1994 can apply today's waterborne traffic markings.
80
-------
4.0 Other Questions and Answers
4.0 OTHER QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
After reading section 4, you should know how to determine self-compliance,
how the regulation affects your existing air permits, and how you can benefit
the environment.
4.1 How might I conduct a self-audit to help me evaluate whether I
am in compliance with this regulation?
You may want to conduct a self-audit to determine your compliance status for
this regulation. You will want to ensure that you have met all the reporting,
recordkeeping, and labeling requirements, and that your coatings meet the VOC
content limits. For any coatings that do not meet the limits, you will want to ensure that
you are complying with either the tonnage exemption or exceedance fee option. To
help you with this self-audit, Figure 7 provides a checklist you may find helpful. You are
not required to use this checklist, however, and may find another tool for conducting a
self-audit to be more useful.
81
-------
4.0 Other Questions and Answers
Figure?. SELF-AUDIT CHECKLIST
Requirement
Applicability:
Am 1 subject to this regulation? Did 1 manufacture, or import, any of the coating
categories listed in Table 1 to subpart D in the U.S.? (If "yes" to any of the
following, then you are subject to this regulation)
1 . After September 1 3, 1 999?
2. In containers larger than 1 liter?
3. In other than non-refillable aerosol containers?
Labeling:
Does my product contain the following on the product container label or lid?
1 . The date of manufacture or a code indicating manufacturing date
2. Recommended thinning requirements (does not apply to water thinned
paints)
3. VOC content
4. Special information if it's an industrial maintenance or recycled coating.
VOC content of coatings:
Is the VOC content I determined for my coating compliant with the content limit in
the regulation?
Did I use EPA Method 24 or another means to determine VOC content?
Q Method 24 (or alternative EPA-approved method)
n Formulation
Q Batch QA records (viscosity, weight, etc.)
Q Batch measurements & records of coating contents
Q Other
If I did not use EPA Method 24, am I confident that the coating would be in
compliance if tested with Method 24?
Reporting:
Did I submit the required reports to EPA?
1 . Initial notification report of manufacturing facility locations, coating
categories being manufactured or imported, and date code explanation.
2. Periodic reports with the required information:
March 1 , 2000 - exceedance fee and recycled coating reports
March 1 , 2001 and every March 1 thereafter. Exceedance fee,
recycled coating, and tonnage exemption reports.
Yes
No
NA
82
-------
4.0 Other Questions and Answers
Requirement
Recordkeepinq:
Did 1 keep the following records for 3 years?
Recycling:
Did 1 keep the following records?
1 . Volume of coatings received for recycling
2. Volume received that is unusable
3. Volume of virgin stock use in recycling
4. Calculations of the adjusted VOC content for each coating
5. The minimum volume percent of post-consumer coatings in each coating
6. Volume of final product manufactured or imported
Exceedance fees:
Did I keep the following records on the coatings for which I am paying a fee?
1 . The coatings category and VOC content of each coating
2. VOC content of each coating
3. VOC content in excess of the limit
4. The volume manufactured or imported
5. Calculations of the annual fee for each coating and the total annual fee
6. The annual fee for each coating and total annual fee
Tonnage exemptions:
Did I keep the following records for the coatings exempted?
1 . The VOC amount of each coating exempted
2. Volume manufactured or imported for each exempted coating
3. Total VOC exempted for all coatings claimed and for each coating
claimed
4. Calculations of total megagrams of VOC for each coating exempted
Yes
No
NA
83
-------
4.2 Air permits
4.2 If I am subject to this regulation, do I have to obtain a Federal
operating permit?
Title V of the Clean Air Act requires that certain sources obtain operating
permits. However, being subject to the architectural coatings regulation does not by
itself create the obligation to apply for a title V operating permit. Nor is a title V permit
requirement triggered by the two other regulations that have been issued to date under
section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act: the consumer products regulation and the
automobile refinish coating regulation.
4.3 What are the implications for my existing operating permits?
The architectural coatings regulation will not affect your existing title V operating
permit. If you already have an operating permit issued under 40 CFR part 70 (i.e., a
title V permit issued by a State, local government, or Indian Tribe) or an operating
permit issued under 40 CFR part 71 (issued by EPA), you do not have to revise your
permit to incorporate the requirements of this regulation. Nor will you have to include
the requirements of this regulation whenever you renew your permit.
In addition to issuing title V permits, some States, local agencies, and Tribes
issue other types of operating permits to sources based on the requirements of State or
Tribal law. If such a permit applies to you, you should contact the permitting agency to
determine if the requirements of the architectural coatings regulation must be
incorporated.
84
-------
4.3 Pollution prevention
4.4 What is pollution prevention and how can it affect my
operations?
Pollution prevention eliminates or minimizes pollution where it originates, so
pollution is not created in the first place. The architectural coatings regulation
encourages pollution prevention by setting limits on the amount of VOC allowed in
coatings. Manufacturers that reformulate their coatings to reduce the VOC content and
meet the limits are practicing pollution prevention. Although the regulation includes
other compliance options (tonnage exemption and exceedance fee), reformulation is
the option that is most beneficial to the environment since it is the only option that
results in a reduction of VOC that are actually emitted. Reformulating reduces the
amount of VOC in the coatings and, therefore, fewer VOC are emitted during
application.
Manufacturers and importers who reformulate their coatings to meet the VOC
content limits (or whose coatings already meet the VOC content limits) will save time
and money because they are exempt from further recordkeeping and reporting
requirements and will not be paying a fee for VOC content in excess of the limit. These
manufacturers and importers must only submit an initial report and meet the labeling
requirements. However, manufacturers and importers who choose the tonnage
exemption will spend time to keep records and submit annual reports. Those who
choose the exceedance fee option will spend time to keep records and submit annual
reports, as well as pay the fee.
85
-------
4.4 Flexibility
4.5 Are there opportunities for flexibility or waivers?
The regulation encourages manufacturers and importers to reformulate their
coatings to reduce the amount of VOC in their coatings. However, the regulation is
flexible in offering compliance options for both large and small businesses for which
reformulation is not an immediate option. The exceedance fee and the tonnage
exemption provisions are included in the final regulation to avoid unnecessary impacts
upon manufacturers and to minimize impacts on the supply of coating products. The
exceedance fee is intended to allow manufacturers and importers additional time to
develop low-VOC formulations while providing an appropriate economic incentive to
encourage reformulation. The tonnage exemption is intended to allow manufacturers
and importers the flexibility to continue to market certain low-volume product lines
where reformulation of a specialty product used for unique applications may not be
cost-effective.
Manufacturers and importers whose coatings contain a portion of post-consumer
coating have the option to calculate an adjusted VOC content, giving them credit for
using recycled coatings. Use of recycled coatings is environmentally beneficial
because it reduces the amount of waste from architectural coatings that would
otherwise result from evaporation of VOC from unused coatings or of coatings sent to
landfills or elsewhere. The EPA is providing this credit to encourage recycling of
unused coatings.
4.6 Where do I go for further assistance?
To obtain more information or additional copies of this guide, call your State
small business assistance program or your State or local air pollution control agency.
Also, visit the EPA's Technology Transfer Network - Small Business Assistance
Program web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/sbap to get information on your State
small business assistance program or to find this document and additional materials
concerning this subject. Also, Appendix J of this guide lists various resources of
information that may help you understand and comply with the architectural coatings
regulation.
86
-------
5.0 The Compliance Assurance Process
5.0 THE COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE PROCESS
After reading section 5, you should know how EPA will determine
compliance, what happens if you or the EPA discovers noncompliance, and the
legal status of this guide.
5.1 How will EPA determine compliance?
The EPA employs several approaches to monitor compliance with its
environmental regulations, including both EPA-initiated and facility-initiated methods.
1. Inspections—The EPA may conduct periodic inspections at facilities
subject to this regulation. Inspections may be initiated by disclosures to
EPA, randomly selecting facilities or by a variety of targeting methods.
Inspections may be used to monitor recordkeeping requirements and
secure product samples. Inspections may also be conducted at brokers
who import paints subject to this regulation.
2. Reporting—The EPA will monitor reports submitted by the facility including
initial notification reports, tonnage exemption reports, recycled coating
reports, and exceedance fees and reports. The facility may also be asked
to demonstrate compliance with the VOC content requirements of the
regulation by providing test results, calculations, and other related
information.
3. Labeling—The EPA can review the coating container labels for labeling
requirements such as the date of manufacture, thinning instructions, and
VOC content.
4. Product Sampling—Samples may be obtained to determine whether
products meet the VOC content limits. Samples of the products and
labels may be reviewed at the manufacturer's site or from products in the
marketplace.
5. Self Disclosure—Facilities have the primary responsibility for ensuring that
they are in continuous compliance. The EPA encourages the facility to
take advantage of EPA's self-disclosure policies or small business policy.
To aid the facility in determining whether it is in compliance, Section 4.1 of
this guide includes a self-audit checklist.
87
-------
5.0 The Compliance Assurance Process
5.2 If I discover a violation, how can I work with the EPA to correct
it?
The EPA encourages self-disclosure of violations and has implemented two
policies to meet this goal. These policies meet the objectives of Section 223 of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) which
provides for the reduction, and under some appropriate circumstances, the complete
waiver of civil penalties for certain environmental violations.
The "Policy on Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses" (the Small Business
Policy) applies to companies with 100 or fewer employees and provides penalty waivers
or penalty reductions as incentives to participate in an on-site compliance assistance
program and to conduct environmental self-audits to discover and correct violations. For
more information on our Small Business Policy, you may visit our Internet site at:
http://es.epa.gov/oeca/smbusi.html.
The "Incentives for Self-Policing: Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of
Violations" policy (the Audit Policy) applies to businesses of all sizes that meet the
applicability criteria and promptly disclose and correct violations. For more information
on our Audit Policy, you may visit our Internet site at
http://es.epa.gov/oeca/auditpol.html, or http://es.epa.gov/oeca/apolguid.html,
which provides the audit policy interpretive guidance.
88
-------
5.3 If the Agency discovers a violation
5.3 If EPA discovers a violation, what might be its response?
To maximize compliance, EPA implements a balanced program of compliance
assistance, compliance incentives, and traditional law enforcement. The EPA knows
that small businesses that must comply with complicated new statutes or regulations
often want to do the right thing, but may lack the requisite knowledge, resources, or
skills. Compliance assistance information and technical advice helps small businesses
to understand and meet their environmental obligations. Compliance incentives, such
as our Small Business Policy, encourage persons to voluntarily discover, disclose, and
correct violations before they are identified by the government. The EPA's strong law
enforcement program protects all of us by targeting persons who neither comply nor
cooperate to address their problems.
The EPA uses a variety of methods to determine whether businesses are
complying, including inspecting facilities, reviewing records and reports, and responding
to citizen complaints. If EPA learns a person is violating the law, EPA may file an
enforcement action seeking penalties of up to $27,500 per violation, per day. The
proposed penalty in a given case will depend on many factors, including the number,
length, and severity of the violations, the economic benefit obtained by the violator, and
its ability to pay. The EPA has policies in place to ensure penalties are calculated fairly.
These policies are available to the public. In addition, any company charged with a
violation has the right to contest EPA's allegations and proposed penalty before an
impartial judge or jury.
In summary, EPA recognizes that it can achieve the greatest possible
environmental protection by encouraging small businesses to work with us to discover,
disclose, and correct violations. That is why EPA has issued self-disclosure, small
business, and small community policies to eliminate or reduce penalties for small and
large entities which cooperate with EPA to address compliance problems. In addition,
we've established compliance assistance centers to serve over a million small
businesses. For more information on these and other EPA programs for small
businesses, please contact EPA's Small Business Ombudsman, Karen Brown, at
(202)260-1390.
89
-------
5.4 Legal status of guide
5.4 What is the legal status of this guide?
A judge can look at a compliance guide in determining what penalty is
appropriate and reasonable, although the content of the guide cannot otherwise be
reviewed by the court.
In this compliance guide, we have tried to make clear what you must do to
comply with the applicable law and regulation, as required by SBREFA. We hope you
find this presentation of regulatory requirements useful and the additional information
helpful in reaching and maintaining compliance.
Following the steps set forth in this guidance generally should result in
compliance with those aspects of the regulation that it covers. The EPA does not make
any guarantee or assume any liability with respect to the use of any information or
recommendations contained in this document. Regulated entities requiring additional
information or advice should consult a qualified professional.
This guidance does not constitute rulemaking by the EPA, and may not be relied
on to create a substantive or procedural right or benefit enforceable, at law or in equity,
by any person. The EPA may take action at variance with this guidance and its internal
procedures.
90
-------
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
Final rule: National Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings
(40 CFR part 59, subpart D, 63 FR 48848, September 11,1998)
Final rule, corrections and amendments. National Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions Standards for Architectural Coatings; Correction
(40 CFR part 59, subpart D, 64 FR 34997, June 30, 1999)
To determine whether EPA has published further changes to this regulation,
browse the list of CFR sections affected at:
http://www.access.gpo/nara/lsa/browslsa.html
-------
48848 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 59
[AD-FRL-6149-7]
RIN 2060-AE55
National Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Standards for Architectural
Coatings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This action promulgates
national volatile organic compound
(VOC) emission standards for
architectural coatings pursuant to
section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act).
This final rule is based on the
Administrator's determination that VOC
emissions from the use of architectural
coatings have the potential to cause or
contribute to ozone levels that violate
the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for ozone. Ozone is
a major component of smog which
causes negative health and
environmental impacts when present in
high concentrations at ground level. The
final rule is estimated to reduce VOC
emissions by 103,000 megagrams per
year (Mg/yr) (113,500 tons per year
[tpy]) by requiring manufacturers and
importers to limit the VOC content of
architectural coatings.
DATES: The effective date is September
11, 1998. The incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in the
regulation is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of September 11,
1998.
ADDRESSES: Technical Support
Documents. The regulation promulgated
today is supported by two background
information documents (BID); one
specific to the architectural coatings
rule, and one that addresses comments
on the study and Report to Congress
under section 183(e). These documents
are: the BID for the promulgated
architectural coating standards, National
Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Architectural Coatings—
Background for Promulgated Standards
(Architectural Coatings BID); and the
BID containing the Administrator's
response to comments on the section
183(e) study and Report to Congress,
Response to Comments on Section
183(e) Study and Report to Congress
(183-BID). The Architectural Coatings
BID contains a summary of the changes
made to the standards since proposal, a
summary of all the public comments on
the standards, and the Administrator's
response to the comments and the 183-
BID contains a summary of all the
public comments made on the section
183(e) study and Report to Congress and
the list and schedule for regulation as
well as the Administrator's response to
the comments. Both documents may be
obtained from the docket for this
rulemaking and are also accessible
through the Internet at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ramain.html; or
from the United States Environmental
Protection Agency Library (MD-35),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-2777. Please
refer to "National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings—Background for
Promulgated Standards," EPA-453/R-
98-006b, or "Response to Comments on
Section 183(e) Study and Report to
Congress" EPA-453/R-98-007.
Docket. Docket No. A-92-18, contains
supporting information used in
developing the promulgated standards.
Docket No. A-94-65 contains
information considered by the EPA in
development of the consumer and
commercial products study and the
subsequent list and schedule for
regulation. The dockets are available for
public inspection and copying from 8:00
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48849
dockets are located at the EPA's Air and
Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Waterside Mall, Room Ml 500,
1st Floor, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202)
260-7548 or fax (202) 260-4400. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Ellen Ducey at (919) 541-5408, Coatings
and Consumer Products Group,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13),
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711 (ducey.ellen@epa.gov).
Any correspondence related to
compliance with this rule must be
submitted to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office listed in § 59.409 of the
rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially
regulated by this action are
manufacturers and importers of
architectural coatings. Architectural
coatings are coatings that are
recommended for field application to
stationary structures and their
appurtenances, to portable buildings, to
pavements, or to curbs. Regulated
categories and entities include:
Category
Industry
State/local/
tribal gov-
ernments.
Examples of regulated enti-
ties
Manufacturers (which in-
cludes packagers and re-
packagers) and importers
of architectural coatings
that are manufactured for
sale or distribution in the
United States, including all
United States territories.
State Departments of Trans-
portation that manufacture
their own coatings.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in this table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
product is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in § 59.400 of the
final rule. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble.
Judicial review. This section 183(e)
rule for architectural coatings was
proposed on June 25, 1996 (61 FR
32729). This notice promulgating a rule
for architectural coatings constitutes
final administrative action concerning
that proposal. Under section 307(b)(l) of
the Act, judicial review of this final rule
is available only by filing a petition for
review in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by November 10, 1998. Under
section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, only an
objection to this rule which was raised
with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment can be raised
during judicial review. Moreover, under
section 307(b) (2) of the Act, the
requirements established by today's
final action may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal
proceeding brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Outline. The information presented in
this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. Purpose of Regulation
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
II. Summary of Standards
A. Applicability
B. Volatile Organic Compound Content
Limits
C. Exceedance Fee
D. Tonnage Exemption
E. Labeling
F. Recordkeeping
G. Reporting
-------
48850 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
H. Compliance Provisions
III. Summary of Considerations in
Developing Standards
A. Basis of the Regulation
B. Stakeholder and Public Participation
IV. Summary of Impacts
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Energy Impacts
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
V. Significant Comments and Changes to
Proposed Standards
A. National Rule versus Control
Techniques Guidelines
B. Applicability and Regulated Entities
C. General Comments on Determination of
Best Available Controls
D. Changes in Proposed Coating Categories
E. Addition of New Coating Categories
F. Category Overlap
G. Low Volume/Tonnage Exemption
H. Compliance Variance Provisions
I. Exceedance Fee Option
J. Labeling, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
K. Determination of Volatile Organic
Compound Content
L. Compliance Date
M. Cost/Economic Impacts
N. Small Business Issues
O. Cost-Effectiveness
P. Future Study and Future Limits
Q. Administrative Provisions
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Executive Order 12875
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Submission to Congress and the General
Accounting Office
H. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
I. Executive Order 13045
I. Background
A. Purpose of Regulation
Ground-level ozone, which is a major
component of "smog," is formed in the
atmosphere by reactions of VOC and
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence
of sunlight. The formation of ground-
level ozone is a complex process that is
affected by many variables.
Exposure to ground-level ozone is
associated with a wide variety of human
health effects, agricultural crop loss, and
damage to forests and ecosystems. Acute
health effects are induced by short-term
exposures to ozone (observed at
concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per
million [ppm]), generally while
individuals are engaged in moderate or
heavy exertion, and by prolonged
exposures to ozone (observed at
concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm),
typically while individuals are engaged
in moderate exertion. Moderate exertion
levels are more frequently experienced
by individuals than heavy exertion
levels. The acute health effects include
respiratory symptoms, effects on
exercise performance, increased airway
responsiveness, increased susceptibility
to respiratory infection, increased
hospital admissions and emergency
room visits, and pulmonary
inflammation. Groups at increased risk
of experiencing such effects include
active children, outdoor workers, and
others who regularly engage in outdoor
activities and individuals with
preexisting respiratory disease.
Available information also suggests that
long-term exposures to ozone may cause
chronic health effects (e.g., structural
damage to lung tissue and accelerated
decline in baseline lung function).
In accordance with section 183(e) of
the Act, the Administrator has
determined that VOC emissions from
the use of architectural coatings have
the potential to contribute to ozone
levels that violate the NAAQS for ozone.
Under authority of section 183(e), the
EPA conducted a study of the VOC
emissions from consumer and
commercial products to determine their
potential to contribute to ozone levels
which violate the NAAQS for ozone.
Based on the results of the study, the
EPA determined that the architectural
coatings category accounts for about 9
percent of the emissions from all
consumer and commercial products. It
is one of the largest emission sources
among the consumer and commercial
products categories and in many States
represents one of the largest identifiable
sources of unregulated VOC emissions.
Consequently, the EPA and many States
consider the regulation of architectural
coatings to be an important component
of the overall approach to reducing
those emissions that contribute to ozone
nonattainment. The EPA's
determination that VOC emissions from
the use of architectural coatings have
the potential to contribute to
nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS and
the decision to regulate architectural
coatings are discussed in the preamble
to the proposed rule (61 FR 32729), in
the "Consumer and Commercial
Products Report to Congress" (EPA-
453/R-94-066-A), in the Federal
Register notice announcing the
schedule for regulation (60 FR 15264),
and in a separate Federal Register
document published today that
constitutes final action on the EPA's
listing of architectural coatings for
regulation.
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
1. Section 183(e)
In 1990, Congress enacted section
183(e) of the Act, establishing a new
regulatory program for controlling VOC
emissions from consumer and
commercial products. Section 183(e)
directs the Administrator to list, and
schedule for regulation, categories of
consumer and commercial products
after completion of a study and report
to Congress concerning the products
and their potential to contribute to
levels of ozone which violate the ozone
NAAQS. A separate document in
today's Federal Register contains a
description of section 183(e) of the Act
and contains a summary of significant
public comments and the EPA
responses regarding the section 183(e)
study, the Report to Congress, and the
list and schedule for regulation.
2. Regulatory Negotiation
In 1992, the EPA initiated a regulatory
negotiation to address architectural
coatings. The regulatory negotiation
process is an alternative to the
traditional approach to rulemaking. The
members of the architectural coatings
regulatory negotiation committee
represented the affected industries,
consumers, Federal agencies, State and
local air pollution control agencies,
environmental groups, and labor
organizations. Regulatory negotiation
meetings were held from October 1992
to February 1994. Despite negotiation
efforts, the committee could not reach
consensus on some key regulatory
issues for developing the rule, and on
September 23, 1994, the regulatory
negotiation concluded without
consensus. Therefore, the EPA initiated
development of the architectural
coatings rule through conventional rule
development procedures. The EPA
utilized data and information obtained
from the regulatory negotiation to
complement additional information
gathered during the rule development.
Specifically, the EPA took into
consideration information on the
volume, VOC content, and hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) content of coatings
produced in 1990 in the VOC Emissions
Inventory Survey conducted by
industry.
3. Relationship to State and Local
Regulation of Architectural Coatings
Emissions from the use of
architectural coatings are not currently
regulated at the Federal level. Although
a few States have had architectural
coatings regulations in place for a
number of years, many State and local
areas are still seeking to obtain VOC
reductions from this source category
either from a national rule or from
additional regulation at the State or
local level.
Differing requirements of State and
local architectural coating regulations
have created administrative, technical,
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48851
and marketing problems for both large
and small companies that market and
distribute products in multiple States.
Both large and small manufacturers
have noted the additional burden
associated with differences in State and
local requirements. These industry
representatives have noted that a
Federal rule would provide some degree
of consistency, predictability, and
administrative ease for the industry.
States with ozone pollution problems
are supportive of the EPA rulemakings
that will assist them in their efforts
toward achievement of the ozone
standard. The National Governors'
Association and Environmental Council
of States (a group composed of
environmental commissioners from
each State), the State and Territorial Air
Pollution Program Administrators and
the Association of Local Air Pollution
Control program Administrators, and
the 37-State Ozone Transport
Assessment Group (OTAG) all have
urged the EPA to finalize national rules
for architectural coatings. State
representatives have long recommended
that the EPA develop a national rule for
this product category. In part, this is
because a national rule will help reduce
compliance problems associated with
transportation of noncompliant coatings
into nonattainment areas from
neighboring areas and neighboring
States.
Given the EPA's commitment to
develop a national VOC rule for
architectural coatings, 14 States
currently are depending on anticipated
reductions from the rule to meet a Clean
Air Act requirement for State
Implementation Plans (SIP) to achieve a
15-percent reduction in overall VOC
emissions, which is required for areas
with ozone pollution classed as
moderate nonattainment or worse. Other
States can use these emission reductions
to meet Clean Air Act requirements for
additional rate-of-progress plans
required for 1999 and beyond. If the
EPA failed to promulgate a Federal rule
for architectural coatings, these States
would need to make up the shortfall in
emission reductions needed to achieve
attainment through other regulations,
which would likely target substantially
more expensive reductions from local
industries and businesses.
II. Summary of Standards
A. Applicability
The architectural coatings rule applies
to manufacturers and importers of
architectural coatings that are
manufactured after September 13,1999
for sale or distribution in the United
States, including the District of
Columbia and all United States
territories. For architectural coatings
registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7
U.S.C. Section 136, etseq.,) (FIFRA), the
applicable date is March 10, 2000.
The regulated entity under this rule is
the manufacturer or importer of a
regulated architectural coating. The
regulated entities include any
manufacturers or importers that
produce, package, or repackage
architectural coatings for sale or
distribution in the United States,
including the District of Columbia and
all United States territories. A person
that repackages architectural coatings as
part of a paint exchange and does not
produce, package, or repackage any
other architectural coatings for sale or
distribution in the United States, is not
included in the definition of
manufacturer. Similarly, a person that
repackages an architectural coating by
transferring it from one container to
another is not included in the
definitions of importer and
manufacturer, provided the VOC
content of the coating is not altered and
the coating is not sold or distributed to
another party.
An architectural coating is defined in
the rule as: "a coating recommended for
field application to stationary structures
and their appurtenances, to portable
buildings, to pavements, or to curbs."
The definition of architectural coating
excludes: "adhesives and coatings
recommended by the manufacturer or
importer solely for shop applications or
solely for application to non-stationary
structures, such as airplanes, ships,
boats, and railcars."
Architectural coatings that are subject
to the rule are divided into a number of
coating categories, such as "exterior
flats" or "industrial maintenance
coatings." These coating categories are
defined in the rule for purposes of
specifying the applicable emission
limits. In determining if a coating is
subject to this rule, a coating must first
meet the general definition of an
architectural coating.
The standards do not apply to the
following:
(1) Coatings manufactured exclusively
for sale or distribution outside the
United States;
(2) Coatings manufactured prior to
September 13, 1999;
(3) Coatings sold in nonrefillable
aerosol containers;
(4) Coatings that are collected and
redistributed at paint exchanges in
accordance with this rule; and
(5) coatings sold in containers with a
volume of 1 liter or less.
B. Volatile Organic Compound Content
Limits
Manufacturers and importers must
limit the VOC content of subject
coatings to the VOC content levels
presented in table 1 of this subpart,
unless they utilize the exceedance fee or
tonnage exemption provisions described
below. These limits apply to the VOC
content that would result after thinning
a coating according to the
manufacturer's maximum thinning
recommendations. Each subject coating
must be classified by the manufacturer
or importer as belonging to at least one
of the categories listed in table 1. Each
category is defined in the rule's
definitions section. If none of the
specific category definitions applies to a
coating, then the coating is included in
either the flat or nonflat category,
depending on its gloss level.
TABLE 1 OF SUBPART D.—VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTENT LIMITS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS
[Unless otherwise specified, limits are expressed in grams of VOC per liter of coating thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation
excluding the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or colorant added to tint bases.]
Coating category
Antenna coatings
Anti-fouling coatings
Anti-graffiti coatings
Bituminous coatings and mastics
Bond breakers
Calcimine recoater
Chalkboard resurfacers
Concrete curing compounds
Concrete curina and sealina comoounds
Grams per
liter
530
450
600
500
600
475
450
350
700
Pounds per
gallona
44
38
5.0
42
50
4.0
38
29
5.8
-------
48852 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 OF SUBPART D.—VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTENT LIMITS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS—
Continued
[Unless otherwise specified, limits are expressed in grams of VOC per liter of coating thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation
excluding the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or colorant added to tint bases.]
Coating category
Grams per
liter
Pounds per
gallona
Concrete protective coatings 400 3.3
Concrete surface retarders 780 6.5
Conversion varnish 725 6.0
Dry fog coatings 400 3.3
Extreme high durability coatings 800 6.7
Faux finishing/glazing 700 5.8
Fire-retardant/resistive coatings:
Clear 850 7.1
Opaque 450 3.8
Flat coatings:
Exterior 250 2.1
Interior 250 2.1
Floor coatings 400 3.3
Flow coatings 650 5.4
Form release compounds 450 3.8
Graphic arts coatings (sign paints) 500 4.2
Heat reactive coatings 420 3.5
High temperature coatings 650 5.4
Impacted immersion coatings 780 6.5
Industrial maintenance coatings 450 3.8
Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers) 680 5.7
Magnesite cement coatings 600 5.0
Mastic texture coatings 300 2.5
Metallic pigmented coatings 500 4.2
Multi-colored coatings 580 4.8
Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and surface protectants 870 7.3
Nonflat coatings:
Exterior 380 3.2
Interior 380 3.2
Nuclear coatings 450 3.8
Pretreatment wash primers 780 6.5
Primers and undercoaters 350 2.9
Quick-dry coatings:
Enamels 450 3.8
Primers, sealers, and undercoaters 450 3.8
Repair and maintenance thermoplastic coatings 650 5.4
Roof coatings 250 2.1
Rust preventative coatings 400 3.3
Sanding sealers (other than lacquer sanding sealers) 550 4.6
Sealers (including interior clear wood sealers) 400 3.3
Shellacs:
Clear 730 6.1
Opaque 550 4.6
Stains:
Clear and semitransparent 550 4.6
Opaque 350 2.9
Low solids b120 b1.0
Stain controllers 720 6.0
Swimming pool coatings 600 5.0
Thermoplastic rubber coatings and mastics 550 4.6
Traffic marking coatings 150 1.3
Varnishes 450 3.8
Waterproofing sealers and treatments 600 5.0
Wood preservatives:
Below ground wood preservatives 550 4.6
Clear and semitransparent 550 4.6
Opaque 350 2.9
Low solids b120 b1.0
Zone marking coatings 450 3.8
a English units are provided for information only. Enforcement of the rule will be based on the metric units.
b Units are grams of VOC per liter (pounds of VOC per gallon) of coating, including water and exempt compounds, thinned to the maximum
thinning recommended by the manufacturer.
If a coating is marketed in more than
one of the coating categories listed in
table 1 of this subpart, the manufacturer lowest applicable VOC content limit,
or importer must comply with the unless an exception is specified in
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48853
§59.402(c) of the rule. These exceptions
were developed to clarify which VOC
content limit applies in situations where
inherent overlap exists between
category definitions. For example,
varnishes used on wood floors were not
intended to be subject to the more
stringent emission limit for floor
coatings. Therefore, an exception
paragraph is included in the rule stating
that varnishes recommended for use on
floors are subject to the VOC content
limit for varnishes, and not the limit for
floor coatings.
Manufacturers and importers of
recycled coatings are given the
compliance option of calculating an
adjusted-VOC content. Manufacturers
and importers of recycled architectural
coatings are defined as those that
collect, reprocess, and market coatings
that contain a percentage of post-
consumer coating. Such use is
environmentally beneficial because it
reduces the amount of waste from
architectural coatings that would
otherwise result from evaporation of
VOC from unused coatings or of
coatings sent to landfills or elsewhere.
The adjusted-VOC content provides
regulated entities some credit for the
amount of post-consumer material
contained in the coating. The EPA is
providing this credit to encourage
recycling of unused coatings. The
adjusted-VOC content is determined by
multiplying the percentage of post-
consumer content of the coating by the
VOC content of the recycled coating,
which is then subtracted from the VOC
content of the end product. An explicit
equation for the calculation is given in
the rule.
C. Exceedance Fee
The rule includes an exceedance fee
compliance option. This is an economic
incentive approach whereby
manufacturers and importers may
choose to comply with the rule by
paying a fee in lieu of meeting the VOC
content limits for their coating products.
The fee is $0.0028 per gram ($2,500 per
ton) of excess VOC. The fee is calculated
using the amount of VOC in excess of
the applicable VOC content limit. The
exceedance fee is paid annually to the
appropriate EPA Regional Office and is
due no later than March 1 in the year
following the calendar year in which the
coating is manufactured or imported.
D. Tonnage Exemption
The final rule also includes a tonnage
exemption that allows each
manufacturer and importer to sell or
distribute limited quantities of
architectural coatings that do not
comply with the VOC content limits and
for which no exceedance fee is paid.
The tonnage exemption can be used for
multiple products, but the total mass of
VOC contained in a single
manufacturer's or importer's exempt
coatings may not exceed the amounts in
table 2. The total mass of VOC is
calculated based on the volume of
coatings manufactured or imported and
the total VOC content of each of the
coatings for which an exemption is
claimed. To reiterate, the calculation is
based on the total mass of VOC
contained in all exempt coatings, not
the difference between the VOC content
of each coating and the applicable VOC
content limit in the rule.
TABLE 2.—TONNAGE EXEMPTION
The total mass of
VOC contained in all
exempt coatings com-
bined may not exceed
23 megagrams (25
tons) VOC.
18 megagrams (20
tons) VOC.
9 megagrams (10
tons) VOC.
During the time pe-
riod of
September 13, 1999
through December
31, 2000.
Calendar year 2001
Calendar year 2002
and each year
thereafter.
E. Labeling
For coatings complying with the VOC
content limits in table 1 of this subpart,
manufacturers and importers must
provide the following information on
the label or lid of each coating: (1) the
date the coating was manufactured, or a
code indicating this date (this
information may alternatively be
provided on the bottom of the can); (2)
a statement of the manufacturer's
recommendation regarding thinning of
the coating (does not apply to thinning
with water); and (3) either the VOC
content of the coating in the container,
or the VOC content limit from table 1 of
the rule with which the coating must
comply and with which it does comply.
(Any coating for which the exceedance
fee or tonnage exemption provision is
being used must be labeled with its VOC
content because it would not be in
compliance with the VOC content limits
in table 1 of this subpart.)
Industrial maintenance coatings must
be labeled with one of several
prescribed phrases indicating that the
coating is not intended for general
consumer use. For recycled coatings,
manufacturers and importers must
indicate the post-consumer coating
content on the container label or lid.
F. Recordkeeping
There are no recordkeeping
requirements for coatings complying
with the VOC content limits in table 1
of this subpart. However, the rule does
include recordkeeping requirements for
compliance with the recycled coating,
exceedance fee, and tonnage exemption
provisions.
For recycled coatings, the
manufacturer or importer must keep
records of the volume of coatings
received for recycling, the volume of
coatings received that is unusable, the
volume of virgin coatings used with
recycled coatings, and the volume of
final recycled coatings manufactured or
imported. In addition, manufacturers
and importers of recycled coatings must
keep records of the calculation of
adjusted-VOC contents.
For compliance with the exceedance
fee provisions, manufacturers and
importers must keep records on an
annual basis for each coating of the VOC
content, the VOC content in excess of
the applicable limit, and the volume
manufactured or imported.
Manufacturers and importers must also
keep records of the calculation of fees,
the annual fee for each coating, and the
total annual fee.
For the tonnage exemption,
manufacturers and importers must keep
records of the products claimed under
the exemption, the VOC content and
actual sales or distribution for each
exempt product, and the total mass of
VOC contained in all products claimed
under the exemption.
All required records must be retained
for a period of 3 years in a form suitable
for inspection.
Although the retention of test data is
not required by this rule, the EPA
encourages facilities to keep any
information resulting from either
Method 24 or any other acceptable
method to determine compliance. This
information will help the EPA make a
preliminary assessment of compliance
for the coatings subject to this rule. In
the absence of demonstrable indications
of compliance, the EPA may require
Method 24 testing by the facility in
accordance with § 59.406(b).
G. Reporting
All manufacturers and importers of
subject coatings must file an initial
notification report listing the coating
categories from table 1 of this subpart
that they manufacture or import and the
locations of facilities that manufacture
architectural coatings in the United
States. The initial notification report
must be submitted no later than
September 13, 1999 or 180 days after the
date that the manufacturer or importer
first manufactures or imports a subject
coating, whichever is later.
-------
48854 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
In addition, if a manufacturer or
importer uses a date coding system, an
explanation of the coding system must
be submitted with the initial report.
Explanations of new codes must be filed
within 30 days after their first use.
There are no reporting requirements
beyond the initial notification and date
code explanation for manufacturers and
importers who meet the VOC content
limits in table 1. There are additional
reporting requirements for
manufacturers and importers who
choose to take advantage of optional
provisions, including: (1) the
calculation of an adjusted-VOC content
for recycled coatings (based on post-
consumer coating content); (2) the
payment of the exceedance fee; and (3)
the tonnage exemption. An annual
report is required for each of these
provisions.
H. Compliance Provisions
The rule specifies the procedure to
determine the VOC content of coatings
subject to the rule. Although the EPA
has chosen Method 24 as the reference
method for determining compliance
with the VOC content requirements of
this rule, it is not the exclusive method
for determining compliance. The
manufacturer or importer may also use
a different analytical method than
Method 24 (if it is approved by the
Administrator on a case-by-case basis),
formulation data, or any other
reasonable means to determine the VOC
content of coatings. However, the EPA
may require a Method 24 analysis to be
conducted, and if there are any
inconsistencies between the results of a
Method 24 test and any other means for
determining VOC content, the Method
24 test results will govern. The EPA can
use other evidence as well to establish
whether or not a manufacturer or
importer is in compliance with the
provisions of this rule.
III. Summary of Considerations in
Developing Standards
A. Basis of the Regulation
Section 183(e) of the Act directs the
EPA to regulate products using best
available controls (BAG), and defines
BAG as:
the degree of emissions reduction the
Administrator determines, on the basis of
technological and economic feasibility,
health, environmental, and energy impacts, is
achievable through the application of the
most effective equipment, measures,
processes, methods, systems or techniques,
including chemical reformulation, product or
feedstock substitution, repackaging, and
directions for use, consumption, storage, or
disposal.
The statute thus empowers the EPA to
examine a variety of considerations to
use in determining the best means of
obtaining VOC emission reductions
from a given consumer or commercial
product category. As discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR
32737, June 25, 1996), the primary
factors the EPA considered in
determining BAG for architectural
coatings were technological and
economic feasibility, and environmental
impacts.
Non-air environmental impacts (solid
waste and water) and energy impacts are
expected to be minimal and, therefore,
do not vary significantly among various
VOC control levels. With regard to
health impacts, the EPA has concluded
that reductions in VOC emissions and
concomitant reductions in ozone will
reduce health impacts of exposure to
ozone.
For architectural coatings, the EPA
determined that BAG is the degree of
emission reduction achievable through a
system of regulation that encourages
product reformulation to meet the VOC
content limits in table 1 of this subpart,
provides an economic incentive (the
exceedance fee option) to lower VOC
content of coatings, and allows for
limited exemption of coatings (the VOC
tonnage exemption). The EPA
concluded that for this product
category, pollution prevention is the
most effective means of achieving VOC
emission reductions. In working to
comply with State VOC rules over the
past several years, the architectural
coatings industry has established
product reformulation as the most
technologically and economically
feasible strategy for reducing VOC
emissions. Reformulation can consist of
minor adjustments in coating VOC
contents or larger adjustments involving
a change in resin technology. The EPA
considered many factors in evaluating
the economic and technological
feasibility of different VOC content
levels and different degrees of
reformulation. These factors included
existing State and local VOC emission
standards, coating VOC content and
sales information, analysis of coating
technologies, performance
considerations, cost considerations,
market impacts, and stakeholder input.
In addition, the EPA considered the
relative contribution of different coating
types to overall VOC emissions from
architectural coatings.
At proposal, the EPA requested
comment on alternatives to the
proposed VOC content limits that would
provide flexibility, if additional time
were needed or it was not cost-effective
to develop a low-VOC formulation.
Based on comments received, the EPA
included in the final rule an exceedance
fee (discussed in sections II.C and V.I)
and an exemption for a certain tonnage
of VOC content (discussed in sections
II.DandV.G).
The final VOC content limits in
conjunction with the exceedance fee
and tonnage exemption reflect the EPA's
determination of BAG and are based
primarily on the 1990 VOC Emissions
Inventory Survey, analysis of existing
State rules for architectural coatings,
data obtained from participants in the
regulatory negotiation, and information
submitted by coating manufacturers and
other interested parties during the
course of the rule development and
public comment period.
B. Stakeholder and Public Participation
The EPA proposed the architectural
coatings rule and published the
preamble in the Federal Register on
June 25, 1996 (61 FR 32729). The EPA
placed the proposed regulatory text,
BID, and Economic Impact Analysis
(EIA) in a docket open to the public at
that time and made them available to
interested parties. The EPA solicited
comments at the time of the proposal.
To provide easier access by the public,
the EPA subsequently published the
proposed regulatory text in the Federal
Register on September 3, 1996 (61 FR
46410) and extended the comment
period from August 30 to September 30,
1996. The EPA again extended the
comment period to November 4, 1996
(notice published at 61 FR 52735,
Octobers, 1996).
To provide interested persons the
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed architectural coating rule,
the EPA held a public hearing in
Durham, North Carolina on July 30,
1996. Nineteen speakers presented oral
testimony at this hearing. The EPA held
another public meeting to discuss issues
related to the impact of the proposed
rule on small manufacturers in
Rosemont, Illinois, on August 13, 1996.
There were 77 persons who participated
in the meeting, and 18 speakers
presented oral testimony.
The EPA received over 200 comment
letters on the proposed rule.
Commenters included coating
manufacturers and importers, State
regulatory agencies, trade associations,
environmental groups, the United States
military, and others. The EPA has
carefully considered the comments and
has made changes to the proposed rule
where determined by the Administrator
to be appropriate. The most significant
comments and responses are discussed
in section V of this preamble. A detailed
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48855
discussion of all significant comments
and responses on the rule itself can be
found in the architectural coatings BID,
which is referenced in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble.
A separate document in today's
Federal Register contains a summary of
public comments and the EPA's
responses regarding the section 183(e)
study, the Report to Congress, the list of
consumer and commercial product
categories selected for regulation, and
the schedule for regulation.
IV. Summary of Impacts
A. Environmental Impacts
1. VOC Reductions
The standards will reduce nationwide
emissions of VOC from architectural
coating products by an estimated
103,000 Mg/yr (113,500 tpy). These
reductions are compared to the 1990
baseline emissions estimate of 510,000
Mg/yr (561,000 tpy). This reduction
equates to a 20-percent reduction,
compared to the emissions that would
have resulted in the absence of these
standards.
2. Health Effects
Because VOC are precursors to ozone
formation, the VOC reductions from
architectural coatings will contribute to
a decrease in adverse health effects that
result from exposure to ground-level
ozone. These health effects result from
short-term or prolonged exposure to
ground-level ozone and include
respiratory symptoms, effects on
exercise performance, increased airway
responsiveness, increased susceptibility
to respiratory infection, increased
hospital admissions and emergency
room visits, and pulmonary
inflammation. Available information
also suggests that long-term exposures
to ozone may cause chronic health
effects (e.g., structural damage to lung
tissue and accelerated decline in
baseline lung function).
3. Secondary Air, Water, and Solid
Waste Impacts
No significant adverse secondary air,
water, or solid waste impacts are
anticipated from compliance with these
standards. Generally, coating
reformulation, a pollution prevention
technique, will be used to comply with
these standards. In cases where
conversion from solventborne to
waterborne coatings is the method used
to achieve compliance, an increase in
wastewater discharge may occur if
waste from the manufacture of
waterborne coatings is discharged by
manufacturers to publicly owned
treatment works. The provisions for
recycling of coatings in the rule may
potentially reduce the amount of coating
discarded as solid waste.
The regulations do not impact
existing product inventories. Products
manufactured before the compliance
deadline are not affected. Excluding
existing product inventories from the
regulations will eliminate any
incremental solid waste increase due to
discarded, unsold products. The new
products are not expected to require any
more packaging than existing products,
and thus the volume of discarded
packaging should not increase.
B. Energy Impacts
The EPA anticipates that there will be
no increase in national annual energy
usage as a result of this rule. The
standards do not require the use of air
pollution control devices, which can
affect energy use.
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
Sixty-four percent of the products
included in the 1990 industry survey
meet the VOC content limits in this rule
and, therefore, there will be no costs to
reformulate these products. The
manufacturer of an architectural coating
that does not meet the VOC content
limits in table 1 of this subpart, will be
required to reformulate the product if it
will continue to be marketed, unless the
manufacturer chooses to use an
alternative compliance mechanism such
as the exceedance fee or tonnage
exemption provisions. The EPA
presumes that manufacturers will
choose the option that is most
advantageous to them, but each option
imposes costs, some of which will be
passed on to consumers in the form of
moderately higher prices and some of
which will be borne directly by the
manufacturers.
The cost for reformulating
noncompliant products depends on the
level of effort required to develop a new
product (e.g., research and development
and market testing expenditures) and
how these expenditures are incurred
over time. Based on comments received
at proposal and the original data
presented at proposal, the EPA revised
its estimate of the cost to reformulate a
product from a lump-sum initial
investment of $250,000 to $87,000 (in
1991 dollars), which is annualized to an
upper bound value of $14,570 per
reformulation (see Section V. M of this
preamble for further discussion).
Although variations are likely to exist,
for purposes of this analysis, this
reformulation cost estimate is assumed
to be the same for all product types and
variations, so the value is independent
of VOC content and the annual sales
volume of the product. Other costs and
cost savings associated with
reformulation are likely, but could not
be quantified. These costs are discussed
qualitatively in the EIA. Reformulation
costs are direct costs imposed on
manufacturers of noncompliant
products. Based on public comments,
the EPA found that in the traffic
markings category, the user of the
coating may have to modify technology
or purchase new equipment to apply the
coating. This additional cost is not
considered a direct impact because it
occurs as a result of restrictions on
coating manufacturers, but the cost is
borne by the user of the coating rather
than the manufacturer. Nevertheless, the
EPA examined the indirect impacts of
this category because the changed
equipment costs are so directly related
to the change of formulation. The EPA
estimates that changes in traffic marking
equipment may cost up to $3 million
annually (in 1991 dollars). For other
regulated categories, it is not anticipated
that new equipment or other indirect
costs will be incurred to apply
compliant coatings.
Based on the information above,
implementation of this regulation is
estimated to result in national
annualized costs of approximately $25.6
million (in 1991 dollars). (For the
benefit of readers, this value is
equivalent to approximately $29 million
in 1996 dollars.) This estimate includes
$0.6 million in costs for manufacturers
and importers that the EPA anticipates
will take advantage of the alternative
exceedance fee compliance provision.
The rule does not impose monitoring
requirements (and associated costs), but
ensures compliance through
recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling
requirements. The annual cost for these
requirements is expected to be
approximately $2.5 million. Therefore,
the EPA estimates the total cost
associated with the rule to be $28
million per year (1991 dollars) (or $32
million in 1996 dollars). In comparison,
the 1991 value of shipments for this
industry was $6.3 billion. Thus, the
estimated costs amount to roughly 0.4
percent of the baseline revenues for this
industry.
The estimated cost-effectiveness of
the rule is $270 per megagram ($250 per
ton) of VOC emission reduction. This
cost per megagram of VOC emission
reduction makes the architectural
coatings rule an economically efficient
means of obtaining VOC emission
reductions, when compared to the cost
per megagram of reduction potentially
available through other control
measures. As a result of the costs
discussed above, the EPA anticipates
-------
48856
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
that the average change in market prices
and output across all market segments
are minimal, with an average estimated
impact of less than one-tenth of 1
percent of baseline values.
The EPA believes the estimates of
total cost and associated economic
impacts are conservatively high. Since
the best available data on VOC content
of architectural coatings is from 1990,
and the final rule has VOC content
requirements similar to State rules
which have been enforced since 1990,
the EPA believes the estimated number
of reformulations and/or their
reformulation cost that result from this
action may be overstated in that the
compliant products developed by
manufacturers to comply with various
State rules can be used to meet the
requirements of the Federal rule. The
EIA also takes a conservative approach
to several assumptions to produce an
upper bound estimate of social cost.
V. Significant Comments and Changes
to Proposed Standards
A complete summary of public
comments on the architectural coatings
rule and the EPA's responses are
presented in the Architectural Coatings
BID, as referenced in the "ADDRESSES"
section of this preamble. The EPA
received many comments addressing a
wide variety of issues in the proposed
rule for architectural coatings. After
careful consideration of these
comments, the EPA has made a number
of changes to the proposed rule. The
major changes made to the rule since
proposal include: (1) clarification of the
definitions of "architectural coating,"
"coating," "importer," "manufacturer,"
and "paint exchange,'; (2) addition of
definitions for "imported" and
"manufactured,'; (3) clarification of
which standards apply to overlapping
coating categories; (4) changes to the
definitions and VOC content limits for
certain categories; (5) addition of certain
new coating categories; (6) addition of
the exceedance fee provision; (7)
deletion of the variance provisions; (8)
addition of an exemption for prescribed
quantities of coatings (tonnage
exemption); (9) addition of
administrative provisions; and (10)
reorganization and reformatting of the
rule for clarity.
The following sections of the
preamble discuss the most significant
issues raised by commenters and the
EPA's responses to them.
A. National Rule Versus Control
Techniques Guidelines
The EPA requested comment on
whether and how a CTG approach
would be as effective as a national rule
in reducing VOC emissions from
architectural coatings in ozone
nonattainment areas. Section 183(e) of
the Act authorizes the Administrator to
issue a CTG in lieu of a national rule if
the CTG will be substantially as
effective in reducing VOC emissions in
ozone nonattainment areas.
Over 20 commenters stated that they
support a national architectural coatings
rule. Commenters who supported a
national rule with VOC content limits
stated that complying with a single
uniform regulation would be less
burdensome, and more cost-effective
than complying with many different
standards in different States.
Commenters also stated that small
manufacturers and importers are less
likely to have the resources necessary to
produce different lines of products to
meet varying standards for different
areas of the country. Furthermore, many
commenters pointed out that coatings
are widely distributed and easily
transported from attainment areas to
nonattainment areas. Therefore,
regulating products only in
nonattainment areas would be a less
effective strategy, and a more difficult
one to enforce.
Seven commenters stated that they
support a CTG in lieu of a national rule.
Commenters favoring a CTG generally
contended that section 183(e) targets
VOC emissions in nonattainment areas,
and that a national rule is not
warranted. The commenters stated that
a CTG would be more appropriate since
issuance of a CTG requires States to
implement standards only in
nonattainment areas. According to these
commenters, allowing coatings
manufactured or imported in attainment
areas to remain unregulated would
provide market niches for small
manufacturers and importers. Some
commenters also argued that consumers
in attainment areas should not have to
forego the alleged benefits of higher
VOC content coatings.
Several commenters noted that, even
with implementation of a national rule,
States can promulgate more stringent
standards. Therefore, even a national
rule does not ensure uniform
nationwide VOC standards. Some
commenters urged cooperation and
discussion between the EPA and States
that consider implementing standards
more stringent than the national rule.
The EPA has concluded that a
national rule is the more effective
approach for reducing emissions from
architectural coatings for the following
reasons. First, the EPA believes that a
national rule is an appropriate means to
reduce emissions from products that
are, by their nature, easily transported
across area boundaries, and many 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 decrease in VOC
emissions in nonattainment areas. 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
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 the
OTAG and others suggests that in some
circumstances VOC emitted outside
nonattainment area boundaries can
contribute to ozone pollution in
nonattainment areas, for example, by
traveling 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 PMio 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 refinish
coatings, consumer products, and
architectural coatings. The EPA believes
that regulation of products in at least
some 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.
Based on these considerations, and
considerations of the effectiveness and
enforceability of emission controls, the
EPA has determined that a CTG for
architectural coatings would not be
substantially as effective as a national
rule in reducing VOC emissions in
ozone nonattainment areas.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48857
A major trade association representing
many architectural coating
manufacturers provided comments
supporting a national rule that applies
to all areas as the most efficient
regulatory mechanism from the
perspective of marketing and
distribution of products. In addition,
comments from a number of small and
large manufacturers favored a national
rule to encourage uniformity in
regulation from State to State, and
thereby minimize significant costs and
burdens associated with understanding
and meeting differing State and local
requirements.
The EPA also received some
comments suggesting that a national
rule apply only in nonattainment areas.
The EPA believes that rules applicable
only in nonattainment areas would be
unnecessarily complex and burdensome
for many regulated entities to comply
with and for the EPA to administer. The
potentially regulated entities under
section 183(e) are the manufacturers,
processors, wholesale distributors, or
importers of consumer and commercial
products. For these three product
categories, EPA believes that regulations
that would differentiate between
products destined for attainment and
nonattainment areas should adequately
insure that only compliant products go
to nonattainment areas. For such a rule
to be effective, EPA believes that this
would necessitate requiring regulated
entities to track their products and
control their distribution, sale, and
ultimate destination for use to insure
that only compliant products go to
nonattainment areas. The EPA notes
that for architectural coatings, regulated
entities do not currently track or control
distribution of their products once they
sell them to retail distributors. 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).
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) as to
regulated entities, the EPA believes that
regulations applicable to both
attainment areas and nonattainment
areas is 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).
The EPA expects a national VOC rule
for architectural coatings to encourage
uniformity in requirements across the
country. Many States may choose to rely
on the EPA rule rather than adopt their
own requirements. 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.
Some States, particularly those with
long-standing and significant
nonattainment problems, may need
additional emission reductions to
achieve attainment of the NAAQS and
may need to adopt or maintain more
stringent requirements for consumer
products like architectural coatings in
order to help reach attainment of the
ozone NAAQS. The final rule has been
amended to include provisions in
§ 59.410, State authority, to clarify that
States are not restricted by this rule in
establishing and enforcing their own
additional standards and limits.
The consultation provisions of section
183(e)(9) of the Act are designed to
promote uniformity in such cases where
States or local areas need to adopt
requirements other than those
promulgated by the EPA. Section
183(e)(9) requires the EPA to provide
relevant information and studies
requested by any State. The EPA expects
such consultation and cooperation to
result in States developing options for
regulation that will be compatible with
other States and with the national
standards. The EPA considers a national
VOC rule an important element in
promoting consistency among
architectural coating standards.
B. Applicability and Regulated Entities
1. Subject Coatings
The EPA received several comments
requesting clarification regarding the
definition of "coating" and what
particular coatings are subject to the
architectural coatings rule. The EPA has
modified the definition of "coating" so
that it no longer defines a coating as an
application that creates a film when
applied. The revised definition states
that a coating is a "material applied
onto or impregnated into" a substrate.
The EPA did not intend to limit rule
applicability to film-building products.
Commenters questioned whether
coatings recommended for both
architectural uses and non-architectural
uses would be subject to the rule. The
commenters also questioned whether
shop-applied and factory-applied
coatings would be subject. Additional
commenters requested clarification as to
whether adhesives are subject to the
rule.
The architectural coatings rule applies
to coatings "recommended for field
application to stationary structures and
their appurtenances, to portable
buildings, to pavements, or to curbs."
Therefore, the rule does not apply to
coatings that are marketed solely for
shop application, such as in a
manufacturing setting, or coatings
marketed solely for application to non-
stationary structures, such as aircraft
and ships. However, a coating that is
recommended by the manufacturer or
importer for use as an architectural
coating is subject to the architectural
coatings rule even if the coating is also
recommended for non-architectural
uses. The fact that a coating regulated by
the architectural coatings rule may also
be subject to other rules with different
requirements does not alter the
manufacturer's or importer's obligation
to meet the requirements of the
architectural coatings rule.
The EPA did not intend to regulate
adhesives of any kind in the
architectural coatings rule. The EPA
intends to regulate industrial adhesives
as a separate product category under
section 183(e) authority.
To clarify the EPA's intent regarding
what products are covered by this final
rule, the definition of architectural
coating has been revised to exclude
adhesives and coatings recommended
solely for shop application or for
application to non-stationary structures.
For additional clarity, definitions of
"adhesive" and "shop application"
have also been added to the final rule.
The EPA has added definitions of
"imported" and "manufactured" to the
final rule to clarify the point at which
an architectural coating becomes subject
to the requirements in the rule. The
final rule also includes additional
language in the definitions of
"importer" and "manufacturer" to
clarify that all divisions of a company,
subsidiaries, and parent companies are
considered to be a single importer or
manufacturer for the purpose of this
rule.
2. Regulation of Processors
Section 183(e)(l)(C) of the Act allows
the regulation of processors of consumer
and commercial products. For the
proposed architectural coatings rule, the
EPA considered regulating processors as
well as manufacturers and importers.
"Processors" would be defined as
individuals who add organic thinner to
coatings in a commercial or industrial
setting at the point of application. The
EPA's concern was to provide a means
-------
48858 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
to enforce against thinning of coatings
beyond manufacturers'
recommendations. Thus, the EPA
considered a provision to prohibit an
applicator from using organic solvents
to thin a coating beyond the
manufacturer's recommendation.
In the proposal preamble (61 FR
32737), the EPA requested comment on
the possible regulation of processors
under the architectural coatings rule.
Commenters generally opposed the
regulation of applicators, arguing that:
(1) over-thinning is not likely to occur
since the proposed VOC content limits
are reasonable; (2) rules promulgated
under section 183(e) of the Act are not
intended to apply to end-users or
applicators; and (3) restrictions on
thinning at the point of application
would be difficult to enforce. The
commenters stated that the term
"processors" was intended to mean
entities that repackage coating materials
or further enhance finished products
before they are offered for sale to end-
users.
The final rule does not include
processors as a regulated entity. The
EPA believes that end-users' compliance
with thinning restrictions for
architectural coatings would be difficult
to enforce in practice. Instead, the EPA
has determined that it will be more
effective to guard against excessive VOC
emissions from thinning by taking into
account the amount of thinning in
advance. Thus, the final limits are
expressed as VOC content of coating
"thinned to the manufacturer's
maximum recommendation." The EPA
believes that these limits provide
adequate assurance that compliant
coatings will be manufactured to
perform optimally with recommended
thinning. Regulation of processors
would not add significantly to the
effectiveness of the rule.
C. General Comments on Determination
of Best Available Controls
Many commenters provided general
comments on the overall stringency of
the VOC content limits in the proposed
rule. One group of commenters,
composed mainly of manufacturers and
trade organizations representing coating
users and manufacturers, stated that the
VOC content limits in the proposed rule
represent BAG and are technologically
and economically achievable. One of
these commenters, representing a
national association of coating
manufacturers, stated that the proposal
recognized the need for solventborne
coatings in certain specialty areas, as
well as in some more general usage
categories, and adequately addressed
the fact that the same coating must be
able to perform in all regions and
climates of the United States. Another
commenter, representing a national
association of coating users, stated that
the proposed limits fit squarely within
current technologies and are consistent
with various existing State regulations.
And finally, a commenter representing
another national trade association of
coating users, stated that the proposed
table of VOC content limits will not
significantly increase construction costs
and will not appreciably reduce coating
performance.
A second group of commenters,
mainly composed of individual State
regulatory agencies, organizations of
State and regional regulatory agencies,
and environmental groups, stated that
they did not support the VOC content
limits in the rule because they believe
they are too lenient. Two of the
commenters, representing
environmental groups, contended that
the EPA's BAG determination did not
include consideration of lower VOC
coatings that have been developed since
1990. Several of the commenters cited
the existence of more stringent State and
local architectural coating regulations
that have been in place for many years
as evidence that the proposed limits do
not represent BAG. Several of the
commenters added that the proposed
rule falls short of State VOC reduction
goals and may result in the States
adopting more stringent control
measures for this source category and
for other source categories. The majority
of the commenters in this group
supported an alternative, more
stringent, table of VOC content limits
submitted by one of the commenters.
(The commenter also suggested a second
phase of limits that would take effect in
the future. For comments and responses
regarding the suggested second phase of
limits, see section V.P of this preamble).
The alternative table contains more
stringent limits for several categories
and would achieve a 30-percent
emission reduction (calculated on a
solids basis). The more stringent VOC
content limits in the table are based on
the 1989 California Air Resources Board
Suggested Control Measure.
Finally, a third group of commenters,
composed mainly of coating
manufacturers, did not support the
limits in the rule because they believe
they are too stringent. These
commenters stated that low-VOC
products (i.e., products meeting the
proposed standards) do not perform as
well as higher-VOC (non-compliant)
products. These commenters claimed
that low-VOC coatings are too thick and
require considerable thinning to apply,
are less durable and require more
frequent repainting, and exhibit poor
gloss properties. Two of the commenters
explained that these performance
problems could result in more
emissions, rather than less. Two of the
commenters stated that available paint
raw materials are not adequate to
reformulate every non-compliant
coating the paint industry offers and
still meet customer performance
requirements. One commenter stated
that the proposed rule will require a
massive reformulation of products in
the paint and coating industry. The
commenter claimed that some
organizations were supporting lower
limits based on improper data or based
on environmental conditions that do not
represent circumstances in other areas.
The EPA believes that the final rule
represents BAG. Best available control is
"the degree of emissions reduction that
the Administrator determines on the
basis of technological and economic
feasibility, health, and energy impacts,
is achievable." In developing the rule,
the EPA considered many factors in
evaluating the economic and
technological feasibility of different
VOC content levels and different
degrees of product reformulation. These
factors included: (1) limits in State/local
regulations; (2) coating VOC content and
sales information; (3) performance
considerations; (4) cost considerations;
and (5) market impacts.
The sources of information for these
factors included: (1) pre-proposal
letters; (2) the 1992 industry survey
(collected 1990 data); (3) public
comments on the proposed rule; (4)
follow-up discussions with commenters
to gather additional technical
information; (5) State/local regulations
and pre-proposal discussions with
State/local regulators; (6) input from
coating manufacturers and other
stakeholders; and (7) EPA expertise.
Considering all these factors, the EPA
concluded that the VOC content limits
in table 1 of the rule, along with the
exceedance fee provisions and the
tonnage exemption, represent BAG for
architectural coatings. The EPA's
process for developing BAG was
described in the proposal preamble (61
FR 32737) and is further discussed in
the following paragraphs.
Technical Feasibility and Coating
Performance Issues
Throughout development of this rule,
there has been debate among
stakeholders over the degree to which
the VOC content in architectural
coatings can be reduced and on the
performance characteristics of low-VOC
coatings. The term "performance" refers
to the coating qualities that are
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48859
acceptable to consumers and that
maximize the interval required between
repainting. Performance is particularly
difficult to assess. As discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR
32738), these acceptable qualities can
vary significantly depending on the
consumer and the coating category.
There is no consensus within the
architectural coatings industry on
standards by which to evaluate
acceptable coating performance.
Therefore, the EPA requested comment
on the technological feasibility of the
limits in the proposed table of standards
and on performance issues. The
proposal requested documentation,
tests, and factual evidence to support or
refute claims about performance and the
technological feasibility of low-VOC
systems.
The EPA evaluated all data that were
submitted by commenters pertaining to
the feasibility of the rule and sought
additional information that was
reasonably available. 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 architectural coatings within a
specific time frame (i.e., approximately
1 year from promulgation). Based on the
public comments received, a number of
changes were made to the proposed
rule. These changes are discussed in
section 2.2.4 of the BID (Coating
Categories and VOC Content Limits). In
some cases, commenters claimed that
the rule is not feasible or does not
represent BAG, but provided no data to
support the general claim. In such cases,
the EPA sought additional information
that was reasonably available and
considered the comments in the context
of the overall BAG decision, but often
found no basis for making substantive
changes to the proposed rule.
Relationship of BAG to State and Local
Regulations
State and local regulations were one
of the primary factors used by the EPA
to develop BAG. As stated in the
proposal preamble (61 FR 32737), State
and local architectural coating
requirements were used prior to
proposal as a starting point in
determining "what categories and
associated VOC limits might constitute
the degree of emissions reduction that
represents BAG." After proposal, the
EPA used State and local architectural
coating requirements as a primary factor
in the evaluation of public comments on
the proposed VOC content limits.
However, the EPA does not agree with
commenters who believe that, at a
minimum, BAG for the national rule
should be equivalent to or more
stringent than the lowest emission
limits that exist in any State regulation
(as presented in a table of standards by
one commenter). In the development of
a national rule under section 183(e), the
EPA has the obligation to determine that
the emission limits are technologically
and economically feasible on a national
scale. State and local VOC limits are
based on coating performance under the
local meteorological conditions and
patterns of coating demand, some of
which may be very different than in
other locations. Moreover, based on
local air quality and existing regulatory
programs, a State or local agency may
set rules based on a balancing of
technological, economic, and
environmental factors that might differ
from the balance appropriate for a
national rule.
Therefore, the EPA departed from the
State and local requirements where
other factors, such as information on
VOC content and sales, performance,
costs, and market effects indicated that
the limits were not technologically or
economically feasible on a national
scale.
The Role of the Exceedance Fee and
Tonnage Exemption in BAG
While the EPA believes that the
technology exists to meet the limits in
table 1 of this subpart, some
manufacturers may need more time
beyond the compliance deadline to
obtain the necessary technology. Still
other manufacturers may find that
reformulation of some of their specialty
products that are produced in low
volume is not cost-effective. The
exceedance fee and tonnage exemption
provisions were included in the final
rule to minimize impacts on the supply
of coating products and to avoid
unnecessary impacts upon small
manufacturers. The exceedance fee
(discussed in section 2.4 of the BID) is
intended to allow manufacturers and
importers additional time to develop
low-VOC formulations while providing
an appropriate economic incentive to
encourage reformulation. The tonnage
exemption (see section 2.2.1.2 of the
BID) is intended to allow manufacturers
and importers the flexibility to continue
to market certain low-volume product
lines where reformulation of a specialty
product used for unique applications
may not be cost-effective. The EPA
anticipates that use of the tonnage
exemption and exceedance fee will
reduce the potential VOC emission
reductions of the rule by only a small
percentage and that foregoing this
portion of the reductions to achieve
other objectives of the BAG analysis is
an appropriate balancing of the relevant
factors to achieve BAG reductions. The
EPA believes that all available data
indicate that the system of regulation
adopted in the final rule, consisting of
VOC content limits, an exceedance fee
provision, and a tonnage exemption,
reflects BAG for the architectural
coatings category.
Consideration of New Low-VOC
Coatings
The EPA recognizes that the 1992
industry survey that the EPA used as
one of the factors for developing BAG
collected 1990 data. Although the data
in this survey are now 7 years old, they
still represent the most complete set of
data for the architectural coatings
industry (the survey captured
approximately 75 percent of the coating
volume). In addition, the industry
survey was only one of the many factors
used in determining BAG. Information
on advances since 1990 were obtained
from over 300 pre-proposal letters, over
200 public comment letters, over 40
follow-up telephone calls, and
information obtained from State
regulatory agencies. The EPA believes
that the final rule represents BAG based
on the survey database and other data
available to the EPA.
The EPA acknowledges that there are
coating technologies in existence with
VOC contents lower than those listed in
table 1. However, section 183(e) of the
Act does not require the EPA to set BAG
at the level of the lowest-VOC product.
It requires that the EPA determine BAG
based on "the degree of emissions
reduction that the Administrator
determines on the basis of technological
and economic feasibility, health, and
energy impacts, is achievable." To
determine whether a more stringent rule
would meet the criteria for BAG, the
EPA would need to undertake
additional study of the recent
technological developments for the
architectural coatings category. As
discussed in section 2.6 of the
Architectural Coatings BID (see
ADDRESSES section of this preamble),
such an additional study is under
consideration. However, the EPA does
not believe it would be appropriate to
delay issuing this rule to await the
results of that additional study.
D. Changes in Proposed Coating
Categories
Several commenters addressed the
selection of the coating categories to
which the rule applies and the VOC
content limits for specific categories. In
response to these comments, the EPA
has modified the definitions of several
-------
48860
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
of the proposed categories and has
added seven new coating categories. In
addition, the EPA has modified the
proposed VOC content limits for several
categories based on information
provided by commenters. This section
of the preamble discusses the changes
made to the requirements for the
proposed coating categories. (The new
categories are described in section V.E
below.) A detailed discussion of all of
the comments and responses pertaining
to the proposed coating categories and
their VOC content limits is contained in
section 2.2.4.3 of the Architectural
Coatings BID (see ADDRESSES section of
this preamble).
Some commenters suggested changes
and clarifications to the proposed
category definitions. In response to
these comments, the EPA has changed
the definitions of a number of the
coating categories. The purpose of these
changes is to clarify which particular
coatings are included in these
categories.
There were also many requests to
revise the VOC content limits in the
proposed rule. The EPA contacted many
of the commenters, most of whom were
coating manufacturers, to obtain
additional information in order to
evaluate these requests more fully.
Based upon consideration of the public
comments and additional information
obtained since proposal, the EPA has
changed the VOC content limits where
deemed appropriate. In addition, the
final rule provides a tonnage exemption
and an exceedance fee option. These
provisions provide flexible compliance
options that accommodate the need for
higher VOC contents in unique or niche
products, and in limited-use products.
The significant comments and changes
made with regard to the VOC content
limits are discussed in the following
paragraphs. The EPA's rationale for each
of these issues is explained more fully
in the Architectural Coatings BID (see
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
Roof Coatings and Bituminous Coatings
and Mastics
One commenter, a national trade
association of roof coating
manufacturers, supported the proposed
VOC content limits for roof coatings
(250 grams per liter (g/1)) and for
bituminous coatings and mastics (500 g/
1), and the inclusion of all bituminous
coatings in the bituminous coatings and
mastics category. Another commenter
suggested reducing the VOC content
limit for bituminous coatings and
mastics from 500 g/1 to 350 g/1. A third
commenter suggested adopting one roof
coating category that includes
bituminous materials at a VOC content
limit of 300 g/1, consistent with State
architectural coating rules. This
commenter argued that the proposed
rule permitted bituminous roofing
materials to comply with a less stringent
limit (500 g/1) than other roofing
materials (250 g/1) and that this
discrepancy afforded an unfair
competitive advantage to the
bituminous roofing products.
The EPA reviewed its basis for
establishing the proposed category for
bituminous coatings and mastics and
VOC content limit of 500 g/1 and has
decided to retain this category and limit
in the final rule. The EPA reviewed
information submitted by a national
trade association comprised of 60
bituminous and nonbituminous coatings
manufacturers and suppliers, before
proposal (Docket Item No. II-D-56),
regarding the composition, specialized
manufacture, performance, and use
limitations of these coatings. According
to this information, a significant portion
of these coatings are needed for repair
and maintenance of existing roofs as
well as for installing new roofing
systems. The trade association pointed
out that waterborne bituminous coatings
and mastics are not practical in almost
all of the applications where
solventborne bituminous coatings and
mastics are used and that coating
performance comparisons between
waterborne and solventborne
bituminous coatings and mastics range
from good to very poor, depending on
conditions. Another national trade
association for roofing contractors,
which has over 3,000 members
represented in all 50 States, argued that
there is no viable alternative to
solventborne bituminous coatings in
many circumstances and pointed to
bituminous primers as an example of
this. According to this trade association,
if the VOC content limit were reduced
by any significant amount in these
primers, the adhesion properties, the
application process, and the life of the
roof would suffer dramatically.
Therefore, in order to satisfy
performance requirements of
bituminous coatings and mastics
nationwide, the EPA has retained this
category with a VOC content limit of
500 g/1 in the final rule.
With respect to the comments on the
separate category for roof coatings, the
EPA has decided to retain the category
as proposed. Although there are several
State architectural coating rules that
have a VOC content limit of 300 g/1 for
roof coatings, the EPA believes that the
national Roof Coatings Manufacturers
Association's support (Docket Item No.
IV-D-181) of the proposed VOC content
limit for roof coatings at 250 g/1
provides persuasive evidence that this
limit is achievable nationwide.
Therefore, the EPA has retained the
VOC content limit of 250 g/1 for roof
coatings in the final rule.
Concrete Curing Compounds
Several commenters commented on
the proposed VOC content limit of 350
g/1 for concrete curing compounds,
which are used predominantly in
highway construction. Seven
commenters stated that the proposed
limit for concrete curing compounds is
achievable based on existing
technology, and one of these
commenters maintained that the limit
could be lowered to 300 g/1. On the
other hand, one commenter took issue
with the achievability and performance
at the proposed limit of 350 g/1. The
latter commenter suggested a VOC
content limit of 625 g/1 for this category,
arguing that the proposed limit would
eliminate most concrete curing
membranes from the market, and that
many companies do not sell curing
compounds in States that have the 350
g/1 limit.
In addition to consideration of these
comments, the EPA reviewed the VOC
content limits for this category in State
rules. Several States, including Arizona,
California, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
and New York have had a VOC content
limit of 350 g/1 for concrete curing
compounds for several years. The
availability of compliant products in
these States suggests that the limits are
achievable, notwithstanding that not all
manufacturers have chosen to market in
those States. Based on the information
provided by the commenters in favor of
the proposed limits and upon the
existing State rules, the EPA has
concluded that the proposed VOC
content limit of 350 g/1 for concrete
curing compounds is technologically
achievable and has retained this limit in
the final rule.
Graphic Arts Coatings
Two commenters indicated concern
about the performance of shop-applied
graphic arts coatings at the proposed
VOC content limit of 500 g/1. One
commenter's specific concerns with
coatings at this level included difficulty
in achieving variation in gloss levels,
variation in the required drying times in
the drying room (implying shop-applied
coatings), need for greater application
amounts, and higher costs. Graphic arts
coatings recommended by the
manufacturer solely for shop
applications are not required to meet the
500 g/1 VOC content limit. As discussed
earlier, the EPA has revised the
definition of architectural coating to
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48861
clarify that coatings recommended by
the manufacturer solely for shop
application are not subject to the rule.
In addition, the definition of graphic
arts coatings has been modified by
removing the reference to in-shop
coatings, and a definition of "shop
application" has been added to the rule.
Based on a review of the 1990 VOC
emission inventory survey and State
architectural coating rules, the EPA
determined that the 500 g/1 VOC content
limit for field-applied graphic arts
coatings should not be changed.
Shellac—Clear
Two commenters requested that the
EPA raise the VOC content limit for
clear shellac from the proposed level of
650 g/1 to 730 g/1. The commenters
requested the higher level to
accommodate the degree of thinning
required for certain uses of shellac to
meet performance specifications.
According to information provided by
one commenter, the elevated cost and
limited availability of shellac (referring
to secretions of the lac beetle) minimize
the potential use of this product.
Based on a review of State
architectural coating rules, which limit
clear shellac VOC content to 730 g/1,
and the information provided by the
commenters, the EPA has raised the
VOC content limit for clear shellac from
650 g/1 to 730 g/1.
Nuclear Coatings
Four commenters objected to the
proposed 420 g/1 VOC content limit for
nuclear coatings, in light of the 450 g/
1 limit for industrial maintenance
coatings. The commenters pointed out
that nuclear coatings must meet more
exacting performance specifications (set
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
than industrial maintenance coatings
and, therefore, should not be subject to
a more stringent VOC content limit. One
commenter was also concerned that the
proposed limit offered no flexibility for
cold weather thinning as provided in
the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
(Surface Coating) National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for this category.
The EPA agrees that the nuclear
coatings category VOC content limit
should not be more stringent than the
VOC content limit for industrial
maintenance coatings since nuclear
coatings are subject to some of the same
extreme environmental conditions as
industrial maintenance coatings, and
must also meet further specifications
and rigorous requirements of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The
nuclear coatings category is intended to
include coatings manufactured for use
at nuclear facilities to ensure
operational safety, and the definition
requires that these coatings meet various
testing requirements. The EPA expects
that a limited amount of coatings will be
affected by this change due to the
various testing requirements to qualify
for classification in this category and the
limited number of nuclear facilities
where such coatings are used. Also, as
pointed out in the proposal preamble
(61 FR 32739), this is one of 17 specialty
coating categories that did not appear in
existing State architectural coating
rules, and no data were collected in the
1990 VOC emissions inventory survey.
In consideration of performance
specifications for this category and the
need to allow for thinning, the EPA has
raised the VOC content limit for the
nuclear coatings category to 450 g/1.
This limit is the same as the limit for
industrial maintenance coatings.
Antifouling Coatings
Two commenters requested a higher
VOC content limit for the antifouling
coating category (400 g/1 proposed), and
one of these commenters specifically
requested that the EPA increase the
level to 450 g/1. One of the commenters
indicated that antifouling architectural
coatings are generally not applied at
fixed installations where painting
conditions are more easily controlled,
and that a thinning allowance should be
included to accommodate application of
the coating in cold weather.
The EPA agrees with the commenters
that the limit for antifouling coatings
should be raised to allow for cold
weather thinning. Also, similar to
nuclear coatings, these coatings are
subject to some of the same extreme
environmental conditions as industrial
maintenance coatings and must meet
other rigorous requirements, such as
those under the FIFRA. Moreover, this
is one of 17 specialty coating categories
that did not appear in existing State
architectural coating rules, and no data
were collected in the 1990 VOC
emissions inventory survey. Therefore,
the EPA believes a low volume of
coatings will be affected by a change to
the proposed limit. The final rule
specifies a VOC content limit of 450
g/1 for this category.
Floor Coatings
One commenter suggested that the
EPA either add an exemption paragraph
to clarify that floor coatings that meet
the definition for industrial
maintenance coatings are subject to the
industrial maintenance coating VOC
content limit of 450 g/1 or specify that
the floor coating category applies to
floor coatings intended for residential
use. The commenter believed that high
performance floor coatings cannot
achieve the 400 g/1 VOC level proposed
for floor coatings. Although the
commenter reportedly has developed
lower-performing systems that meet the
400 g/1 level, the commenter stated that
they are not acceptable for all
applications.
Two commenters recommended that
opaque floor paint be regulated at a 400
g/1 VOC level. However, one of these
commenters requested clarification of
whether the floor coating category
included clear floor finishes, such as
varnishes.
The EPA has retained the floor
coatings category, with a modified
definition, and VOC content limit of 400
g/1 as proposed. The floor coatings
category includes opaque coatings that
have a high degree of abrasion
resistance that are formulated for
application to flooring, including but
not limited to decks, porches, and steps
in a residential setting. The EPA did not
intend to include floor coatings that
meet the definition of industrial
maintenance coatings under the floor
coating category. The definition of floor
coating has been changed to specify that
it applies to floor coatings intended for
use in a residential setting. Thus, floor
coatings that meet the definition of
industrial maintenance coatings are
subject to only the industrial
maintenance coating category limit of
450 g/1.
Based on information from
commenters, the EPA agrees that opaque
floor coatings should be subject to the
400 g/1 limit as proposed. However,
clear varnishes that may be
recommended for use as floor coatings
are subject to the VOC content limit of
450 g/1 for clear varnishes. An exception
paragraph has been included in § 59.402
of the rule to clarify this category
overlap.
Waterproofing Sealers and Treatments
Eight commenters provided
assessments of the achievability of the
proposed VOC content limit for
waterproofing sealers and treatments.
Five commenters suggested that the EPA
raise the VOC content limit, and two
commenters suggested that the EPA
lower it. One commenter maintained
that there is no need to distinguish
between clear and opaque waterproofing
sealers and treatments (600 g/1 and 400
g/1, respectively) in the rule since many
opaque sealers penetrate the substrate
and perform the same function as clear
sealers. This manufacturer requested a
VOC content limit of 700 g/1 for all
waterproofing sealers and treatments
and explained that this level would still
-------
48862
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
require reformulation of existing
technologies. Another manufacturer has
reported that it has not been successful
in reformulating to meet the 600 g/1
level for clear waterproofing sealers and
treatments. On the other hand, one
manufacturer strongly encouraged the
EPA to adopt a lower VOC content limit
of 350 g/1 applicable to both clear and
opaque waterproofing sealers and
treatments based on the VOC content of
its products, which are available now in
the marketplace. Another commenter
agreed that the proposed levels for
waterproofing sealers are
technologically and economically
feasible.
Based on evaluation of the comments
and a review of survey data and State
architectural coating regulations, the
EPA has combined the clear and opaque
waterproofing treatment sealer
categories into one category with a VOC
content limit of 600 g/1. The EPA agrees
that there is no need to distinguish
between clear and opaque waterproofing
sealers and treatments since many
opaque sealers penetrate the substrate
and perform the same function as clear
sealers. The EPA believes that, based on
information provided by these
commenters/manufacturers, the
appropriate limit for this combined
category is 600 g/1. Before proposal,
industry representatives (Docket Item
No. III-B-1) argued that multipurpose
waterproofing sealers at 400 g/1 do not
meet minimum performance criteria for
clear waterproofing sealers (that is, 60-
percent water repellency for wood and
1 percent or less water absorption for
brick). The representatives stated that
400 g/1 products are high-solids
products that may leave an oily residue
or cause darkening of the surfaces to
which they are applied and, thus,
product performance may not meet
industry standards. Combining clear
and opaque waterproofing treatment
sealers into one category is consistent
with all existing State rules, which do
not divide the category into clear and
opaque waterproofing sealers and
treatments. The State architectural
coating VOC content limits for
waterproofing sealers and treatments are
either 400 g/1 (for example, Arizona and
California) or 600 g/1 (Massachusetts,
New Jersey, and New York).
E. Addition of New Coating Categories
The EPA received requests to
establish 20 new coating categories in
the final rule. In response to these
comments, the EPA has established
seven new categories: (1) calcimine
recoaters; (2) concrete surface retarders;
(3) concrete curing and sealing
compounds; (4) conversion varnishes;
(5) zone markings; (6) faux finishing/
glazing; and (7) stain controllers. The
EPA also evaluated requests, but did not
establish new categories, for the
following coatings: (1) adhesion
promoters; (2) asbestos and lead-based
paint encapsulation; (3) concrete/
masonry conditioners; (4) porcelain
repair coatings; (5) marine/architectural
coatings; (6) alkali-resistant primers; (7)
tung oil finishes; (8) lacquer stains; (9)
elastomeric high performance industrial
finishes; (10) low solids coatings; (11)
oil-modified urethanes; (12)
thermoplastic (treatment) sealers; and
(13) zinc-rich coatings. In general, new
categories were not established for these
coatings because the EPA determined
that it is technologically and
economically feasible for coating
manufacturers and importers to achieve
compliance with the rule. Further
discussion of the rationale for the EPA's
decisions on the new categories is
contained in section 2.2.4.2 of the
Architectural Coatings BID referenced
under the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.
In general, the EPA considered
creation of new categories if
commenters submitted information
supporting higher VOC content limits
for such products than the otherwise
applicable limits. The EPA considered
the data submitted by commenters and
obtained all reasonably available
additional data to evaluate these
requests. In cases where the EPA
concluded that the proposed emission
limits were not achievable, the EPA
established a separate category with an
appropriate emission limit. The
following is a discussion of the rationale
for each of the new coating categories
and its VOC content limit.
Calcimine Recoaters
Under the proposed standards,
calcimine recoaters would have been
subject to the VOC content limit for
interior flat coatings (250 g/1). However,
several commenters stated that
calcimine recoaters have a higher VOC
content of 475 g/1, cannot be
reformulated, are low-volume coatings,
and serve a unique function of recoating
water soluble calcimine paints. These
paints are used in Victorian and Early
American homes, especially on ceilings.
Due to their low density, calcimine
recoaters do not disbond the existing
calcimine ceiling coatings, as
conventional (250 g/1 VOC) high-solids
flat alkyd paints would tend to do. If a
calcimine recoater is not used, the only
alternative is to remove the existing
coating, which is labor-intensive and
expensive. Because these low-volume
coatings reportedly cannot be
reformulated, their composition is
unique, and there is no substitute for
these products, the EPA has added a
separate category for calcimine recoater
products to the rule with a VOC content
limit of 475 g/1.
Concrete Curing and Sealing
Compounds
Under the proposed rule, these
coatings would be subject to the 350 g/
1 VOC content limit for concrete curing
compounds. However, commenters
presented information not previously
considered by the EPA demonstrating
that compounds designed for curing and
sealing, as opposed to those designed
for curing only, have different technical
specifications that make it difficult to
achieve the 350 g/1 level. Concrete
curing and sealing compounds function
as longer term sealers that provide
protection, aesthetic benefits, and
durability in addition to curing.
Commenters pointed out that there are
separate American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) methods
available for each of these categories
and that ASTM Committee experts and
at least two government agencies
consider them distinct categories with
different performance requirements.
Through follow-up phone calls with
several concrete curing and sealing
coating manufacturers, the EPA
confirmed that concrete curing and
sealing products are typically sold at
levels much higher than 350 g/1. While
waterborne products below 350 g/1 are
available, some industry representatives
cited drawbacks such as poor low-
temperature performance and stability.
Since these products must often be used
in low-temperature environments, the
EPA agrees that the VOC content limit
should reflect this usage. Therefore, the
final rule includes a new category for
concrete curing and sealing compounds.
Based on an analysis of VOC content
and sales data for these products, the
EPA has established the VOC content
limit at 700 g/1.
Concrete Surface Retarders
Concrete surface retarders do not fall
within any of the proposed categories
except the general category for interior
flat coatings with a VOC content limit
of 250 g/1. These products are generally
used in a manufacturing setting at a
precast facility, but a small volume of
products are field-applied. Commenters
argued that these products cannot meet
the 250 g/1 level and, furthermore, that
they are not coatings and should not be
subject to the rule. However, they
requested a VOC content limit of 780
g/1 if the EPA regulated these products.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48863
The EPA has concluded that concrete
surface retarders meet the rule's
definition of a "coating." Concrete
surface retarders that are recommended
by the manufacturer for use in the field
at job sites are, therefore, subject to the
rule. When retarders are recommended
by the manufacturer solely for use in a
manufacturing setting, such as at a
precast facility, which is the typical
situation, they are not subject to the
rule. The EPA determined that concrete
surface retarders that are used in the
field at the actual job location are
specialized, low-volume coatings used
in limited circumstances, and there is
no lower VOC content substitute for the
function of these products. Therefore,
the EPA has included a separate
category for these products in the final
rule, with a VOC content limit of 780
g/1 as requested by the commenters.
Zone Marking Coatings
Under the proposed rule, zone
marking coatings were subject to the 150
g/1 VOC content limit for traffic marking
coatings. Zone marking coatings are
those used to mark surfaces such as
parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, and
airport runways; they are generally
applied by small commercial
applicators. In contrast, traffic marking
coatings are applied to streets and
highways and are usually applied by
large contractors or State Departments of
Transportation. The commenters noted
two issues associated with meeting the
150 g/1 content limit for zone marking
coatings. First, the 150 g/1 content limit
could only be met with waterborne
coatings, which require different
application equipment than
solventborne coatings. Small applicators
would be disproportionately impacted
by the cost of acquiring the new
equipment that is compatible with
waterborne zone marking coatings.
Secondly, the commenters asserted that
waterborne zone marking coatings do
not dry or cure properly during high
humidity or low temperatures,
conditions under which they must
sometimes be applied.
After consideration of these
comments, the EPA has added a
separate category for zone marking
coatings and has established the VOC
content limit at 450 g/1. This level
allows the use of solventborne coatings.
However, the new category applies only
to zone marking coatings sold in
containers of 5 gallons or less. Available
information reveals that State
Departments of Transportation buy
traffic marking coatings in larger than 5
gallon containers. Thus, this size
restriction should limit the use of zone
marking coatings to applications smaller
than those of general traffic marking
coatings intended for use on public
roads and highways. Zone marking
coatings sold in larger containers fall
within the traffic marking coatings
category and are subject to the 150 g/1
limit. The establishment of this category
allows the use of solventborne coatings
by small applicators and under adverse
drying and curing conditions.
Conversion Varnishes
Conversion varnishes are specialty
products used by contractors for wood
floor finishing. Under the proposed rule,
these coatings would have been subject
to the 450 g/1 VOC content limit for
varnishes. Commenters argued that
conversion varnishes cannot be
reformulated to meet the 450 g/1 level,
and that they have unique chemical
formulation and performance
specifications, compared to other
varnishes, (i.e., appearance and proven
durability). Furthermore, the
commenters noted that only three
companies manufacture conversion
varnishes and that they market them
only to licensed wood flooring
contractors, thereby implying that these
are specialty coatings deserving
different standards.
In response to these comments, the
final rule includes a new category for
conversion varnishes with a VOC
content limit of 725 g/1. Due to the
chemical make-up of these products,
manufacturers reportedly have been
unable to reformulate to meet the 450
g/1 level for varnishes. The EPA believes
that the category comprises a well-
defined coating technology that is
limited, due to its chemical formulation,
to the applications for which it is
intended. Several wood flooring
contractors' comments support the
performance arguments made by the
manufacturers. The EPA determined
that the VOC content limit of 725 g/1 is
the lowest level achievable based on
analysis of currently available products.
The EPA has added a definition for
this category to the rule. The category
definition was developed from
information provided by two of the
manufacturers.
Faux Finishing/Glazing
Under the proposed rule, faux
finishing/glazing coatings were subject
to the VOC content limit of 380 g/1 for
nonflat interior coatings. Faux finishing/
glazing coatings include waterborne
acrylic finishes and other waterborne
products with miscible VOC that are
designed to retard drying time. One
commenter stated that these products
provide open time required for wet-in-
wet techniques, such as faux wood
grain, faux marble, and simulated aging,
which require the finish to remain wet
for an extended period of time.
The commenter stated that, based on
formulation including water, the
calculated VOC content of these
coatings can range up to 340 g/1.
However, because the products are
waterborne, the VOC "less water"
calculation results in a range up to 700
g/1. The commenter stated that the VOC
content limit for a similar category
(Japan/faux finishing coatings) has been
proposed by California's South Coast
Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) at 700 g/1. The commenter
stated that, to date, there has not been
an identifiable way to reformulate these
products to achieve a lower VOC while
maintaining the characteristics required
for acceptable use.
Upon review and evaluation of
available information, the EPA has
determined that creating a separate
category for faux finishing/glazing with
a VOC content limit of 700 g/1 is
warranted. According to the commenter,
there are no competing compliant
products on the market. Despite 2 years
of reported reformulation efforts, this
coating cannot meet the proposed VOC
content limit of 380 g/1 for nonflat
interior coatings. The EPA notes that
this specialty coating category is low
volume and that the foregone VOC
emission reductions that may result
from setting a higher limit for this
category should be limited.
Stain Controllers
Under the proposed rule, stain
controllers were subject to the VOC
content limit of 400g/l for sealers.
"Stain controllers" (also called "wood
conditioners" or "prestains") are
products that are applied to soft woods
before applying a stain to prevent
uneven penetration or blotching of the
stain by filling those pores where excess
penetration would occur. One
commenter asserted that these products
cannot achieve the 400 g/1 level for
sealers. According to the commenter,
after 3 years of reformulation efforts,
they have concluded that it is
technologically infeasible to reformulate
stain controllers to the proposed 400 g/
1 VOC content limit. The current VOC
content of the commenter's products is
714 g/1. According to the commenter,
the 400 g/1 level for sealers would force
a very high solids content, which would
make these products unfit for use as
prestains. The commenter asserted that,
in order to be effective, stain controllers
must have a very low solids content
because excessive solids will overload
the texture of the substrate so that the
wood will not properly accept the stain.
-------
48864
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
Water cannot be added to these
products because they are used almost
exclusively to treat interior fine wood
and contact with water would produce
an undesirable grain-raising effect in the
wood. Stain controllers are low-volume,
specialized products that are important
to the consumer and have a minimal
effect on air quality. The commenter
asserted that about 97 percent of total
sales for these products are already
exempt under the small container
exemptions in regulated areas.
After review and evaluation of these
comments and follow-up information
provided by the commenter, the EPA
has determined that a new category for
stain controllers with a VOC content
limit of 720 g/1 is warranted. This is a
specialized, limited use product that is
important to consumers, and the EPA
believes that the additional emissions
from this low-volume coating would be
negligible. According to the commenter,
reformulation attempts during the last 3
years have been unsuccessful, and the
commenter considers it technologically
infeasible to reformulate stain
controllers to achieve the proposed VOC
content limit of 400 g/1 for sealers (the
category the commenter's coating would
be subject to under the proposed rule).
According to the commenter, there are
competing waterbased products meeting
the proposed limit on the market, but
there are performance problems with
these coatings. The EPA believes that
this is an example of a low-volume,
specialty niche coating for which it may
not be cost-effective for the
manufacturer to continue reformulation
attempts. Therefore, the final rule
contains a separate category for stain
controllers.
F. Category Overlap
Many commenters expressed concern
about the VOC content limit that applies
to coatings that fall into more than one
category. The proposed rule stated that
if a manufacturer made the
representation that a coating was
suitable for use in more than one
category, then the coating must comply
with the VOC limit for the category with
the most restrictive limit. Commenters
objected that a coating may be
"suitable" for many uses, even though
not intended by the manufacturer for
those uses. Coatings could potentially
be used in ways for which they were
never intended and, thus, be subject to
unduly restrictive VOC content limits.
The EPA agrees with the commenters
and has reworded the provisions as
suggested by the commenters. In the
final rule, if the manufacturer or
importer makes any representation that
indicates that the coating "meets the
definition" of more than one coating
category, then the most restrictive limit
applies. The EPA has removed the
phrase "may be suitable for use" from
the rule so that the manufacturer or
importer is not responsible to meet the
limits of other categories if consumers
choose to use them for purposes not
recommended by the manufacturer or
importer. However, if a manufacturer or
importer indicates that a coating may be
suitable for uses like coatings in other
categories, the EPA will consider this a
representation that requires the coating
to meet the most restrictive applicable
limit. Thus, determination of the
applicable category and VOC content
limit is based on a comparison between
the technical criteria in the rule's
definitions and the coating
manufacturer's or importer's
representations.
The proposed rule also included
exceptions for seven types of coatings to
the requirement that the most restrictive
limit always applies. The EPA
recognizes that these seven coatings
potentially meet the definition of more
than one category of coating, but cannot
meet the more restrictive limit. For
these exceptions, the rule explicitly
specifies that the less restrictive limit
applies. Commenters suggested
additional instances of overlap that
might also warrant special exceptions.
After considering the information
presented by these commenters, the
EPA has included further exceptions, in
addition to the proposed exceptions, to
the most restrictive limit provision. The
EPA has added the following
exceptions: (1) anti-graffiti coatings,
high temperature coatings, impacted
immersion coatings, thermoplastic
rubber coatings and mastics, repair and
maintenance thermoplastic coatings,
pretreatment wash primers, and flow
coatings are not required to meet the
VOC content limit for industrial
maintenance coatings; (2) industrial
maintenance coatings are not required
to meet the VOC content limit for
primers and undercoaters, sealers, or
mastic texture coatings; (3) varnishes
and conversion varnishes used as floor
coatings are not required to meet the
VOC content limit for floor coatings; (4)
sanding sealers are not required to meet
the VOC content limit for quick-dry
sealers; (5) waterproofing sealers and
treatment coatings are not required to
meet the VOC content limit for quick-
dry sealers; (6) quick-dry primers,
sealers, and undercoaters are not
required to meet the VOC content limit
for primers and undercoaters; (7)
nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers
and surface protectants are not required
to meet the VOC content limit for
lacquers; and (8) antenna coatings are
not required to meet the VOC content
limit for industrial maintenance
coatings or primers. These exceptions
are discussed more fully in section
2.2.3.14 of the Architectural Coatings
BID (see ADDRESSES section of this
preamble).
G. Low Volume/Tonnage Exemption
In the preamble to the proposed rule,
the EPA presented the concept of an
exemption for coatings produced in low
volumes and requested comment on this
potential provision. The EPA described
this exemption as a compliance option
under which, "any manufacturer or
importer may request an exemption
from the VOC levels in table 1 of this
subpart for specialized coating products
that are manufactured or imported in
quantities less than a specified number
of gallons per year." Twenty-one
commenters provided comments on an
exemption for coatings produced in low
volumes.
In general, commenters in favor of the
exemption pointed out that it would
mitigate the impact of the rule on small
manufacturers for which costs of
reformulation would be more
significant, and would prevent the
elimination of specialty products for
niche markets that could not easily be
reformulated. Commenters opposed to
the concept of a low-volume exemption
generally argued that it would create a
loophole allowing continued
manufacture of noncompliant coatings
and that in the aggregate such emissions
would be significant.
The EPA considered these comments
and concluded that some type of
exemption is needed to help ensure the
continued availability of niche
products, to mitigate potential impacts
on small manufacturers, and to enhance
the economic feasibility of the rule. The
exemption in the final rule is based on
VOC tonnage rather than on production
volume, the concept presented at
proposal. This approach continues to
accommodate the needs of small
manufacturers, niche markets, and
specialty products, as did the proposed
low-volume exemptions, but it more
effectively limits the VOC emissions
resulting from the exemption in
response to comments received on the
proposal.
Under the tonnage exemption, each
manufacturer can exempt a volume of
coatings that contains no more than a
specified total mass of VOC for all
coatings included in the exemption (see
table 2 in section II.B, Summary of
Standards). The EPA has designed the
tonnage limits to exempt no more than
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48865
1.5 to 2 percent of the total expected
emission reductions from all
architectural coatings. In addition, the
EPA has structured the tonnage
exemption to decrease over time,
thereby decreasing the aggregate VOC
emissions in a staggered fashion to
provide additional compliance
flexibility. The EPA believes that it is
appropriate to provide the exemption in
this manner for the dual purpose of
preserving niche products and of
providing greater initial assistance to
manufacturers as they reformulate their
products. The EPA believes that limiting
the exemption in this fashion will
address the concerns of commenters
who viewed the low-volume exemption
as a potential loophole that would allow
significant aggregate excess VOC
emissions. The EPA expects that the 9
Mg/yr (10 tpy) exemption that goes into
effect in the third year will help to
preserve niche products and to provide
adequate flexibility for unforeseen
future needs while effectively limiting
emissions due to the exemption. In
addition, the EPA expects that the
initial tonnage exemption of 23 Mg (25
tons) for the time period from
September 13, 1999 through December
31, 2000, will allow manufacturers to
exempt one to three 27,000 liter (7,100
gallon) product lines, depending on the
VOC content, thereby meeting the
functional intent of the originally
proposed low-volume exemption.
The rule provides that the
manufacturer or importer will calculate
emissions from exempt coatings by
multiplying the total sales volume in
liters by the "in the can" VOC content
of the coating in grams of VOC per liter
of coating, including any water or
exempt compounds. The "in the can"
VOC content must include
consideration of the maximum thinning
recommended by the manufacturer. The
manufacturer or importer may exempt
any combination of different coatings as
long as the total VOC tonnage from
these coatings does not exceed the limit
for the tonnage exemption. In addition,
the manufacturer or importer may
choose to combine the exceedance fee
provision and the VOC tonnage
exemption for one or more coatings.
For example, under this exemption, in
the time period from September 13,
1999 through December 31, 2000, a
manufacturer could exempt 38,300 liters
(10,000 gallons) of a 600 g/1 [5 pounds
per gallon (lb/gal)] coating.
f 600 g VOC
I 1
x
mg
• = 23 mg VOC
Alternatively, a manufacturer could
exempt 18,939 liters (5,000 gallons) of
an 800 g/1 (6.67 lb/gal) coating plus
13,731 liters (3,625 gallons) of a 550 g/
1 (4.58 lb/gal) coating.
mg
• = 23 mg VOC
This exemption differs from the low-
volume exemption in the proposal
preamble in three ways. First, the
exemption is on a "per manufacturer"
basis rather than a "per product" basis.
This change was necessary due to the
difficulty in defining a "product" and
the potential for abuse in designating
products for exemption. Second, the
exemption level is based on megagrams
of VOC rather than liters of coating.
Using VOC tonnage as the basis for the
exemption places an upper bound on
the emission reductions that are lost
through this exemption while still
accommodating the needs for which it
was intended. Third, the total quantity
of the exemption reduces over time. The
EPA intends for the ratcheting down of
the tonnage exemption over time to
encourage regulated entities using the
exemption to continue to reduce the
VOC content of their coatings.
The EPA has concluded that the
exemption, as structured in the final
rule, provides benefits in terms of
flexibility, mitigation of impacts for
small manufacturers, and continuation
of specialized niche products that
justify the EPA in foregoing the small
percentage of overall potential VOC
reduction lost through the exemption.
Furthermore, the EPA has concluded
that the creation of the tonnage
exemption is consistent with the EPA's
explicit discretion and authority to
create the appropriate system or systems
of regulation in accordance with section
183(e)(4) of the Act.
H. Compliance Variance Provisions
In the proposed rule, the EPA
included a variance provision allowing
manufacturers and importers of
architectural coatings to obtain
additional time to comply. To obtain a
variance, applicants would have had to
demonstrate that, for reasons beyond
their reasonable control, they could not
comply with the requirements of the
rule. The EPA envisioned the proposed
variance provision as a benefit primarily
for small businesses that might need
extra time to develop new technologies.
Several commenters addressed the
variance provisions. Those who
supported the provisions noted that a
variance would provide the needed
extra time to come into compliance.
Those opposed to the variance generally
argued that it was not sufficiently
protective of the environment. In
addition, even the commenters in favor
of the variance provision stated that the
requirements for applying for a variance
were too burdensome, and that small
businesses would be particularly
impacted by the burden associated with
the application process. Many of these
commenters stated that exceedance fee
provisions are a more effective way to
accommodate the need for compliance
flexibility yet still encourage reductions
of VOC emissions.
Based upon the comments received,
the EPA has not included the variance
provision in the final rule. It is evident
to the EPA that a variance process may
not provide the intended compliance
flexibility, especially for small
manufacturers. Even though the EPA
intended the proposed variance
requirements to be the minimum
necessary to justify and approve a
coating variance, the EPA recognizes
that the requirements may have been
burdensome, particularly for small
manufacturers with limited or no
regulatory compliance staff. It is also
possible that the variance provision
could create an uneven playing field
because small businesses would not
have the resources needed to pursue
-------
48866
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
this option, thereby putting small
businesses at a disadvantage compared
to large businesses.
Moreover, with the tonnage
exemption and exceedance fee
provisions included in the final rule, the
EPA has concluded that a compliance
date variance is not necessary. The EPA
believes that these alternative
provisions provide even greater
flexibility than the variance provision
and are less burdensome to regulated
entities. Both of these compliance
options are automatically available to all
regulated entities and, therefore, do not
involve complex application and
approval processes. These compliance
options require only the limited
recordkeeping and reporting necessary
for the EPA to ensure compliance.
The EPA anticipates that regulated
entities will use the tonnage exemption
for low-volume products that require 2
to 3 years to reformulate, or for
extremely low-volume products that
cannot be reformulated in the
foreseeable future. The exceedance fee
option, described more fully below, is
also designed to give manufacturers
additional time to develop lower VOC
technologies, which are already used for
similar coatings by other manufacturers,
where necessary. This compliance
option allows regulated entities to
continue to sell coatings that exceed the
VOC content limits, provided that they
pay an exceedance fee.
Need for Long-term, Universal Variance
Procedure
Several commenters, including a
national trade association,
recommended a provision in the rule for
a long-term variance procedure for new
products. The commenters expressed
concern that new and innovative
products may not fit into the coating
categories that define particular coating
technologies, and will therefore, by
default, be subject to the VOC content
limits for the general flat or nonflat
categories. Since the VOC content limits
for these default categories are among
the most stringent, the commenters
suggested provisions that would allow
manufacturers up to 5 years to develop
and commercialize innovative coating
technologies under an extended
variance. The commenters argued that a
long-term variance would protect
manufacturers who operate mainly in
unique or niche markets and whose
access to newer technologies may be
limited.
The EPA has determined that such a
variance procedure is not warranted,
given the other provisions in the final
architectural coatings rule. The EPA has
included compliance provisions in the
final rule that it believes will allow for
the development of new technology.
The tonnage exemption and exceedance
fee option in the final rule create such
additional compliance flexibility. In the
event that coatings manufacturers in the
future develop specialized categories of
coatings for uses not now foreseeable,
they could notify the EPA if they believe
a new coating category is needed. The
EPA could then assess the
appropriateness of such a category.
/. Exceedance Fee Option
The EPA received a total of 27
comments on the exceedance fee
provision presented in the proposal
preamble. About half of the commenters
supported this option and half opposed
it. Under this provision, manufacturers
and importers have the option of paying
a fee, based on the extent to which a
coating's VOC content exceeds the
applicable VOC content limit instead of
meeting the limit listed in table 1 of this
subpart. The fee is calculated by: (1)
determining the difference between the
coating's actual VOC content and the
allowed VOC content (in grams of VOC
per liter of coating), (2) multiplying this
difference by the fee rate of $0.0028 per
gram of excess VOC per liter of coating,
and (3) multiplying the resulting
product by the volume of the coating
manufactured or imported during the
reporting period. The resulting dollar
amount is owed by the manufacturer or
importer as a fee. After careful
evaluation of all of the comments and
discussions with the Small Business
Administration, the Administrator has
decided to include this compliance
option in the final rule for several
reasons. First, the exceedance fee
provision will provide transition time
over and above the tonnage exemption
provision for those manufacturers that
may need additional time to obtain or
develop lower VOC technologies. The
exceedance fee provision is significantly
less burdensome than the proposed
compliance variance provision, which
the EPA has not retained in the final
rule (see discussion in section V.H of
this preamble). Second, the exceedance
fee provides long-term flexibility and a
less costly compliance option for
manufacturers who sell very low
volume, specialty coatings where the
cost of reformulation may be prohibitive
compared to the potential profit on low
volume products. Thus, these important
specialty products will continue to be
available to consumers. Third, contrary
to some comments received, the EPA
believes that the higher costs resulting
from the exceedance fees can encourage
the development of innovative
technology, such as high-performance
products with lower VOC content, thus
reducing VOC content to the limits in
table 1 for many coatings.
With regard to some commenters'
concerns about enforcement of the
exceedance fee, the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in the rule will
ensure compliance with this option. The
final rule requires manufacturers and
importers to maintain records and
submit annual reports to the EPA if they
wish to exercise their option to use the
exceedance fee. Any violations of the
recordkeeping and reporting or any
other requirements of the rule could
result in enforcement actions and the
possibility of penalties.
There were various questions and
opinions from several commenters
regarding the level of the fee. The EPA
considered several factors in setting the
fee level. Specifically, the EPA has set
the fee level so that it would not be
advantageous for most manufacturers
and importers merely to opt for the fee
in lieu of reformulating large volume
products, which generate a
disproportionately large share of
emissions. At the same time, the EPA
has sought to set the fee at a level that
will provide flexibility for producers of
small volume or specialty products to
keep products on the market. Clearly,
these are competing considerations, but
they are not mutually exclusive. In fact,
the EIA conducted by the EPA suggests
that manufacturers of a large number of
coatings may opt for the fee (as a lower-
cost compliance option to reformulation
or product withdrawal). However, the
total sales volumes of these products are
uniformly small and, thus, their
contribution to total market output (and
emission reductions) is relatively small.
The fee level also provides incentive for
fee-paying firms to reduce VOC content
on the margin, as this will reduce the
amount of fee they must pay. The EPA
has concluded that imposition of the fee
is an appropriate mechanism to
encourage development of lower-VOC
content products while at the same time
preserving specialty niche products and
mitigating the impact on small regulated
entities. The level of the fee reflects the
EPA's attempt to balance the intent to
encourage reformulation without
mandating that products be priced out
of the market. The EPA believes that
this is consistent with its authority to
use economic incentives as part of the
system of regulation as contemplated by
section 183(e)(4) of the Act.
/. Labeling, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting
A number of commenters requested
more flexible labeling requirements to
reduce the compliance burden. After
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48867
consideration of these comments, the
EPA has determined that several
labeling requirements can be adjusted to
provide more flexibility without
adversely affecting their usefulness.
First, the EPA has provided greater
flexibility by allowing the date of
manufacture or date code to appear
either on the bottom of cans or on the
labels or lids. Second, the EPA has
clarified the VOC content labeling
requirement. These provisions allow
manufacturers two options; they may
label the coating with either: (1) the
VOC content of the coating, including
recommended thinning and considering
fluctuations in VOC content that may
occur in the manufacturing process, or
(2) the applicable VOC content limit for
the type coating as listed in table 1 of
the rule. The second option is allowed
only if the VOC content of the coating
does not exceed the applicable VOC
content limit (i.e., it is not available for
coatings complying by exercise of the
exceedance fee or tonnage exemption
provisions). Third, the final rule
includes a more flexible labeling
requirement for industrial maintenance
coatings. Manufacturers may choose
from the following phrases for labeling
industrial maintenance coatings:
(1) For industrial use only;
(2) For professional use only;
(3) Not for residential use;
(4) Not intended for residential use; or
(5) This product is intended for use
under the following condition(s): (list of
each condition from the definition of
industrial maintenance coating that
applies.)
The proposal preamble requested
comment on the inclusion of labeling
requirements for coating coverage
information and an educational
statement about the role of VOC
emissions from coatings in ozone
formation. Based on comments received
concerning coverage information, the
EPA determined that coating coverage is
so variable, depending on the coating
and the substrate being coated, that the
information would be of minimal
benefit. Upon consideration of
comments regarding the educational
statement, the EPA concluded that an
outreach program would just as
effectively educate consumers on the
role of VOC emissions in the formation
of ozone and on the reasons why
ground-level ozone is undesirable.
Thus, the final rule does not require the
proposed coverage information and
educational statements.
K. Determination of Volatile Organic
Compound Content
Four commenters expressed concern
that Method 24 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A) would not provide reliable
results in certain circumstances, such as
for waterborne coatings, and requested
that the EPA allow the use of alternative
tests in lieu of Method 24. The requests
included methods to test for acetone
content, acid content, water content,
and for testing coatings that cure via
chemical reactions that are quenched by
the dilution solvent used in Method 24.
Two commenters also requested that the
EPA accept compliance demonstrations
based on theoretical formula
calculations or formula batch card
loading information and documentation.
The EPA believes that Method 24
provides consistent, reliable results
when determining the VOC content of
architectural coatings. Specifically
regarding concerns about Method 24's
reliability for determining the VOC
content of waterborne coatings, the EPA
believes that Method 24 is the best
currently available compliance method
for low-VOC solvent content (high water
content or waterborne) coatings. For
waterborne coatings, VOC content is
determined indirectly using methods
that determine nonvolatile matter
content and water content. The VOC
content is assumed to be what is
unaccounted for by these two fractions.
The EPA acknowledges that the
inherent imprecision of indirectly
determining the VOC content of such
coatings by this method necessitates an
adjustment of the analytical results.
Such adjustments must be based on
confidence limits calculated from the
precision statement established for
Method 24. The precision adjustment
procedure is incorporated in Method 24.
Therefore, the final rule specifies that
Method 24 is to be used for determining
the VOC content of coatings subject to
the rule. However, in response to
comments received and consistent with
other coating regulations established by
the EPA in the past, the final rule does
provide that other means may be used
to determine VOC content.
Nevertheless, the rule also provides that
the Administrator may request at any
time that the coating manufacturer or
importer conduct a Method 24 test for
the purpose of demonstrating
compliance with the rule. If there are
any inconsistencies between Method 24
test results and other means of
determining VOC content, the Method
24 results will govern. The rule also
provides an option for the
Administrator to approve, on a case-by-
case basis, alternative methods of
determining the VOC content of
coatings if they are demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction to provide
results satisfactory for determining
compliance. Such alternative methods
could include procedures for testing for
acetone, acid content, and water
content, procedures for coatings that are
chemically-cured, and procedures for
using formulations and batch processing
data for adjusting or determining VOC
content.
L. Compliance Date
At proposal, the EPA requested
comment on the appropriate compliance
deadline for the rule. Commenters
expressed a range of opinions regarding
the appropriate compliance date.
Commenters who supported a
compliance period of up to 12 months
stated that this amount of time was
necessary to adjust formulations, reprint
labels, adjust inventories, use up
existing label stock, and conduct
research and development. Some
commenters stated that the compliance
period should be greater than 1 year to
allow adequate time for developing,
performance testing, and marketing new
products. Some State Agencies
requested no further delay in the
compliance date, since States are
depending upon the architectural
coatings rule for VOC reduction credit
under their SIP. The latter commenters
stated that extending the compliance
date would have an adverse impact on
the environment, would lead to
additional State regulations, and is
unnecessary given the current state of
technology.
The EPA supports making the
architectural coatings rule effective and
applicable as quickly as possible, but in
a time frame within which regulated
entities may reasonably comply. The
EPA believes that the 12-month
compliance period in the final rule
allows the industry appropriate time to
achieve compliance with the rule. The
EPA believes that coating technologies
currently exist to meet all of the rule's
VOC content limits. In limited cases
where manufacturers or importers need
additional time to comply, the tonnage
exemption and the exceedance fee
option already provide additional
compliance flexibility and offset any
need for additional compliance time.
At proposal, the EPA requested
comment on whether the final rule
should include a compliance extension
for small manufacturers. Three-quarters
of the commenters providing comments
on this provision were against special
treatment for small manufacturers. After
careful evaluation of the comments, the
EPA has decided not to include a
compliance extension specifically
restricted to small manufacturers.
Instead, the EPA has extended the
compliance period for all manufacturers
-------
48868
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
and importers to 12 months. The EPA
has concluded that the information
provided by commenters demonstrates
that the 12-month compliance period
allows adequate time for all regulated
entities to comply. The EPA believes
that other mechanisms such as the
tonnage exemption and the exceedance
fee will also help alleviate concerns
regarding the compliance period for
small entities.
M. Cost/Economic Impacts
At proposal, the EPA solicited
comment regarding the size and nature
of reformulation costs to gauge the
reasonableness of the estimate used in
the EPA's EIA. The estimate the EPA
used at proposal ($250,000 per product
reformulation) was based on an estimate
presented to the Regulatory Negotiation
Committee in 1993 (Docket* II-E-52).
The EPA received several public
comments in response to this request
and categorized the estimates provided
based on the following dimensions:
technical staff training, prioritization of
products needing reformulation, survey
of available materials, reformulation to
desired properties, performance tests,
field tests, marketing costs, production
costs (labels), sales training, and
executive expenses. Eleven of the
comments received provided
comparable information for gauging
reformulation costs per product. Other
comments provided less complete
information that the EPA has taken into
account, but did not include the specific
information necessary to assess the
reasonableness of the EPA's estimate.
The EPA combined the estimates from
these eleven comments with the original
cost estimate and found that
reformulation cost per product ranged
in value from $576 to $272,000 (1991
dollars), with a mean value of
approximately $87,000. This gives an
indication that the EPA's estimate at
proposal significantly overstated the
average cost to reformulate a product.
Because the mean value from these
comments represents a wide variety of
conditions for reformulation (in
comparison to the one scenario
described to the Regulatory Negotiation
Committee), the EPA revised the EIA
using $87,000 as the average cost to
reformulate a product. Appendix B of
the EIA and the architectural coatings
BID provides a full discussion of the
review of these cost estimates.
Several commenters indicated that
they thought that the estimate of total
social cost was too low because the EPA
underestimated or omitted several cost
factors. Some of the factors cited by
commenters that costs are
underestimated are listed below:
(1) The estimate did not consider
every reformulation such as the
recalibration and reformulation of every
color in a tint base system when the
base is reformulated,
(2) The survey used to estimate costs
excluded 400 small paint manufacturing
companies,
(3) Only the costs of laboratory
personnel are included in the estimate,
(4) The estimate did not consider the
cost of foregone new product
development when expending scarce
technical effort to reformulate existing
products, and
(5) Aggregation of 50 product
categories into 13 market segments
reduces the impact presented.
Commenters also cited several cost
categories that potentially were omitted
from the total cost estimate, including:
(6) Costs for preparing product
literature, including material safety data
sheets, sales aids, color brochures, and
technical data bulletins;
(7) Costs for manufacturer education;
(8) Costs to consumers from increased
surface preparation, application, and
drying time;
(9) Costs associated with warranty
claims and complaints about poor
performance of compliant coatings;
(10) Litigation costs due to increased
safety hazards from using acetone
formulations;
(11) Increased costs to retailers,
contractors, and other consumers;
(12) Additional job losses in the paint
industry and the socioeconomic impact
on low income workers; and
(13) Impacts of product bans on the
nation.
Two of these commenters (a
manufacturer and its legal counsel)
stated that if the EPA included all cost
factors in the total cost estimate, then
the impacts of the rule would exceed
$100 million and would necessitate
additional analyses under Executive
Order 12866 and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act. Some
commenters also believed that the
method of calculating the national cost
was flawed in that costs are calculated
on an annualized basis. A commenter
also stated that expressing the cost in
1991 dollars did not represent real costs
today and that assuming an interest rate
of 7 percent was not a valid assumption
for small businesses.
The EPA has carefully considered the
comments regarding the economic
impact of the rule, especially in light of
the EPA's overestimate of the costs of
reformulation in the proposal. The EPA
believes the total social cost estimate
provided at proposal was significantly
above the actual cost of the regulation
because of several conservative
assumptions that were adopted in the
analysis, and the evidence that the per-
product reformulation cost was nearly
three times greater than the average
estimate obtained by public comments.
The method of calculating national
cost for the final rule adheres to the EPA
policy and Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) guidance (OMB Circular
A-94). It is a well-established tenet of
benefit-cost analysis and cost-
effectiveness analysis that benefits and
costs need to be placed on a time-
consistent basis for direct comparison.
Therefore, the costs of the action must
be computed on an annualized basis
through discounting to be time
consistent with the annual stream of
emission reductions achieved. For the
architectural coatings rule, the costs of
reformulation and its VOC reduction
benefits occur in different time periods.
The reformulation of current
noncompliant products is a "one-time
event," but the emission reductions of
the new formula and the knowledge
gained from developing the
reformulation continue over the life of
the product, which is an infinite period
of time unless the product is
permanently removed from the market.
In other words, once a formulation is
developed to comply with the
regulation, manufacturers will have
some knowledge to carry forward to all
future modifications of the product (i.e.,
if they adjust the formula to improve
certain attributes or characteristics of
the product). However, the EPA
recognizes that a case can be made for
treating each product formula as having
a finite service life, requiring periodic
reformulation. Under this alternative
assumption, the regulation is viewed as
accelerating each product's next round
of reformulation, an event that would
have occurred anyway. For example, if
a product is usually reformulated every
8 years, the rule's implementation may
cause a manufacturer to investigate the
reformulation 4 years earlier, thus
accelerating the reformulation schedule
for all future years. In response to this
issue, the EIA for the final rule presents
a calculation of annualized costs for
both a finite and an infinite product life.
Because the finite product life results in
a higher annualized value, the EPA uses
this estimate for the economic analysis
of the final rule to produce a
conservative estimate of impacts
associated with the rule.
Also, because the survey of
architectural coating producers was
conducted in 1992 with information on
products through the end of 1991, the
EPA has set 1991 as the baseline year for
the analysis. All market data are in 1991
dollars, and so for the purpose of
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48869
modeling, the costs are expressed in
1991 dollars. However, in response to
comments, values for the final rule are
expressed in both 1991 (the base year of
analysis) and 1996 dollars. The EPA's
conclusions regarding the impacts of the
final rule are the same, whether
expressed in 1991 or 1996 dollars.
In addition, OMB (OMB Circular A-
94) stipulates that the discount rate used
for economic analyses of Federal
regulations is 7 percent. This is based
on an assessment of a wide range of
private and public investment returns.
The 7-percent rate is a real discount rate
(adjusting out inflation). In contrast, the
market interest rates paid by firms are
in nominal terms (i.e., they include a
component for inflation). If inflation is
3 percent, then a real rate of 7 percent
is equivalent to a nominal rate of 10
percent. All dollar values in the
economic analysis are expressed in real
terms, thus the discount rate used is a
real discount rate.
Using the stated method for
calculating the per-product costs of
reformulation, the EPA conducted an in-
depth analysis of national cost and
economic impact to support both the
proposed and final rules. More
specifically, the estimate of net social
cost is based on the average cost to
reformulate products that exceed the
limits set by the standard. These costs
are applied to specific products
identified by the survey. For these
products, costs are applied to two-thirds
of the population of non-compliant
products because one-third of these
products are similar enough in
characteristics to other "over-the-limit"
products that a separate reformulation
effort is not likely to be necessary.
Although the survey was unable to
capture all products produced by small
businesses as one commenter states, the
EPA assumed (for an upper bound
estimate) that all product volume in the
non-survey population was produced by
small businesses. Thus, costs are
extrapolated to the nation using
conservative assumptions of the total
number of products requiring
reformulation nationally. The analysis
then considers influences in a
competitive market on product price
and output, along with the
consideration of lower-cost compliance
options such as the exceedance fee
provision or product withdrawal from
the market. The analysis not only
measures the cost to producers that
must comply with the regulation, but
also to all consumers impacted by the
changes in the market resulting from the
regulation. The analysis also identifies
gains in revenues to producers that are
not constrained by the rule (thus, not
incurring costs), but who gain an
advantage of higher market prices for
their products. Thus, the EPA believes
that the analysis reasonably captures all
capital and social costs for surveyed as
well as non-surveyed products.
The original product reformulation
cost estimate included several
components beyond the cost of the
laboratory personnel, which are
itemized in the EIA. Although some of
the items listed by commenters as
improperly omitted may not have been
included in the per-product
reformulation cost estimate at proposal,
several of the estimates from public
comments that were used for the final
rule included these components, and
therefore, they are included in the
estimate used for the final rule. The EPA
also considered the influence (positive
and negative) of other factors that are
not possible to quantify, and presented
these biases in a table of the EIA at
proposal and for the final rule. Most of
the biases are variable and case specific.
For example, product quality changes
were found to have both positive and
negative effects on cost depending on
the product. The EPA found no link
between product quality and VOC
content since quality, high-performing
products are available in a wide range
of VOC content levels in many product
categories. Given this finding, the EPA
does not consider warranty claims and
complaints for poor performance to be
typical or quantifiable for a
reformulated product. The EPA also
found examples of increased and
decreased time utilized for surface
preparation, application, and drying of
compliant coatings. The use of acetone
formulations is also not considered a
necessity to comply with the rule since
there are other raw material substitutes
available to manufacturers. Thus,
incurring increased safety hazards by
choosing an acetone formulation is a
decision that should be made by a
manufacturer based on benefit/cost
considerations, rather than as a result of
the rule. Other categories of influence
on the cost estimate are also discussed
qualitatively in the EIA.
The cost of foregone new product
development is an aspect of opportunity
cost that is implicitly included in the
EPA's estimate of economic impacts.
The amortized cost of reformulation
reflects both the payment of principal
and the cost of capital. The cost of
capital directly reflects the value of
opportunities foregone by investing
funds in a particular activity, in this
case, reformulation. Thus, if investing in
reformulation diverts funds from
investing in other product
enhancements, the foregone value of
those investments is captured in the
discount rate used in the analysis.
The aggregation of 50 categories into
13 market segments is the result of
cross-referencing the emissions
inventory data from the industry survey
with the coding system set by the
Census of Manufacturers, a large source
of economic data. The methodology to
link survey categories with the Census
data is described in an appendix to the
EIA. The EPA's objective was to specify
as many market categories as the data
would allow. Using this method, the
largest possible number of meaningful
market categories was 13. The
aggregation process presents an
appropriate way to analyze the cost and
economic impacts and does not in any
way diminish the estimates of the
absolute impact of the regulation.
However, the aggregation process may
make it difficult to detect relatively
large impacts within one subgroup of a
market category, if these impacts are
offset by relatively small impacts in
other subgroups of that market. In other
words, a product may be more likely to
be withdrawn from the market than is
indicated in the 13 market segments of
the analysis since multiple product
niches would be lumped within the
same market segment. On the other
hand, this aggregation may increase the
estimated effect on manufacturers by
over-stating the degree to which
products within the market segment can
substitute for products affected by the
regulation.
While the EPA did not directly
measure impacts on the retailing sector,
contractors, and other consumers, the
indirect impacts to these entities and
other users of coatings products are
captured in the market analysis by the
estimated change in "consumer
surplus," along with all other
downstream effects beyond the
manufacturer. Consumer surplus
measures the distribution of the burden
of the regulation to all consumers. Since
the impact on consumers calculated for
proposal was less than one-third of the
manufacturers' burden, and contractors
and retailers are a small subset of this
effect, the EPA saw no indication of a
need for an in-depth analysis of
secondary (indirect) impacts.
It should be recognized that retail
outlets have the ability to substitute
between compliant and noncompliant
coatings offered for sale. While the EPA
projects the number of withdrawn
products to be small, if a manufacturer
does choose to discontinue a product,
retailers will presumably replace this
product with other compliant products
in that category. Thus, although
foregone profits are "lost" for the
-------
48870 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
manufacturer withdrawing a product,
the retailer offsets any lost profits from
selling the withdrawn product with
profits obtained by selling substitutes
within that category. As indicated
above, the number and volume of
product withdrawals is projected to be
quite small (less than 1-percent
nationally), thus suggesting retailing
effects, if they exist at all, are also likely
to be quite small.
The job loss and other substantial
economic impacts that are referred to by
a commenter are the result of assuming
that every reformulation required by the
standards is not feasible, thus the
products would be removed from the
market causing manufacturers,
contractors, retailers, and other
consumers to be economically
impacted. Because there are a very
limited number of products that are
expected to be withdrawn from the
market, most products will be
reformulated or produced with current
formulations (with manufacturers using
the tonnage exemption provision or
paying a fee for emissions in excess of
the standards).
Likewise, this regulatory action
cannot be considered a "product ban"
because the EPA believes that it is
technologically feasible to reformulate
all product categories to meet the
standards. The expected level of
product withdrawal is calculated based
upon the aggregate impact on numerous
varieties of products across 13 different
market segments, so it is unlikely to
eliminate (or ban) an entire product
category. In addition, the rule contains
limits for 61 categories of products,
many of which were created to preserve
specialty, niche market sectors within
the industry. Also, the tonnage
exemption and exceedance fee
provisions in the rule are expected to
provide further compliance flexibility
which will allow manufacturers to
maintain product lines with VOC
contents that exceed the applicable VOC
content limits in appropriate
circumstances.
In conclusion, based on the data and
information provided to the EPA prior
to proposal and through public
comments, the revised national
annualized cost estimate of the final
rule of $25.6 million in 1991 dollars (or
$29 million in 1996 dollars) is
representative of all costs to producers
and consumers. This cost and its effect
on the industry do not meet the
minimum criteria set forth by Executive
Order 12866 or the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act to require additional
analyses, as some commenters have
suggested.
N. Small Business Issues
The EPA received several comments
that small businesses would be
disproportionately impacted by the
regulation because: (1) they manufacture
products with higher VOC content in
comparison to the large companies; (2)
due to the lack of resources, it would
take longer for small firms to
reformulate all affected products; and
(3) the rule would discourage niche
market products that support many
regional and local manufacturers. Some
commenters also claimed that the
proposed regulation provided a
competitive advantage to large national
and international companies because a
uniform national rule simplifies
marketing, production, and compliance
activities of these firms.
During development of the rule, the
EPA was aware of the above concerns of
small manufacturers and designed the
architectural coatings rule to minimize
any potential adverse impacts on small
manufacturers. In fact, special
consideration was given to economic
feasibility of VOC levels for coating
categories where small manufacturers
have a disproportionate presence. The
small entity analysis confirmed that
small producers that were included in
the survey of manufacturers do tend to
produce higher VOC content products
(75 percent higher than the average of
all surveyed manufacturers), partly
because of a specialization of products
and partly because of choice of
technology. They produced 20 percent
of the number of products in the survey,
but only account for 4 percent of total
volume of coatings produced, and 4
percent of total revenue of surveyed
manufacturers. Thus, the revenues and
production levels are generally lower
than the average of all manufacturers.
Because the costs to reformulate are
fixed for all levels of production, the
costs to reformulate the products that
exceed the VOC content limits have the
potential to comprise a greater share of
baseline costs and revenues for small
producers, which gives some indication
that a disproportionate impact on small
businesses could occur if reformulation
were the only compliance option
available. The EPA considered this
finding and has taken several steps in
the final rule to mitigate this impact,
provide flexibility and additional
compliance time, and preserve niche
markets, including:
• The creation of new product
categories where warranted,
• An increased compliance time (12
months),
• A tonnage exemption provision,
and
• An exceedance fee provision.
All of these provisions were
considered in part to address niche
markets and small business burdens;
however, the provisions will be
available to all producers regardless of
size. The EPA's analysis of the impacts
of the final rule shows that small
businesses are likely to utilize these
provisions and that the impact on a
typical small firm is reduced without
significant deterioration of the rule's
effectiveness (i.e., the foregone emission
reductions are limited). See section VI.E
of this preamble for a summary of
findings from the analysis.
The EPA disagrees that the proposed
architectural coatings rule favors larger
businesses to the detriment of smaller
businesses. As the EIA indicates,
estimated market effects from the
architectural coatings rule are relatively
slight. Approximately one-tenth of 1
percent of industry product volume is
projected to withdraw from the market,
and price effects in each market are
expected to range from no effect to an
increase of less than 2 cents per liter,
which is still less than a 1-percent
increase of the baseline price. The
expected level of product withdrawal
discussed above is based upon the
aggregate of numerous varieties of
products across 13 different market
segments, so it is unlikely to eliminate
an entire product category. Compared to
other industries, the coatings industry is
highly competitive due to the numerous
manufacturers in the industry.
Therefore, a relatively small product
withdrawal effect on a very competitive
industry suggests that significant
degradation of market competition is
unlikely.
The EPA also does not agree that a
uniform national regulation would have
negative implications for competition
with respect to antitrust laws and would
reduce market efficiency. In fact, the
existence of nonuniform standards
across States tends to favor one sector of
the industry (local manufacturers) at the
expense of another (non-local
manufacturers), thereby limiting
competition in those markets. Some
public commenters supported a national
rule because they believe nonuniform
standards harmed small manufacturers.
As one commenter testified at the public
hearing, small companies lack the
resources to deal with a large number of
different State regulations and labeling
requirements and a regulatory climate
that changes frequently. Another
commenter pointed out that these
conditions hinder small companies'
ability to plan for new products,
production, expansion, and marketing.
All of these activities require the
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
48871
investment of time and money that can
easily be expended if a county, district,
or State implements a new VOC rule.
The EPA considers a national VOC rule
an important element in promoting
consistency among architectural coating
standards. The EPA also recognizes that
a national rule for architectural coatings
sets minimum national requirements,
and that some States may need to adopt
requirements for architectural coatings
more stringent than those in this rule.
The EPA also received comments on
the definition of a small entity that the
EPA adopted for the regulatory
flexibility analysis. One commenter
supported the definition, while several
others argued that the definition was too
restrictive and suggested it be revised to
include more firms (i.e., firms with
architectural coatings sales between $20
and $30 million, or firms with less than
$50 million, or firms with less than
$100 million in sales). Because the
coating manufacturing industry is not
labor-intensive, a revenue value cut-off
rather than a number-of-employees cut-
off appeared to be a better measure to
reflect the ability of a manufacturer to
devote time as well as research and
development resources to meet
regulatory requirements. Based on input
from stakeholders during the regulatory
negotiation process (II-E-62), the EPA
has defined small manufacturers as
those having less than $10 million in
annual architectural coating sales and
less than $50 million in total annual
sales from all products. Using this
definition, between 70 and 85 percent of
the architectural coatings industry
would be classified as small. This
definition does not change the
requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA); it is used for
analysis purposes only. If the definition
were changed to include more firms at
sales levels greater than $10 million, the
impacts on this sector of the industry
may appear lower on average because
the impacts on a company with sales
around $30 million may offset impacts
on a $5 million company. In such a
case, the EPA may have been less likely
to consider special provisions such as
the exceedance fee or tonnage
exemption. The EPA believes the
current definition is representative of
the industry and has not revised it for
the final rule.
O. Cost-Effectiveness
In the preamble to the proposed rule
(61 FR 32735, June 25, 1996), the EPA
solicited comments on alternative
approaches to the cost-effectiveness
calculation for the proposed rule. As
distinct from EPA's consideration of
cost in the BAG analysis, the discussion
in this section did not form a basis for
EPA's selection of BAG for the
categories of products regulated by the
rule.
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 the
cost-effectiveness of a rule with
nationwide applicability is to divide the
total cost of the rule by total emission
reductions. At proposal, the EPA
requested comment on two alternative
ways of calculating cost-effectiveness
for the architectural coatings rule: (1)
cost-effectiveness considering total
emission reductions in ozone
nonattainment areas only, and (2) cost-
effectiveness considering emission
reductions in ozone nonattainment
areas during the ozone season only.
Before discussing the comments
received on this cost-effectiveness
methodology issue, it is important to
note that the provisions and rationale
for today's rule are not dependent upon
the disposition of this issue. The EPA
nonetheless took comment on the issue
because this rule was among the first to
be proposed under section 183(e) of the
Act and presented an opportunity to
receive public input early in the
program.
In regard to cost-effectiveness
methodologies, the EPA received
comments from three commenters, all of
whom favored the EPA's traditional
measure of cost-effectiveness. One
commenter stated that it is important to
characterize cost-effectiveness in a
consistent manner so that various
control strategies can be compared on
equal footing and that calculating cost-
effectiveness based solely on
nonattainment areas unfairly biases the
calculation by ignoring the benefit of
reducing the transport of ozone and its
precursors. Another commenter advised
the EPA to maintain the traditional
measure since it is commonly used and
will continue to provide meaningful
comparisons. The latter commenter
opposed more narrow measures of cost-
effectiveness, such as exclusively
measuring the effect on ozone
concentrations or VOC reductions in
ozone nonattainment areas only. The
third commenter considered cost-
effectiveness based on VOC reductions
solely in ozone nonattainment areas to
be impractical, because the
manufacturer has little control over
where coatings will be used. Such
control would necessitate additional
recordkeeping to track intended and
actual locations of product use.
After considering these comments, the
EPA does not plan to adopt these
alternative approaches to calculating
cost-effectiveness for rules with
nationwide control requirements, for
reasons that are presented below.
One issue raised by the comments 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
EPA 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
architectural coatings rule. In the case of
the architectural coatings rule, the EPA
considered applying restrictions to
architectural coatings only in
nonattainment areas (either by rule or
through a CTG). The EPA believes that
such geographically targeted restrictions
for these nationally distributed
architectural coatings would pose
substantial implementation difficulties
for government and would impose
substantial compliance burdens on a
large number of regulated entities. The
EPA also believes that such
geographically targeted restrictions for
these nationally distributed products
would be less effective at reducing
emissions than a national rule (see
section V. A of this preamble for further
discussion). Because the EPA
determined that a strategy applicable
only to nonattainment areas would be
less desirable than a national rule for
architectural coatings, the EPA did not
see a need to invest resources to pursue
that strategy and calculate its cost-
effectiveness.
The EPA considered whether use of
one of the alternative cost-effectiveness
methodologies would enable the EPA to
make valid cost-effectiveness
comparisons between nationwide and
targeted geographic strategies, or year-
round and seasonal strategies, for
reducing ozone pollution. The EPA has
not chosen these alternatives because it
has the following concerns about 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 that a
primary objective of section 183(e) of
the Act is to reduce VOC emissions in
ozone nonattainment areas. However, as
-------
48872 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
previously explained, in the
development of the architectural
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 architectural coatings
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 [See U.S.
EPA; Review of NAAQS for Ozone,
Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards Staff Paper;
document number: EPA-452\R-96-007].
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.
In light of the transport issue, it has
been suggested that the EPA 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 EPA 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 all. 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
EPA 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, i.e., generally, when
a control strategy is feasible to apply on
a seasonal basis, or when limits are set
on a seasonal basis. 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 today's rule, the EPA
notes that the nature of architectural
coatings 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 architectural coatings varies
greatly and one cannot predict that a
certain percentage of a product made
with a specified formulation will be
consumed and, thus, result in VOC
emitted during the ozone season.
Because the Agency has concluded that
an ozone season-based approach is not
a viable control strategy for architectural
coatings, the EPA did not believe it was
appropriate to develop a seasonal-based
approach to measuring cost-
effectiveness for the architectural
coatings rule.
P. Future Study and Future Limits
The EPA has determined to regulate
architectural coatings based upon the
study and Report to Congress required
by Section 183(e) of the Act. For the
reasons discussed in the separate final
listing decision published today in the
Federal Register, the 183(e) study
established that the EPA should regulate
architectural coatings to reduce VOC
emissions, as directed by the Act. The
final rule's VOC content limits, in
combination with the exceedance fee
and tonnage exemption provisions,
reflect the EPA's determination of BAG
for architectural coatings, based on the
EPA's analysis of currently available
information on coating technologies.
However, the EPA recognizes that
manufacturers are continuously
developing new and innovative
products in response to competitive
markets as well as to regulatory
pressures. The EPA has developed the
final requirements for architectural
coatings largely from data for coatings
manufactured in the early 1990s, and
the EPA believes, therefore, that VOC
reductions beyond those reflected in
table 1 of the rule may be
technologically and economically
feasible in the future. In the preamble
for the proposed rule, the EPA
discussed the idea of a joint study with
the industry to investigate the cost and
performance characteristics of coatings
with VOC contents lower than the
promulgated limits and to assess the
environmental and economic impacts of
requiring lower VOC contents. The EPA
requested comments concerning such an
EPA/industry study and any
performance, cost, or reactivity
considerations that should be included
in such a study. The EPA also requested
information on coating categories where
recent progress in low-VOC resin
systems has resulted in the introduction
of new low-VOC coatings into the
market since 1990. In addition, the EPA
requested cost information and
comments on the ability of coatings
with VOC content limits lower than the
proposed levels to meet the performance
needs within the coating category.
A total of 27 commenters responded
to the EPA's request for comments,
representing a wide variety of positions.
The comments generally addressed
three issues: (1) the usefulness of the
proposed joint study, (2) how the EPA
should conduct the study, and (3) the
merit of promulgating additional or
more stringent standards for
architectural coatings.
Based on these comments, the EPA
has concluded that an additional study
for this category may be warranted to
determine the feasibility of additional
reductions in VOC limits. However,
contrary to some commenters'
assertions, the EPA would not
necessarily impose future requirements
as a result of any study. A study could
indicate that further regulation of
architectural coatings is unwarranted.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48873
The EPA appreciates the willingness
expressed by many commenters to
participate in a joint study. The
effectiveness of any study is highly
dependent on a spirit of openness and
cooperation between all affected parties.
In order to determine the potential for
useful results from a second study, the
EPA will solicit input from industry
representatives and other interested
parties on the timing, scope, and
content of the study. Decisions
concerning the additional study will be
made on the basis of this input.
Some commenters questioned the
EPA's authority to engage in any future
regulatory initiatives involving
architectural coatings. These
commenters did not identify any
statutory language in section 183(e) of
the Act that supports this position. The
EPA believes that section 183(e)
explicitly authorizes the EPA to use
"any system or systems of regulation"
that are appropriate to achieve the goals
of the statute, and the EPA's explicit
directive is to require BAG. Nothing in
section 183(e) explicitly or implicitly
prohibits the EPA from updating or
amending the regulations in the future,
if appropriate. The EPA has striven to
promulgate the appropriate regulations
given the current state of technology.
Future innovation in technology may
justify reexamination of the regulations,
and the EPA wishes to encourage such
innovation in order to achieve the
objectives of section 183(e).
Q. Administrative Provisions
Since proposal, the EPA has added
several new sections to the regulation to
aid in implementing the rule. These
administrative provisions do not add
any new compliance requirements to
the rule, and pose no additional impacts
on regulated entities. The EPA has
added the new requirements to provide
consistent procedures for
implementation. The provisions that
were added are as follows: (1) Addresses
of the EPA Regional Offices, (2) State
Authority, (3) Circumvention, (4)
Incorporations by Reference, and (5)
Availability of Information and
Confidentiality.
The section on addresses specifies the
mailing addresses of the EPA Regional
Offices for the submittal of required
reports. The States and territories served
by the various Regional Offices are
listed in this section as well. The
appropriate Regional Office for purposes
of reporting would be that Regional
Office which serves the State or territory
in which the regulated entity's corporate
headquarters are physically located.
The section on State authority
clarifies that this rule in no way
prevents States from adopting more
stringent regulations. The section on
circumvention prohibits regulated
entities from doing anything to conceal
what would otherwise be
noncompliance, by such means as
falsifying records of product
formulation or VOC content. The
section on incorporations by reference
includes as part of the rule the ASTM
methods and technical standards of the
American Architectural Manufacturer's
Association that are cited by reference.
Finally, the section on availability of
information and confidentiality clarifies
the type of information that is available
to the public, and provides for the
confidential handling of any proprietary
information that may be submitted to
the EPA in response to the rule.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by the EPA in the
development of this rule. The docket is
a dynamic file, since material is added
throughout the rulemaking
development. The docketing system is
intended to allow members of the public
to identify and locate documents so that
they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the
statement of basis and purpose of the
proposed and promulgated standards
and the EPA responses to significant
comments, the contents of the docket
will serve as the record in case of
judicial review [see 42 U.S.C.
7607(d)(7)(A)].
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501, etseq. An Information Collection
Request (ICR) document has been
prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1750.02)
and a copy may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division, United States Environmental
Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20460, or by
calling (202) 260-2740. The information
requirements are not effective until
OMB approves them.
The information collections required
under this rule are needed as part of the
overall compliance and enforcement
program. The information will be used
by the EPA to identify the regulated
entities subject to the rule and to ensure
their compliance with the rule. The
recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling
requirements are mandatory and are
being established under sections 114
and 183(e) of the Act. All information
submitted to the EPA for which a claim
of confidentiality is made will be
safeguarded according to the EPA
policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1,
Part 2, Subpart B-Confidentiality of
Information (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976, as amended
by: 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 28, 1978; and 44
FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
The total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this
information collection averaged over the
first 3 years is estimated to be 65,851
hours per year. The total annualized
recordkeeping and reporting costs for
this rule are estimated to be $2,452,683.
This is the estimated burden for the
estimated 500 respondents (i.e.,
architectural coating manufacturers).
The average estimated burden, per
respondent, is 132 hours per year. The
total reporting and recordkeeping
burden for an individual respondent
will vary depending on the compliance
option chosen. Respondents meeting the
VOC content limits will have the lowest
reporting and recordkeeping burden.
Manufacturers and importers that
choose the option of calculating an
"adjusted-VOC content" (for recycled
coatings), paying an exceedance fee, or
exercising the tonnage exemption will
have a higher reporting and
recordkeeping burden. The final rule
requires an initial one-time notification
from each respondent. Respondents
whose coating products have a VOC
content that is less than or equal to the
VOC content limits have no periodic
reporting requirements. Respondents
using the recycled coatings provision
must keep records and submit annual
reports. Respondents taking advantage
of the tonnage exemption must file
annual reports and must maintain
records for the coatings being claimed
under the exemption. Respondents
paying an exceedance fee must submit
reports on an annual basis. These
manufacturers must also keep records
for each coating product on which fees
are paid.
Burden in this context means the total
time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to: (1)
Review instructions; (2) develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; (3) adjust
the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
-------
48874 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
requirements; (4) train personnel to be
able to respond to a collection of
information; (5) search data sources; (6)
complete and review the collection of
information; and (7) transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR
chapter 15.
Send comments on the EPA's need for
this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including through
the use of automated collection
techniques to the Director, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division, United
States Environmental Protection Agency
(2137), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20460, and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20503, marked "Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA." Comments are requested
within October 13, 1998. Include the
ICR number in any correspondence.
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must
determine whether a regulatory action is
"significant" and therefore subject to
OMB review and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Order defines
"significant regulatory action" as one
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive
Order, the EPA has determined that this
final rule is a "significant regulatory
action" under criterion (4) above, based
on the novel use of economic incentives
(an exceedance fee) for this industry.
Therefore, the EPA submitted this
action to OMB for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations are documented in
the public record.
D. Executive Order 12875
To reduce the burden of Federal
regulations on States and small
governments, the President issued
Executive Order 12875 on October 26,
1993, entitled Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership. This
Executive Order requires agencies to
assess the effects of regulations that are
not required by statute and that create
mandates upon State, local, or tribal
governments. In compliance with
Executive Order 12875, the EPA has
involved State and local governments in
the development of this rule. State and
local air pollution control agencies
participated in the regulatory
negotiation and have also submitted
comments after proposal for
consideration in developing the final
rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
The RFA of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq.), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), requires the EPA to
give special consideration to the effect
of Federal regulations on small entities
and to consider regulatory options that
might mitigate any such impacts. The
EPA is required to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis, including
consideration of regulatory options for
reducing any significant impacts, unless
the EPA determines that a rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The EPA prepared analyses to support
both the proposed and final rules to
meet the requirements of the RFA as
modified by the SBREFA. The EPA
undertook these analyses because of the
large presence of small entities in the
architectural coatings industry and
because the EIA indicated that there
could be a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
if mitigating regulatory options were not
adopted for the rule. After evaluating
public comment on the proposed
mitigating options, the EPA made a
number of changes to the proposed rule
to further mitigate the rule's small
business impacts. As a result, the EPA
believes that it is highly unlikely that
the rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. However, in
light of the EPA's inability to quantify
the effect of all of the mitigating
provisions included in the rule, the EPA
has elected to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis and to prepare a
SBREFA compliance guide to eliminate
any potential dispute about whether the
EPA has fulfilled SBREFA requirements.
The EPA expects to complete the
compliance guide by the end of 1998.
The analysis supporting the proposed
rule was published in the report titled,
"Economic Impact and Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis of Air Pollution
Regulations: Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance Coatings," (June
1996). For the purpose of the analysis,
the EPA considered small
manufacturers to be firms with less than
$10 million of total gross annual
revenues from the sale of architectural
coatings and less than $50 million in
total gross annual revenues from all
products. The EPA proposed this
definition of small entity for the reasons
stated in the September 3, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 46411) and has
determined that this definition is
appropriate. The Small Business
Administration has concurred on this
definition of small entity.
Using this definition, one-third of the
116 firms for which the EPA has survey
data are classified as small. There are
approximately 500 total manufacturers.
Since the EPA does not have data to
indicate the total number of small firms
producing architectural coatings, the
EPA assumes as a conservative estimate
that the unsurveyed manufacturer
population (i.e., the remaining 384
manufacturers) are all small, and
consequently, all product volume not
captured by the 116 manufacturers
surveyed is manufactured by small
firms. Using this assumption, the EPA
conducted an analysis that assumed 84
percent of the estimated 500
architectural coating producers, i.e., 420
firms, are small entities.
Based on an analysis of the survey
data at proposal, the EPA recognized the
fact that small businesses tend to
produce products in specialized or
niche markets and also to produce
products that tend to have higher than
industry-average VOC contents within
less specialized markets. In addition,
small manufacturers' revenue and
production levels are generally lower
than the average for all manufacturers.
One benefit of their smaller production
levels is that small manufacturers have
a greater ability to adjust quickly to
changes in markets. However, because
the costs to reformulate are fixed for all
levels of production, and small
manufacturers have lower than average
production levels, the costs for small
manufacturers to reformulate represents
a greater share of baseline costs and
revenues. Without any rule provisions
designed to mitigate impacts on small
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48875
manufacturers' niche markets and
smaller production levels, there is some
indication that a disproportionate
impact on small businesses could occur.
At proposal, the EPA included
categories and limits to preserve niche
product markets. In addition, to
evaluate whether further steps were still
needed to accommodate niche market
coatings, the EPA requested that
commenters identify any additional
specialty coatings which would not
comply with VOC content requirements.
The EPA also requested comment on
whether to include an "exceedance fee"
which would allow companies the
option of paying a fee, based on the
amount that VOC content limits are
exceeded, instead of achieving the limit.
In addition, the EPA requested comment
on the concept of a low volume cut-off,
under which a coating may be exempt
from regulation. The analysis prepared
to support the final rule builds upon the
analysis performed for the proposal and
takes into consideration compliance
options the EPA has added to the final
rule.
Due to confidentiality considerations
associated with the survey data
provided by the industry trade
association, the EPA could not derive
compliance cost as a percentage of
revenues for each small manufacturer
included in the survey population. This
is because the aggregated information
provided to the EPA did not have sales
and VOC content information linked to
any particular small manufacturer. The
data compiled all responses for small
manufacturers without any indication of
firm name. Therefore, individual
product VOC content information is
available, and total revenues of all firms
responding to the survey as a small
business is available, but no method
exists for the EPA to connect each
response to an individual firm for a
calculation of actual firm-level cost-to-
revenues ratios. Absent exact
information for each firm, the EPA
performed the analysis based upon an
average small business, using reasonable
assumptions based upon the available
data. In lieu of firm-level measures, the
analysis presents an average cost/
revenue ratio for a typical small firm
based on the survey data.
The analysis has several other
limitations. Although the EPA included
specialty niche market categories in the
rule, based on the data available to the
EPA, there was no way to account for
the extent to which these additional
categories mitigated impacts. For
example, the EPA's proposal included
the following categories: "impacted
immersion coatings", "flow coatings",
and "nonferrous ornamental metal
lacquer and surface coatings" which
likely would have been reported in the
survey under the broader "industrial
maintenance" category. The analysis
would likely overestimate impacts on
some of the markets represented in the
survey due to the inability to account
for the subset niche markets within
these surveyed categories for which the
EPA created additional categories.
Additionally, the EPA's analysis
assumes that manufacturers bear the full
cost of each reformulation. Since the
VOC content limits in the rule reflect
available resin technologies, the EPA
expects that the cost to comply for those
manufacturers needing to reformulate
their higher VOC content coatings will
be partially reduced through the
assistance of resin manufacturers/
suppliers. Upon request, most resin
suppliers are willing to share
information and sample low VOC
content formulations with interested
paint manufacturers, both large and
small. For this reason, the analysis may
overestimate the impact of
reformulation costs. A further
consideration is that the EPA's analysis
is based on 1990 data, and there has
been much technological progress in the
past 8 years in addition to new State
regulations with requirements similar to
the EPA's rule (e.g., Massachusetts,
Kentucky, and Oregon).
In response to public comments, the
EPA added 7 coating categories and
increased the VOC content limits for 4
coating categories, as well as the
exceedance fee provision and a
provision which would enable each
manufacturer to claim as exempt a
specified amount of VOC (known as the
tonnage exemption). The EPA also
added an extended period of
compliance after promulgation to allow
additional time for reformulations. The
EPA expects these provisions to mitigate
rule impacts on small businesses' low
production volumes and to allow for the
preservation of several niche markets.
However, based on the limited data
available to the EPA, only the mitigating
impact of exceedance fees can be
quantified.
The EPA first conducted the analysis
without incorporating the quantifiable
mitigating impacts of compliance
options available in the final rule. The
analysis shows that when reformulation
is the only option for compliance, the
cost/revenue ratio is 2.5 percent on
average. When the alternative
compliance options of the exceedance
fee or product withdrawal are
considered, the ratio decreases to 2
percent. This ratio would likely
decrease further if the cost effects of the
additional niche product categories, use
of the tonnage exemption, and reduction
in cost to reformulate due to resin
supplier assistance could be specifically
quantified.
The analysis in the EIA suggests that
a large percentage of small firms will
opt for one of the alternative compliance
strategies in lieu of reformulation. For
some of the products listed in the
survey as produced by a small
manufacturer, the EPA anticipates that
it would be less costly for a firm to
utilize the exemption provision, pay the
exceedance fee, or withdraw a product
(and forego profits on the product)
rather than to reformulate. Although the
lack of data at the firm level does not
allow for an approximation of the use of
the exemption, the analysis suggests
that 35.5 percent of the small business
products in the survey that exceed the
standards will be maintained at current
VOC content levels through the
payment of the exceedance fee, 4
percent will be removed from the
market, and 60.5 percent of the products
will undergo reformulation. The
availability of the alternative
compliance strategies reduces the cost
to small manufacturers by 23 percent (or
more if the effect of the tonnage
exemption and the portion of
reformulation cost borne by resin
manufacturers/suppliers could be
quantified).
Based on the findings of the analysis
and consideration of additional
provisions which are designed to
mitigate impacts, the EPA believes that
it is highly unlikely that the rule will
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The EPA believes that these measures
adopted in the final rule will
significantly mitigate the economic
impacts on small businesses that might
otherwise have occurred.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Under section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed
into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed
or final rule that includes a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any one year. Under section 205, the
EPA must select the most cost-effective
and least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule and
is consistent with statutory
requirements. Section 203 requires the
EPA to establish a plan for informing
and advising any small governments
-------
48876
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
that may be significantly or uniquely
impacted by the rule.
Based upon the analysis presented in
the EIA, the EPA has determined that
the action promulgated today does not
include a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million
or more to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, in any one year.
Therefore, the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act do not apply to this action.
The EPA has likewise determined that
the final rule does not include
regulatory requirements that would
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Thus, today's action is not
subject to the requirements of section
203 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.
G. Submission to Congress and the
General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801, etseq., as added by the
SBREFA of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the United
States Senate, the United States House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A Major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This rule is not a
"major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective
September 11, 1998.
H. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (the NTTAA), Pub. L. No.
104-113, §12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices, etc.) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA
requires the EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the
EPA decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
In the case of this rule, the proposed
rule required the use of Method 24 to
determine VOC content of coatings. This
method is a compilation of existing
voluntary consensus methods to
determine the volatile matter content,
water content, and density of coatings.
In response to the proposed rule, the
EPA received no comments pertaining
to the use of additional voluntary
consensus standards rather than the
proposed Method 24, either during or
after the comment period. In preparing
the final rule, however, the EPA has
investigated to determine the
availability of any other existing
voluntary consensus standards for use
in lieu of Method 24.
The EPA has searched for additional
voluntary consensus standards that
might be applicable. The search
included use of the National Standards
System Network, an automated service
provided by the American National
Standards Institute for identifying
available national and international
standards. The EPA has not identified
any voluntary consensus standards that
are not presently included in Method 24
and that would result in equivalent
results. The EPA did identify another
voluntary consensus method (ASTM
Method D 3960) that provides
instructions for calculating VOC content
in many different units. Because this
other method does not specify which
units to use, it may result in
inconsistent applications of the
procedure and could make the standard
more difficult to enforce. Consequently,
the EPA determined that this other
voluntary consensus method would be
impractical to adopt. In addition, the
EPA believes that it is appropriate to use
Method 24 both because it has proven
reliable and practical to achieve the
goals of reducing VOC and because the
EPA wishes to foster uniformity in
testing nationwide. Accordingly, the
EPA has determined that Method 24
constitutes the appropriate method for
determining product compliance under
this final rule.
/. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 applies to any
rule that the EPA determines (1) is
economically significant as defined
under Executive Order 12866, and (2)
for which the environmental health or
safety risk addressed by the rule has a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the EPA must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the EPA.
This final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined
by Executive Order 12866, and it does
not address an environmental health or
safety risk that would have a
disproportionate effect on children.
Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, the
EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that
significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal
governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on
those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal
governments, or the EPA provides to the
Office of Management and Budget a
description of the prior consultation and
communications the agency has had
with representatives of tribal
governments and a statement supporting
the need to issue the regulation. In
addition, Executive Order 13084
requires the EPA to develop an effective
process permitting elected and other
representatives of Indian tribal
governments "to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of
regulatory policies on matters that
significantly or uniquely affect their
communities." Information available to
the Administrator does not indicate that
this action will have any effect on
Indian tribal governments.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Architectural
coatings, Consumer and commercial
products, Incorporation by reference,
Ozone, volatile organic compound.
Dated: August 14, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, part 59 of title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 59—NATIONAL VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER AND
COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 59
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, etseq.
2. Part 59 is amended by adding
subpart D to read as follows:
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48877
Subpart D—National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings
Sees.
59.400 Applicability and compliance dates.
59.401 Definitions.
59.402 VOC content limits.
59.403 Exceedance fees.
59.404 Tonnage exemption.
59.405 Container labeling requirements.
59.406 Compliance provisions.
59.407 Recordkeeping requirements.
59.408 Reporting requirements.
59.409 Addresses of EPA Regional Offices.
59.410 State authority.
59.411 Circumvention.
59.412 Incorporations by reference.
59.413 Availability of information and
confidentiality.
Appendix A to subpart D—Determination of
Volatile Matter Content of Methacrylate
Multicomponent Coatings Used as
Traffic Marking Coatings
Table 1 to Subpart D—Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Content Limits for
Architectural Coatings
Subpart D—National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings
§59.400 Applicability and compliance
dates.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b) and (c) of this section, the provisions
of this subpart apply to each
architectural coating manufactured on
or after September 13, 1999 for sale or
distribution in the United States.
(b) For any architectural coating
registered under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7
U.S.C. Section 136, etseq), the
provisions of this subpart apply to any
such coating manufactured on or after
March 13, 2000 for sale or distribution
in the United States.
(c) The provisions of this subpart do
not apply to any architectural coating
described in paragraphs (c)(l) through
(c)(5) of this section:
(1) A coating that is manufactured for
sale or distribution to architectural
coating markets outside the United
States; such a coating must not be sold
or distributed within the United States
as an architectural coating.
(2) A coating that is manufactured
prior to September 13, 1999.
(3) A coating that is sold in a
nonrefillable aerosol container.
(4) A coating that is collected and
redistributed at a paint exchange.
(5) A coating that is sold in a
container with a volume of one liter or
less.
§59.401 Definitions.
Act means the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401, etseq., as amended by Pub.
L. 101-549, 104 Star. 2399).
Adhesive means any chemical
substance that is applied for the purpose
of bonding two surfaces together other
than by mechanical means. Under this
subpart, adhesives are not considered
coatings.
Administrator means the
Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) or an authorized representative.
Antenna coating means a coating
formulated and recommended for
application to equipment and associated
structural appurtenances that are used
to receive or transmit electromagnetic
signals.
Anti-fouling coating means a coating
formulated and recommended for
application to submerged stationary
structures and their appurtenances to
prevent or reduce the attachment of
marine or freshwater biological
organisms, including, but not limited to,
coatings registered with the EPA under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section 136,
et seq.) and nontoxic foul-release
coatings.
Anti-graffiti coating means a clear or
opaque high performance coating
formulated and recommended for
application to interior and exterior
walls, doors, partitions, fences, signs,
and murals to deter adhesion of graffiti
and to resist repeated scrubbing and
exposure to harsh solvents, cleansers, or
scouring agents used to remove graffiti.
Appurtenance means any accessory to
a stationary structure, whether installed
or detached at the proximate site of
installation, including but not limited
to: bathroom and kitchen fixtures;
cabinets; concrete forms; doors;
elevators; fences; hand railings; heating
equipment, air conditioning equipment,
and other fixed mechanical equipment
or stationary tools; lamp posts;
partitions; pipes and piping systems;
rain gutters and downspouts; stairways,
fixed ladders, catwalks, and fire
escapes; and window screens.
Architectural coating means a coating
recommended for field application to
stationary structures and their
appurtenances, to portable buildings, to
pavements, or to curbs. This definition
excludes adhesives and coatings
recommended by the manufacturer or
importer solely for shop applications or
solely for application to non-stationary
structures, such as airplanes, ships,
boats, and railcars.
Below-ground wood preservative
means a coating that is formulated and
recommended to protect below-ground
wood from decay or insect attack and
that is registered with the EPA under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section 136,
etseq.).
Bituminous coating and mastic means
a coating or mastic formulated and
recommended for roofing, pavement
sealing, or waterproofing that
incorporates bitumens. Bitumens are
black or brown materials including, but
not limited to, asphalt, tar, pitch, and
asphaltite that are soluble in carbon
disulfide, consist mainly of
hydrocarbons, and are obtained from
natural deposits of asphalt or as
residues from the distillation of crude
petroleum or coal.
Bond breaker means a coating
formulated and recommended for
application between layers of concrete
to prevent a freshly poured top layer of
concrete from bonding to the layer over
which it is poured.
Calcimine recoater means a flat
solventborne coating formulated and
recommended specifically for recoating
calcimine-painted ceilings and other
calcimine-painted substrates.
Chalkboard resurfacer means a
coating formulated and recommended
for application to chalkboards to restore
a suitable surface for writing with chalk.
Clear means allowing light to pass
through, so that the substrate may be
distinctly seen.
Coating means a material applied
onto or impregnated into a substrate for
protective, decorative, or functional
purposes. Such materials include, but
are not limited to, paints, varnishes,
sealants, inks, maskants, and temporary
coatings. Protective, decorative, or
functional materials that consist only of
solvents, acids, bases, or any
combination of these substances are not
considered coatings for the purposes of
this subpart.
Colorant means a concentrated
pigment dispersion of water, solvent,
and/or binder that is added to an
architectural coating in a paint store or
at the site of application to produce the
desired color.
Concrete curing compound means a
coating formulated and recommended
for application to freshly placed
concrete to retard the evaporation of
water.
Concrete curing and sealing
compound means a liquid membrane-
forming compound marketed and sold
solely for application to concrete
surfaces to reduce the loss of water
during the hardening process and to seal
old and new concrete providing
resistance against alkalis, acids, and
ultraviolet light, and provide adhesion
promotion qualities. The coating must
meet the requirements of American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) C 1315-95, Standard
-------
48878 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
Specification for Liquid Membrane-
Forming Compounds Having Special
Properties for Curing and Sealing
Concrete (incorporated by reference—
see § 59.412 of this subpart).
Concrete protective coating means a
high-build coating, formulated and
recommended, for application in a
single coat over concrete, plaster, or
other cementitious surfaces. These
coatings are formulated to be primerless,
one-coat systems that can be applied
over form oils and/or uncured concrete.
These coatings prevent spalling of
concrete in freezing temperatures by
providing long-term protection from
water and chloride ion intrusion.
Concrete surface retarder means a
mixture of retarding ingredients such as
extender pigments, primary pigments,
resin, and solvent that interact
chemically with the cement to prevent
hardening on the surface where the
retarder is applied, allowing the
retarded mix of cement and sand at the
surface to be washed away to create an
exposed aggregate finish.
Container means the individual
receptacle that holds the coating for
storage and/or sale or distribution.
Conversion varnish means a clear acid
curing coating with an alkyd or other
resin blended with amino resins and
supplied as a single component or two-
component product. Conversion
varnishes produce a hard, durable, clear
finish designed for professional
application to wood flooring. The film
formation is the result of an acid-
catalyzed condensation reaction,
affecting a transetherification at the
reactive ethers of the amino resins.
Dry fog coating means a coating
formulated and recommended only for
spray application such that overspray
droplets dry before subsequent contact
with incidental surfaces in the vicinity
of the surface coating activity.
Exempt compounds means specific
organic compounds that are not
considered volatile organic compounds
(VOC) due to negligible photochemical
reactivity. The exempt compounds are
specified in 40 CFR 51.100.
Exterior coating means an
architectural coating formulated and
recommended for use in conditions
exposed to the weather.
Extreme high durability coating
means an air dry coating, including a
fluoropolymer-based coating, that is
formulated and recommended for
touchup of precoated architectural
aluminum extrusions and panels and to
ensure the protection of architectural
subsections, and that meets the
weathering requirements of American
Architectural Manufacturer's
Association (AAMA) specification 605-
98, Voluntary Specification Performance
Requirements and Test Procedures for
High Performance Organic Coatings on
Aluminum Extrusions and Panels,
Section 7.9 (incorporated by reference—
see §59.412 of this subpart).
Faux- finishing/'glazing means a
coating used for wet-in-wet techniques,
such as faux woodgrain, faux marble,
and simulated aging, which require the
finish to remain wet for an extended
period of time.
Fire-retardant/resistive coating means
a coating formulated and recommended
to retard ignition and flame spread, or
to delay melting or structural weakening
due to high heat, that has been fire
tested and rated by a certified laboratory
for use in bringing buildings and
construction materials into compliance
with Federal, State, and local building
code requirements.
Flat coating means a coating that is
not defined under any other definition
in this section and that registers gloss
less than 15 on an 85-degree meter or
less than 5 on a 60-degree meter
according to ASTM Method D 523-89,
Standard Test Method for Specular
Gloss (incorporated by reference—see
§59.412 of this subpart).
Floor coating means an opaque
coating with a high degree of abrasion
resistance that is formulated and
recommended for application to flooring
including, but not limited to, decks,
porches, and steps in a residential
setting.
Flow coating means a coating that is
used by electric power companies or
their subcontractors to maintain the
protective coating systems present on
utility transformer units.
Form release compound means a
coating formulated and recommended
for application to a concrete form to
prevent the freshly placed concrete from
bonding to the form. The form may
consist of wood, metal, or some material
other than concrete.
Graphic arts coating or sign paint
means a coating formulated and
recommended for hand-application by
artists using brush or roller techniques
to indoor or outdoor signs (excluding
structural components) and murals
including lettering enamels, poster
colors, copy blockers, and bulletin
enamels.
Heat reactive coating means a high
performance phenolic-based coating
requiring a minimum temperature of
191 °C (375 °F) to 204 °C (400 °F) to
obtain complete polymerization or cure.
These coatings are formulated and
recommended for commercial and
industrial use to protect substrates from
degradation and maintain product
purity in which one or more of the
following extreme conditions exist:
(1) Continuous or repeated immersion
exposure of 90 to 98 percent sulfuric
acid, or oleum;
(2) Continuous or repeated immersion
exposure to strong organic solvents;
(3) Continuous or repeated immersion
exposure to petroleum processing at
high temperatures and pressures; and
(4) Continuous or repeated immersion
exposure to food or pharmaceutical
products which may or may not require
high temperature sterilization.
High temperature coating means a
high performance coating formulated
and recommended for application to
substrates exposed continuously or
intermittently to temperatures above
202°C (400°F).
Impacted immersion coating means a
high performance maintenance coating
formulated and recommended for
application to steel structures subject to
immersion in turbulent, debris-laden
water. These coatings are specifically
resistant to high-energy impact damage
caused by floating ice or debris.
Imported means that a coating
manufactured outside the United States
has been brought into the United States
for sale or distribution.
Importer means a person that brings
architectural coatings into the United
States for sale or distribution within the
United States. This definition does not
include any person that brings a coating
into the United States and repackages
the coating by transferring it from one
container to another, provided the
coating VOC content is not altered and
the coating is not sold or distributed to
another party. For purposes of applying
this definition, divisions of a company,
subsidiaries, and parent companies are
considered to be a single importer.
Industrial maintenance coating means
a high performance architectural
coating, including primers, sealers,
undercoaters, intermediate coats, and
topcoats formulated and recommended
for application to substrates exposed to
one or more of the following extreme
environmental conditions in an
industrial, commercial, or institutional
setting:
(1) Immersion in water, wastewater,
or chemical solutions (aqueous and
nonaqueous solutions), or chronic
exposure of interior surfaces to moisture
condensation;
(2) Acute or chronic exposure to
corrosive, caustic, or acidic agents, or to
chemicals, chemical fumes, or chemical
mixtures or solutions;
(3) Repeated exposure to temperatures
above 120°C (250 °F);
(4) Repeated (frequent) heavy
abrasion, including mechanical wear
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48879
and repeated (frequent) scrubbing with
industrial solvents, cleansers, or
scouring agents; or
(5) Exterior exposure of metal
structures and structural components.
Interior clear wood sealer means a
low viscosity coating formulated and
recommended for sealing and preparing
porous wood by penetrating the wood
and creating a uniform smooth substrate
for a finish coat of paint or varnish.
Interior coating means an
architectural coating formulated and
recommended for use in conditions not
exposed to natural weathering.
Label means any written, printed, or
graphic matter affixed to, applied to,
attached to, blown into, formed, molded
into, embossed on, or appearing upon
any architectural coating container for
purposes of branding, identifying, or
giving information with respect to the
product, use of the product, or contents
of the container.
Lacquer means a clear or pigmented
wood finish, including clear lacquer
sanding sealers, formulated with
cellulosic or synthetic resins to dry by
evaporation without chemical reaction
and to provide a solid, protective film.
Lacquer stains are considered stains, not
lacquers.
Low solids means containing 0.12
kilogram or less of solids per liter (1
pound or less of solids per gallon) of
coating material and for which at least
half of the volatile component is water.
Magnesite cement coating means a
coating formulated and recommended
for application to magnesite cement
decking to protect the magnesite cement
substrate from erosion by water.
Manufactured means that coating
ingredients have been combined and
put into containers that have been
labeled and made available for sale or
distribution.
Manufacturer means a person that
produces, packages, or repackages
architectural coatings for sale or
distribution in the United States. A
person that repackages architectural
coatings as part of a paint exchange, and
does not produce, package, or repackage
any other architectural coatings for sale
or distribution in the United States, is
excluded from this definition. A person
that repackages a coating by transferring
it from one container to another is
excluded from this definition, provided
the coating VOC content is not altered
and the coating is not sold or distributed
to another party. For purposes of
applying this definition, divisions of a
company, subsidiaries, and parent
companies are considered to be a single
manufacturer.
Mastic texture coating means a
coating formulated and recommended to
cover holes and minor cracks and to
conceal surface irregularities, and is
applied in a single coat of at least 10
mils (0.010 inch) dry film thickness.
Metallic pigmented coating means a
nonbituminous coating containing at
least 0.048 kilogram of metallic pigment
per liter of coating (0.4 pound per
gallon) including, but not limited to,
zinc pigment.
Multi-colored coating means a coating
that is packaged in a single container
and exhibits more than one color when
applied.
Nonferrous ornamental metal
lacquers and surface protectant means a
clear coating formulated and
recommended for application to
ornamental architectural metal
substrates (bronze, stainless steel,
copper, brass, and anodized aluminum)
to prevent oxidation, corrosion, and
surface degradation.
Nonflat coating means a coating that
is not defined under any other
definition in this section and that
registers a gloss of 15 or greater on an
85-degree meter or 5 or greater on a 60-
degree meter according to ASTM
Method D 523-89, Standard Test
Method for Specular Gloss
(incorporated by reference—see § 59.412
of this subpart).
Nuclear coating means a protective
coating formulated and recommended to
seal porous surfaces such as steel (or
concrete) that otherwise would be
subject to intrusion by radioactive
materials. These coatings must be
resistant to long-term (service life)
cumulative radiation exposure (ASTM
Method D 4082-89, Standard Test
Method for Effects of Gamma Radiation
on Coatings for Use in Light-Water
Nuclear Power Plants (incorporated by
reference—see § 59.412 of this subpart)),
relatively easy to decontaminate, and
resistant to various chemicals to which
the coatings are likely to be exposed
(ASTM Method D 3912-80 (Reapproved
1989), Standard Test Method for
Chemical Resistance of Coatings Used in
Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants
(incorporated by reference—see § 59.412
of this subpart)).
Opaque means not allowing light to
pass through, so that the substrate is
concealed from view.
Paint exchange means a program in
which consumers, excluding
architectural coating manufacturers and
importers, may drop off and pick up
usable post-consumer architectural
coatings in order to reduce hazardous
waste.
Person means an individual,
corporation, partnership, association,
State municipality, political subdivision
of a State, and any agency, department,
or instrumentality of the United States
and any officer, agent, or employee
thereof.
Pigmented means containing finely
ground insoluble powder used to
provide one or more of the following
properties: color; corrosion inhibition;
conductivity; fouling resistance;
opacity; or improved mechanical
properties.
Post-consumer coating means an
architectural coating that has previously
been purchased by a consumer or
distributed to a consumer but not
applied, and reenters the marketplace to
be purchased by or distributed to a
consumer. Post-consumer coatings
include, but are not limited to, coatings
collected during hazardous waste
collection programs for repackaging or
blending with virgin coating materials.
Pretreatment wash primer means a
primer that contains a minimum of 0.5
percent acid, by weight, that is
formulated and recommended for
application directly to bare metal
surfaces in thin films to provide
corrosion resistance and to promote
adhesion of subsequent topcoats.
Primer means a coating formulated
and recommended for application to a
substrate to provide a firm bond
between the substrate and subsequent
coatings.
Quick-dry enamel means a nonflat
coating that has the following
characteristics:
(1) Is capable of being applied directly
from the container under normal
conditions with ambient temperatures
between 16 and 27°C (60 and 80°F);
(2) When tested in accordance with
ASTM Method D 1640-83 (Reapproved
1989), Standard Test Methods for
Drying, Curing, or Film Formation of
Organic Coatings at Room Temperature
(incorporated by reference—see
§ 59.412), sets to touch in 2 hours or
less, is tack free in 4 hours or less, and
dries hard in 8 hours or less by the
mechanical test method; and
(3) Has a dried film gloss of 70 or
above on a 60 degree meter.
Quick-dry primer, sealer, and
undercoater means a primer, sealer, or
undercoater that is dry to the touch in
a V2 hour and can be recoated in 2 hours
when tested in accordance with ASTM
Method D 1640-83 (Reapproved 1989),
Standard Test Methods for Drying,
Curing, or Film Formation of Organic
Coatings at Room Temperature
(incorporated by reference—see § 59.412
of this subpart).
Recycled coating means an
architectural coating that contains some
portion of post-consumer coating.
Recycled architectural coatings include,
but are not limited to, post-consumer
-------
48880
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
coatings that have been repackaged or
blended with virgin coating materials.
Repackage means to transfer an
architectural coating from one container
to another.
Repair and maintenance
thermoplastic coating means an
industrial maintenance coating that has
vinyl or chlorinated rubber as a primary
resin and is recommended solely for the
repair of existing vinyl or chlorinated
rubber coatings without the full removal
of the existing coating system.
Roof coating means a coating
formulated and recommended for
application to exterior roofs for the
primary purpose of preventing
penetration of the substrate by water or
reflecting heat and reflecting ultraviolet
radiation. This does not include
thermoplastic rubber coatings.
Rust preventative coating means a
coating formulated and recommended
for use in preventing the corrosion of
ferrous metal surfaces in residential
situations.
Sanding sealer means a clear wood
coating formulated and recommended
for application to bare wood to seal the
wood and to provide a coat that can be
sanded to create a smooth surface. A
sanding sealer that also meets the
definition of a lacquer is not included
in this category, but is included in the
lacquer category.
Sealer means a coating formulated
and recommended for application to a
substrate for one or more of the
following purposes: to prevent
subsequent coatings from being
absorbed by the substrate; to prevent
harm to subsequent coatings by
materials in the substrate; to block
stains, odors, or efflorescence; to seal
fire, smoke, or water damage; or to
condition chalky surfaces.
Semitransparent means not
completely concealing the surface of a
substrate or its natural texture or grain
pattern.
Shellac means a clear or pigmented
coating formulated with natural resins
(except nitrocellulose resins) soluble in
alcohol (including, but not limited to,
the resinous secretions of the lac beetle,
Laciffer lacca). Shellacs dry by
evaporation without chemical reaction
and provide a quick-drying, solid
protective film that may be used for
blocking stains.
Shop application means that a coating
is applied to a product or a component
of a product in a factory, shop, or other
structure as part of a manufacturing,
production, or repairing process (e.g.,
original equipment manufacturing
coatings).
Stain means a coating that produces a
dry film with minimal coloring. This
includes lacquer stains.
Stain controller means a conditioner
or pretreatment coating formulated and
recommended for application to wood
prior to the application of a stain in
order to prevent uneven penetration of
the stain.
Swimming pool coating means a
coating formulated and recommended to
coat the interior of swimming pools and
to resist swimming pool chemicals.
Thermoplastic rubber coating and
mastic means a coating or mastic
formulated and recommended for
application to roofing or other structural
surfaces and that incorporates no less
than 40 percent by weight of
thermoplastic rubbers in the total resin
solids and may also contain other
ingredients including, but not limited
to, fillers, pigments, and modifying
resins.
Tint base means a coating to which
colorant is added in a paint store or at
the site of application to produce a
desired color.
Traffic marking coating means a
coating formulated and recommended
for marking and striping streets,
highways, or other traffic surfaces
including, but not limited to, curbs,
berms, driveways, parking lots,
sidewalks, and airport runways.
Undercoater means a coating
formulated and recommended to
provide a smooth surface for subsequent
coatings.
United States means the United States
of America, including the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.
Varnish means a clear or semi-
transparent coating, excluding lacquers
and shellacs, formulated and
recommended to provide a durable,
solid, protective film. Varnishes may
contain small amounts of pigment to
color a surface, or to control the final
sheen or gloss of the finish.
Volatile organic compound or VOC
means any organic compound that
participates in atmospheric
photochemical reactions, that is, any
organic compound other than those
which the Administrator designates as
having negligible photochemical
reactivity. For a list of compounds that
the Administrator has designated as
having negligible photochemical
reactivity, also referred to as exempt
compounds, refer to 40 CFR 51.100(s).
VOC content means the weight of
VOC per volume of coating, calculated
according to the procedures in
§ 59.406(a) of this subpart.
Waterproofing sealer and treatment
means a coating formulated and
recommended for application to a
porous substrate for the primary
purpose of preventing the penetration of
water.
Wood preservative means a coating
formulated and recommended to protect
exposed wood from decay or insect
attack, registered with the EPA under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section 136,
etseq.).
Zone marking coating means a coating
formulated and recommended for
marking and striping driveways, parking
lots, sidewalks, curbs, or airport
runways, and sold or distributed in a
container with a volume of 19 liters (5
gallons) or less.
§ 59.402 VOC Content limits.
(a) Each manufacturer and importer of
any architectural coating subject to this
subpart shall ensure that the VOC
content of the coating does not exceed
the applicable limit in table 1 of this
subpart, except as provided in §§ 59.403
and 59.404 of this subpart.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph
(c) of this section, if anywhere on the
container of any architectural coating, or
any label or sticker affixed to the
container, or in any sales, advertising, or
technical literature supplied by a
manufacturer or importer or anyone
acting on their behalf, any
representation is made that indicates
that the coating meets the definition of
more than one of the coating categories
listed in table 1 of this subpart, then the
most restrictive VOC content limit shall
apply.
(c) The provision in paragraph (b) of
this section does not apply to the
coatings described in paragraphs (c)(l)
through (c)(15) of this section.
(1) High temperature coatings that are
also recommended for use as metallic
pigmented coatings are subject only to
the VOC content limit in table 1 of this
subpart for high temperature coatings.
(2) Lacquer coatings (including
lacquer sanding sealers) that are also
recommended for use in other
architectural coating applications to
wood, except as stains, are subject only
to the VOC content limit in table 1 of
this subpart for lacquers.
(3) Metallic pigmented coatings that
are also recommended for use as roof
coatings, industrial maintenance
coatings, or primers are subject only to
the VOC content limit in table 1 of this
subpart for metallic pigmented coatings.
(4) Shellacs that are also
recommended for use as any other
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
48881
architectural coating are subject only to
the VOC content limit in table 1 of this
subpart for shellacs.
(5) Fire-retardant/resistive coatings
that are also recommended for use as
any other architectural coating are
subject only to the VOC content limit in
table 1 of this subpart for fire-retardant/
resistive coatings.
(6) Pretreatment wash primers that are
also recommended for use as primers or
that meet the definition for industrial
maintenance coatings are subject only to
the VOC content limit in table 1 of this
subpart for pretreatment wash primers.
(7) Industrial maintenance coatings
that are also recommended for use as
primers, sealers, undercoaters, or mastic
texture coatings are subject only to the
VOC content limit in table 1 of this
subpart for industrial maintenance
coatings.
(8) Varnishes and conversion
varnishes that are recommended for use
as floor coatings are subject only to the
VOC content limit in table 1 of this
subpart for varnishes and conversion
varnishes, respectively.
(9) Anti-graffiti coatings, high
temperature coatings, impacted
immersion coatings, thermoplastic
rubber coatings and mastics, repair and
maintenance thermoplastic coatings,
and flow coatings that also meet the
definition for industrial maintenance
coatings are subject only to the VOC
content limit in table 1 of this subpart
for their respective categories (i.e., they
are not subject to the industrial
maintenance coatings VOC content limit
in table 1 of this subpart).
(10) Waterproofing sealers and
treatments that also meet the definition
for quick-dry sealers are subject only to
the VOC content limit in table 1 of this
subpart for waterproofing sealers and
treatments.
(11) Sanding sealers that also meet the
definition for quick-dry sealers are
subject only to the VOC content limit in
table 1 of this subpart for sanding
sealers.
(12) Nonferrous ornamental metal
lacquers and surface protectants that
also meet the definition for lacquers are
subject only to the VOC content limit in
table 1 of this subpart for nonferrous
ornamental metal lacquers and surface
protectants.
(13) Quick-dry primers, sealers, and
undercoaters that also meet the
definition for primers and undercoaters
are subject only to the VOC content
limit in table 1 of this subpart for quick-
dry primers, sealers, and undercoaters.
(14) Antenna coatings that also meet
the definition for industrial
maintenance coatings or primers are
subject only to the VOC content limit in
table 1 of this subpart for antenna
coatings.
(15) Bituminous coatings and mastics
that are recommended for use as any
other architectural coatings are subject
only to the VOC content limit in table
1 of this subpart for bituminous coatings
and mastics.
§59.403 Exceedance fees.
(a) Except as provided in § 59.404 of
this subpart, each manufacturer and
importer of any architectural coating
subject to the provisions of this subpart
may exceed the applicable VOC content
limit in table 1 of this subpart for the
coating if the manufacturer or importer
pays an annual exceedance fee. The
exceedance fee must be calculated using
the procedures in paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section.
(b) The exceedance fee paid by a
manufacturer or importer, which is
equal to the sum of the applicable
exceedance fees for all coatings, must be
calculated using equation 1 as follows:
Annual Exceedance Fee = ^Coating Feec
c=l
(1)
Where:
Annual Exceedance Fee=The total
annual exceedance fee for a
manufacturer or importer, in
dollars.
Coating Feec=The annual exceedance
fee for each coating (c), for which a
fee applies, in dollars.
n=number of coatings to which a fee
applies.
(c) The exceedance fee to be paid for
each coating must be determined using
equation 2 as follows:
Coating Feec = Fee Rate x Excess VOC x Volume Manufactured or Imported (2)
Where:
Fee Rate = The rate of $0.0028 per gram
of excess VOC.
Excess VOC = The VOC content of the
coating, or adjusted VOC content of
a recycled coating (if applicable), in
grams of VOC per liter of coating,
minus the applicable VOC content
limit from table 1 of this subpart
(that is, VOC content of the coating
minus VOC content limit).
Volume Manufactured or Imported =
The volume of the coating
manufactured or imported per year,
in liters, excluding any volume for
which a tonnage exemption is
claimed under § 59.404 of this
subpart.
(d) The exceedance fee shall be paid
no later than 2 months after the end of
the calendar year in which the coatings
are manufactured or imported, and shall
be sent to the Regional Office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, as
listed in § 59.409 of this subpart, that
serves the State or Territory in which
the corporate headquarters of the
manufacturer or importer is located.
§59.404 Tonnage exemption.
(a) Each manufacturer and importer of
any architectural coating subject to the
provisions of this subpart may designate
a limited quantity of coatings to be
exempt from the VOC content limits in
table 1 of this subpart and the
exceedance fee provisions of § 59.403 of
this subpart, provided all of the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(l)
through (a) (4) of this section are met.
(1) The total amount of VOC
contained in all the coatings selected for
exemption must be equal to or less than
23 megagrams (25 tons) for the period of
time from September 13, 1999 through
December 31, 2000; 18 megagrams (20
tons) in the year 2001; and 9 megagams
(10 tons) per year in the year 2002 and
each subsequent year. The amount of
VOC contained in each coating shall be
calculated using the procedure in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) The container labeling
requirements of § 59.405 of this subpart.
(3) The recordkeeping requirements of
§ 59.407(c) of this subpart.
(4) The reporting requirements of
§59.408(b), (e), and (f) of this subpart.
(b) Each manufacturer and importer
choosing to use the exemption
-------
48882
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
described in paragraph (a) of this
section must use equations 3 and 4 to
calculate the total amount of VOC for
each time period the exemption is
elected.
Total VOC =
(3)
Where:
Total VOC = Total megagrams of VOC
contained in all coatings being
claimed under the exemption.
VOCC = The amount of VOC, in
megagrams, for each coating (c)
claimed under the exemption, as
computed by equation 4.
n = Number of coatings for which
exemption is claimed.
VOCC = (Volume Manufactured or Imported)*(VOC Content)/Ix 106
(4)
Where:
Volume Manufactured or Imported =
Volume of the coating
manufactured or imported, in liters,
for the time period the exemption is
claimed.
VOC Content = VOC content of the
coating in grams of VOC per liter of
coating thinned to the
manufacturer's maximum
recommendation, including the
volume of any water, exempt
compounds, or colorant added to
tint bases.
§59.405 Container labeling requirements.
(a) Each manufacturer and importer of
any architectural coating subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall provide
the information listed in paragraphs
(a)(l) through (a) (3) of this section on
the coating container in which the
coating is sold or distributed.
(1) The date the coating was
manufactured, or a date code
representing the date shall be indicated
on the label, lid, or bottom of the
container.
(2) A statement of the manufacturer's
recommendation regarding thinning of
the coating shall be indicated on the
label or lid of the container. This
requirement does not apply to the
thinning of architectural coatings with
water. If thinning of the coating prior to
use is not necessary, the
recommendation must specify that the
coating is to be applied without
thinning.
(3) The VOC content of the coating as
described in paragraph (a) (3) (i) or
(a)(3)(ii) of this section shall be
indicated on the label or lid of the
container.
(i) The VOC content of the coating,
displayed in units of grams of VOC per
liter of coating; or
(ii) The VOC content limit in table 1
of this subpart with which the coating
is required to comply and does comply,
displayed in units of grams of VOC per
liter of coating.
(b) In addition to the information
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, each manufacturer and importer
of any industrial maintenance coating
subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall display on the label or lid of the
container in which the coating is sold or
distributed one or more of the
descriptions listed in paragraphs (b)(l)
through (b)(4) of this section.
(1) "For industrial use only."
(2) "For professional use only."
(3) "Not for residential use" or "Not
intended for residential use."
(4) "This coating is intended for use
under the following condition(s):"
(Include each condition in paragraphs
(b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(v) of this section
that applies to the coating.)
(i) Immersion in water, wastewater, or
chemical solutions (aqueous and
nonaqueous solutions), or chronic
exposure of interior surfaces to moisture
condensation;
(ii) Acute or chronic exposure to
corrosive, caustic, or acidic agents, or to
chemicals, chemical fumes, or chemical
mixtures or solutions;
(iii) Repeated exposure to
temperatures above 120° C (250° F);
(iv) Repeated (frequent) heavy
abrasion, including mechanical wear
and repeated (frequent) scrubbing with
industrial solvents, cleansers, or
scouring agents; or
(v) Exterior exposure of metal
structures and structural components.
(c) In addition to the information
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, each manufacturer and importer
of any recycled coating who calculates
the VOC content using equations 7 and
8 in § 59.406(a)(3) of this subpart shall
include the following statement
indicating the post-consumer coating
content on the label or lid of the
container in which the coating is sold or
distributed: "CONTAINS NOT LESS
THAN X PERCENT BY VOLUME POST-
CONSUMER COATING," where "X" is
replaced by the percent by volume of
post-consumer architectural coating.
§59.406 Compliance provisions.
(a) For the purpose of determining
compliance with the VOC content limits
in table 1 of this subpart, each
manufacturer and importer shall
determine the VOC content of a coating
using the procedures described in
paragraph (a)(l), (a) (2), or (a) (3) of this
section, as appropriate. The VOC
content of a tint base shall be
determined without colorant that is
added after the tint base is
manufactured or imported.
(1) With the exception of low solids
stains and low solids wood
preservatives, determine the VOC
content in grams of VOC per liter of
coating thinned to the manufacturer's
maximum recommendation, excluding
the volume of any water and exempt
compounds. Calculate the VOC content
using equation 5 as follows:
(ws-ww-wec)
VOC Content = ^—_ __ec/ (5)
Cv -v -v
V v m vw v e
Where:
VOC content = grams of VOC per liter
of coating
Ws = weight of volatiles, in grams
Ww = weight of water, in grams
Wec = weight of exempt compounds, in
grams
Vm = volume of coating, in liters
Vw = volume of water, in liters
Vec = volume of exempt compounds, in
liters
(2) For low solids stains and low
solids wood preservatives, determine
the VOC content in units of grams of
VOC per liter of coating thinned to the
manufacturer's maximum
recommendation, including the volume
of any water and exempt compounds.
Calculate the VOC content using
equation 6 as follows:
(ws-ww-wec)
VOC Content^ = , — (6)
V mj
Where:
VOC content ls = the VOC content of a
low solids coating in grams of VOC
per liter of coating
Ws = weight of volatiles, in grams
Ww = weight of water, in grams
Wec = weight of exempt compounds, in
grams
Vm = volume of coating, in liters
(3) For recycled coatings, the
manufacturer or importer has the option
of calculating an adjusted VOC content
to account for the post-consumer
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48883
coating content. If this option is used,
the manufacturer or importer shall
determine the adjusted VOC content
using equations 7 and 8 as follows:
Where:
Adjusted VOC Content = Actual VOC Content - Actual VOC Content
J I
Percent Post^onsumer Coating^
100
(7)
Adjusted VOC content = The VOC
content assigned to the recycled
coating for purposes of complying
with the VOC content limits in table
1 of this subpart.
Actual VOC content = The VOC content
of the coating as determined using
equation 5 in paragraph (a)(l) of
this section.
Percent Post-consumer Coating = The
volume percent of a recycled
coating that is post-consumer
coating materials (as determined in
equation 8)
Percent Post-consumer Coating =
Volume of Post-consumer Coating
(Volume of Post-consumer Coating + Volume of Virgin Materials)
-xlOO Percent
(8)
Where:
Percent Post-consumer Coating = The
volume percent of a recycled
coating that is post-consumer
coating materials.
Volume of Post-consumer Coating = The
volume, in liters, of post-consumer
coating materials used in the
production of a recycled coating.
Volume of Virgin Materials = The
volume, in liters, of virgin coating
materials used in the production of
a recycled coating.
(b) To determine the composition of a
coating in order to perform the
calculations in paragraph (a) of this
section, the reference method for VOC
content is Method 24 of appendix A of
40 CFR part 60, except as provided in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. To
determine the VOC content of a coating,
the manufacturer or importer may use
Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part
60, an alternative method as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section,
formulation data, or any other
reasonable means for predicting that the
coating has been formulated as intended
(e.g., quality assurance checks,
recordkeeping). However, if there are
any inconsistencies between the results
of a Method 24 test and any other means
for determining VOC content, the
Method 24 test results will govern,
except as provided in paragraph (c) of
this section. The Administrator may
require the manufacturer or importer to
conduct a Method 24 analysis.
(c) The Administrator may approve,
on a case-by-case basis, a manufacturer's
or importer's use of an alternative
method in lieu of Method 24 for
determining the VOC content of
coatings if the alternative method is
demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction to provide results that are
acceptable for purposes of determining
compliance with this subpart.
(d) Analysis of methacrylate
multicomponent coatings used as traffic
marking coatings shall be conducted
according to the procedures specified in
appendix A to this subpart. Appendix A
to this subpart is a modification of
Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part
60. The modification of Method 24
provided in appendix A to this subpart
has not been approved for methacrylate
multicomponent coatings used for other
purposes than as traffic marking
coatings or for other classes of
multicomponent coatings.
(e) The Administrator may determine
a manufacturer's or importer's
compliance with the provisions of this
subpart based on information required
by this subpart (including the records
and reports required by §§ 59.407 and
59.408 of this subpart) or any other
information available to the
Administrator.
§59.407 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Each manufacturer and importer
using the provisions of § 59.406(a)(3) of
this subpart to determine the VOC
content of a recycled coating shall
maintain in written or electronic form
records of the information specified in
paragraphs (a)(l) through (a) (6) of this
section for a period of 3 years.
(1) The minimum volume percent
post-consumer coating content for each
recycled coating.
(2) The volume of post-consumer
coating received for recycling.
(3) The volume of post-consumer
coating received that was unusable.
(4) The volume of virgin materials.
(5) The volume of the final recycled
coating manufactured or imported.
(6) Calculations of the adjusted VOC
content as determined using equation 7
in § 59.406(a)(3) of this subpart for each
recycled coating.
(b) Each manufacturer and importer
using the exceedance fee provisions in
§ 59.403 of this subpart, as an
alternative to achieving the VOC content
limits in table 1 of this subpart, shall
maintain in written or electronic form
the records specified in paragraphs
(b)(l) through (b)(7) of this section for a
period of 3 years.
(1) A list of the coatings and the
associated coating categories in table 1
of this subpart for which the exceedance
fee is used.
(2) Calculations of the annual fee for
each coating and the total annual fee for
all coatings using the procedure in
§ 59.403 (b) and (c) of this subpart.
(3) The VOC content of each coating
in grams of VOC per liter of coating.
(4) The excess VOC content of each
coating in grams of VOC per liter of
coating.
(5) The total volume of each coating
manufactured or imported per calendar
year in liters of coating, excluding the
volume of any water and exempt
compounds.
(6) The annual fee for each coating.
(7) The total annual fee for all
coatings.
(c) Each manufacturer and importer
claiming the tonnage exemption in
§ 59.404 of this subpart shall maintain
in written or electronic form the records
specified in paragraphs (c)(l) through
(c) (4) of this section for a period of 3
years.
(1) A list of all coatings and associated
coating categories in table 1 of this
subpart for which the exemption is
claimed.
(2) The VOC content, in grams of VOC
per liter of coating, including water, of
each coating for which the exemption is
claimed.
(3) The planned and actual sales, in
liters, for each coating for which the
exemption is claimed for the time
period the exemption is claimed.
(4) The total megagrams of VOC
contained in each coating for which the
-------
48884
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
exemption is claimed, and for all
coatings combined for which the
exemption is claimed, for the time
period the exemption is claimed, as
calculated in § 59.404 (b) of this subpart.
§59.408 Reporting requirements.
(a) Each manufacturer and importer of
any architectural coating subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall submit
reports and exceedance fees specified in
this section to the appropriate address
as listed in § 59.409 of this subpart.
(b) Each manufacturer and importer of
any architectural coating subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall submit
an initial notification report no later
than September 13, 1999 or within 180
days after the date that the first
architectural coating is manufactured or
imported, whichever is later. The initial
report must include the information in
paragraphs (b)(l) through (b)(3) of this
section.
(1) The name and mailing address of
the manufacturer or importer.
(2) The street address of each one of
the manufacturer's or importer's
facilities in the United States that is
producing, packaging, or repackaging
any architectural coating subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(3) A list of the categories from table
1 of this subpart for which the
manufacturer's or importer's coatings
meet the definitions in § 59.401 of this
subpart.
(4) If a date code is used on a coating
container to represent the date a coating
was manufactured, as allowed in
§59.405(a)(l) of this subpart, the
manufacturer or importer of the coating
shall include an explanation of each
date code in the initial notification
report and shall submit an explanation
of any new date code no later than 30
days after the new date code is first used
on the container for a coating.
(c) Each manufacturer and importer of
a recycled coating that chooses to
determine the adjusted VOC content
according to the provisions of
§59.406(a)(3) to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable VOC
content limit in table 1 of this subpart
shall submit a report containing the
information in paragraphs (c)(l) through
(c)(5) of this section. The report must be
submitted for each coating for which the
adjusted VOC content is used to
demonstrate compliance. This report
must be submitted by March 1 of the
year following any calendar year in
which the adjusted VOC content
provision is used.
(1) The minimum volume percent
post-consumer coating content for each
recycled coating.
(2) The volume of post-consumer
coating received for recycling.
(3) The volume of post-consumer
coating received that was unusable.
(4) The volume of virgin materials
used.
(5) The volume of the final recycled
coating manufactured or imported.
(d) Each manufacturer and importer
that uses the exceedance fee provisions
of § 59.403 of this subpart shall report
the information in paragraphs (d)(l)
through (d) (7) of this section for each
coating for which the exceedance fee
provisions are used. This report and the
exceedance fee payment must be
submitted by March 1 following the
calendar year in which the coating is
manufactured or imported.
(1) Manufacturer's or importer's name
and mailing address.
(2) A list of all coatings and the
associated coating categories in table 1
of this subpart for which the exceedance
fee provision is being used.
(3) The VOC content of each coating
that exceeds the applicable VOC content
limit in table 1 of this subpart.
(4) The excess VOC content of each
coating in grams of VOC per liter of
coating.
(5) The total volume of each coating
manufactured or imported per calendar
year, in liters.
(6) The annual fee for each coating.
(7) The total annual fee for all
coatings.
(e) Each manufacturer and importer of
architectural coatings for which a
tonnage exemption under § 59.404 of
this subpart is claimed shall submit a
report no later than March 1 of the year
following the calendar year in which the
exemption was claimed. The report
must include the information in
paragraphs (f)(l) through (f)(4) of this
section.
(1) A list of all coatings and the
associated coating categories in table 1
of this subpart for which the exemption
was claimed.
(2) The VOC content, in grams of VOC
per liter of coating, including water, of
each coating for which the exemption
was claimed.
(3) The actual sales, in liters, for each
coating for which the exemption was
claimed for the time period the
exemption was claimed.
(4) The total megagrams of VOC
contained in all coatings for which the
exemption was claimed for the time
period the exemption was claimed, as
calculated in § 59.404 (b) of this subpart.
§ 59.409 Addresses of EPA Regional
Offices.
Each manufacturer and importer of
any architectural coating subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall submit
all requests, reports, submittals,
exceedance fee payments, and other
communications to the Administrator
pursuant to this regulation to the
Regional Office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency that
serves the State or Territory in which
the corporate headquarters of the
manufacturer or importer resides. These
areas are indicated in the following list
of EPA Regional Offices:
EPA Region I (Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, Vermont), Director, Office of
Environmental Stewardship, Mailcode:
SAA, J.F.K. Federal Building, Boston, MA
02203-2211.
EPA Region II (New lersey, New York, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands), Director, Division of
Environmental Planning and Protection,
290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866.
EPA Region III (Delaware, District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia), Director, Air
Protection Division, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
EPA Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee), Director, Air,
Pesticides, and Toxics Management
Division, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA
30303.
EPA Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin), Director, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507.
EPA Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), Director,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202-2733.
EPA Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska), Director, Air, RCRA, and Toxics
Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas
City, KS 66101.
EPA Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming),
Director, Office of Partnerships and
Regulatory Assistance, 999 18th Street,
Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
EPA Region IX (American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada),
Director, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
EPA Region X (Alaska, Oregon, Idaho,
Washington), Director, Office of Air
Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA
98101.
§59.410 State authority.
The provisions of this subpart must
not be construed in any manner to
preclude any State or political
subdivision thereof from:
(a) Adopting and enforcing any
emissions standard or limitation
applicable to a manufacturer or importer
of architectural coatings; or
(b) Requiring the manufacturer or
importer of architectural coatings to
obtain permits, licenses, or approvals
prior to initiating construction,
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48885
modification, or operation of a facility
for manufacturing an architectural
coating.
§59.411 Circumvention.
Each manufacturer and importer of
any architectural coating subject to the
provisions of this subpart must not alter,
destroy, or falsify any record or report,
to conceal what would otherwise be
noncompliance with this subpart. Such
concealment includes, but is not limited
to, refusing to provide the Administrator
access to all required records and date-
coding information, altering the VOC
content of a coating batch, or altering
the results of any required tests to
determine VOC content.
§59.412 Incorporations by reference.
(a) The materials listed in this section
are incorporated by reference in the
paragraphs noted in § 59.401. These
incorporations by reference were
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These
materials are incorporated as they exist
on the date of the approval, and notice
of any changes in these materials will be
published in the Federal Register. The
materials are available for purchase at
the corresponding addresses noted
below, and all are available for
inspection at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW,
Suite 700, Washington, DC; at the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460; and at the EPA
Library (MD-35), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
(b) The materials listed below are
available for purchase at the following
address: American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-
2959.
(1) ASTM Method C 1315-95,
Standard Specification for Liquid
Membrane-Forming Compounds Having
Special Properties for Curing and
Sealing Concrete, incorporation by
reference approved for § 59.401,
Concrete curing and sealing compound.
(2) ASTM Method D 523-89, Standard
Test Method for Specular Gloss,
incorporation by reference approved for
§ 59.401, Flat coating and Nonflat
coating.
(3) ASTM Method D 1640-83
(Reapproved 1989), Standard Test
Methods for Drying, Curing, or Film
Formation of Organic Coatings at Room
Temperature, incorporation by reference
approved for § 59.401, Quick-dry
enamel and Quick-dry primer, sealer,
and undercoater.
(4) ASTM Method D 3912-80
(Reapproved 1989), Standard Test
Method for Chemical Resistance of
Coatings Used in Light-Water Nuclear
Power Plants, incorporation by
reference approved for § 59.401, Nuclear
coating.
(5) ASTM Method D 4082-89,
Standard Test Method for Effects of
Gamma Radiation on Coatings for Use in
Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants,
incorporation by reference approved for
§ 59.401, Nuclear coating.
(c) The following material is available
from the AAMA, 1827 Walden Office
Square, Suite 104, Schaumburg, IL
60173.
(1) AAMA 605-98, Voluntary
Specification Requirements and Test
Procedures for High Performance
Organic Coatings on Aluminum
Extrusions and Panels, incorporation by
reference approved for § 59.401,
Extreme high durability coating.
(2) [Reserved]
§ 59.413 Availability of information and
confidentiality.
(a) Availability of information. The
availability to the public of information
provided to or otherwise obtained by
the Administrator under this part shall
be governed by part 2 of this chapter.
(b) Confidentiality. All confidential
business information entitled to
protection under section 114(c) of the
Act that must be submitted or
maintained by each manufacturer or
importer of architectural coatings
pursuant to this section shall be treated
in accordance with 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B.
Appendix A to Subpart D—
Determination of Volatile Matter
Content of Methacrylate
Multicomponent Coatings Used as
Traffic Marking Coatings
1.0 Principle and Applicability
1.1 Applicability. This modification to
Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60
applies to the determination of volatile
matter content of methacrylate
multicomponent coatings used as traffic
marking coatings.
1.2 Principle. A known amount of
methacrylate multicomponent coating is
dispersed in a weighing dish using a stirring
device before the volatile matter is removed
by heating in an oven.
2.0 Procedure
2.1 Prepare about 100 milliliters (mL) of
sample by mixing the components in a
storage container, such as a glass jar with a
screw top or a metal can with a cap. The
storage container should be just large enough
to hold the mixture. Combine the
components (by weight or volume) in the
ratio recommended by the manufacturer.
Tightly close the container between additions
and during mixing to prevent loss of volatile
materials. Most manufacturers' mixing
instructions are by volume. Because of
possible error caused by expansion of the
liquid when measuring the volume, it is
recommended that the components be
combined by weight. When weight is used to
combine the components and the
manufacturer's recommended ratio is by
volume, the density must be determined by
section 3.5 of Method 24 of appendix A of
40 CFR part 60.
2.2 Immediately after mixing, take
aliquots from this lOO mL sample for
determination of the total volatile content,
water content, and density. To determine
water content, follow section 3.4 of Method
24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60. To
determine density, follow section 3.5 of
Method 24. To determine total volatile
content, use the apparatus and reagents
described in section 3.8.2 of Method 24 and
the following procedures:
2.2.1 Weigh and record the weight of an
aluminum foil weighing dish and a metal
paper clip. Using a syringe as specified in
section 3.8.2.1 of Method 24, weigh to 1
milligrams (mg), by difference, a sample of
coating into the weighing dish. For
methacrylate multicomponent coatings used
for traffic marking use 3.0 ± 0.1 g.
2.2.2 Add the specimen and use the metal
paper clip to disperse the specimen over the
surface of the weighing dish. If the material
forms a lump that cannot be dispersed,
discard the specimen and prepare a new one.
Similarly, prepare a duplicate. The sample
shall stand for a minimum of 1 hour, but no
more than 24 hours before being oven dried
at 110 ± 5 degrees Celsius for 1 hour.
2.2.3 Heat the aluminum foil dishes
containing the dispersed specimens in the
forced draft oven for 60 minutes at 110 ± 5
degrees Celsius. Caution—provide adequate
ventilation, consistent with accepted
laboratory practice, to prevent solvent vapors
from accumulating to a dangerous level.
2.2.4 Remove the dishes from the oven,
place immediately in a desiccator, cool to
ambient temperature, and weigh to within 1
mg. After weighing, break up the film of the
coating using the metal paper clip. Weigh
dish to within 1 mg. Return to forced draft
oven for an additional 60 minutes at 110 ±
5 degrees Celsius.
2.2.5 Remove the dishes from the oven,
place immediately in a desiccator, cool to
ambient temperature, and weigh to within 1
mg.
2.2.6 Run analyses in pairs (duplicate sets
for each coating mixture until the criterion in
section 4.3 of Method 24 of appendix A of
40 CFR part 60 is met. Calculate the weight
of volatile matter for each heating period
following Equation 24-2 of Method 24 and
record the arithmetic average. Add the
arithmetic average for the two heating
periods to obtain the weight fraction of the
volatile matter.
3.0 Data Validation Procedure
3.1 Follow the procedures in Section 4 of
Method 24 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
3.2 If more than 10 percent of the sample
is lost when the sample is being broken up
in 2.2.4, the sample is invalid.
-------
48886
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations
4.0 Calculations
Follow the calculation procedures in
Section 5 of Method 24 of appendix A of 40
CFR part 60.
TABLE 1 To SUBPART D.—VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC), CONTENT LIMITS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS
[Unless otherwise specified, limits are expressed in grams of VOC per liter of coating thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation
excluding the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or colorant added to tint bases.]
Coating category
Grams VOC
per liter
Pounds VOC
per gallon a
Antenna coatings
Anti-fouling coatings
Anti-graffiti coatings
Bituminous coatings and mastics
Bond breakers
Calcimine recoater
Chalkboard resurfacers
Concrete curing compounds
Concrete curing and sealing compounds
Concrete protective coatings
Concrete surface retarders
Conversion varnish
Dry fog coatings
Extreme high durability coatings
Faux finishing/glazing
Fire-retardant/resistive coatings:
Clear
Opaque
Flat coatings:
Exterior coatings
Interior coatings
Floor coatings
Flow coatings
Form release compounds
Graphic arts coatings (sign paints)
Heat reactive coatings
High temperature coatings
Impacted immersion coatings
Industrial maintenance coatings
Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers)
Magnesite cement coatings
Mastic texture coatings
Metallic pigmented coatings
Multi-colored coatings
Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and surface protectants
Nonflat coatings:
Exterior coatings
Interior coatings
Nuclear coatings
Pretreatment wash primers
Primers and undercoaters
Quick-dry coatings:
Enamels
Primers, sealers, and undercoaters
Repair and maintenance thermoplastic coatings
Roof coatings
Rust preventative coatings
Sanding sealers (other than lacquer sanding sealers)
Sealers (including interior clear wood sealers)
Shellacs:
Clear
Opaque
Stains:
Clear and semitransparent
Opaque
Low solids
Stain controllers
Swimming pool coatings
Thermoplastic rubber coatings and mastics
Traffic marking coatings
Varnishes
Waterproofing sealers and treatments
Wood preservatives:
Below ground wood preservatives
530
450
600
500
600
475
450
350
700
400
780
725
400
800
700
850
450
250
250
400
650
450
500
420
650
780
450
680
600
300
500
580
870
380
380
450
780
350
450
450
650
250
400
550
400
730
550
550
350
"120
720
600
550
150
450
600
550
4.4
3.3
5.0
4.2
5.0
4.0
3.8
2.9
5.8
3.3
6.5
6.0
3.3
6.7
5.8
7.1
3.8
2.1
2.1
3.3
5.4
3.8
4.2
3.5
5.4
6.5
3.8
5.7
5.0
2.5
4.2
4.8
7.3
3.2
3.2
3.8
6.5
2.9
3.8
3.8
5.4
2.1
3.3
4.6
3.3
6.1
4.6
4.6
2.9
"1.0
6.0
5.0
4.6
1.3
3.8
5.0
4.6
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 176/Friday, September 11, 1998/Rules and Regulations 48887
TABLE 1 To SUBPART D.—VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC), CONTENT LIMITS FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS—
Continued
[Unless otherwise specified, limits are expressed in grams of VOC per liter of coating thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation
excluding the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or colorant added to tint bases.]
Coating category
Clear and semitransparent
Ocaaue
Low solids
Zone markina coatinas
Grams VOC
per liter
550
350
b120
450
Pounds VOC
per gallon a
4.6
29
b1 0
3.8
a English units are provided for information only. Compliance will be determined based on the VOC content limit, as expressed in metric units.
b Units are grams of VOC per liter (pounds of VOC per gallon) of coating, including water and exempt compounds, thinned to the maximum
thinning recommended by the manufacturer.
[FR Doc. 98-22659 Filed 9-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-p
-------
Appendix A
APPENDIX A (Continued)
Final rule, corrections and amendments. National Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions Standards for Architectural Coatings; Correction
(40 CFR part 59, subpart D, 64 FR 34997, June 30, 1999)
To determine whether EPA has published any changes to this regulation,
browse the list of CFR sections affected at:
http://www.access.gpo/nara/lsa/browslsa.html
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 125/Wednesday, June 30, 1999/Rules and Regulations
34997
1.46. Section 165.100 is also issued under
authority of Sec. 311, Pub.L. 105-383.
2. Add temporary § 165.T01-CGD1-
095 to read as follows:
§ 165.T01-CGD1-095 Fenwick Fireworks
Display, Old Saybrook, Long Island Sound.
(a) Location. The safety zone includes
all waters of Long Island Sound within
a 600 foot radius of the launch barge
located off of Fenwick Pier, Old
Saybrook, CT. in approximate position
41°16'N, 072°23'W (NAD 1983).
(b) Effective date. This section is
effective on July 3, 1999, from 8:45 p.m.
until 10:00 p.m. In case of inclement
weather, the rain date will be July 4,
1999, at the same time and place.
(c)(l) Regulations. The general
regulations covering safety zones
contained in § 165.23 of this part apply.
(2) All persons and vessels shall
comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the
designated on scene patrol personnel.
U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel
include commissioned, warrant, and
petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon
being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard
Vessel via siren, radio, flashing light, or
other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
Dated: June 21, 1999.
P.K. Mitchell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Long Island Sound.
[FRDoc. 99-16665 Filed 6-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 59
[AD-FRL-6368-7]
RIN 2060-AE55
National Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Standards for Architectural
Coatings; Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; corrections and
amendments.
SUMMARY: On September 11, 1998 (63
FR 48848), EPA published the "National
Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Architectural Coatings"
under the authority of section 183(e) of
the Clean Air Act (Act). In today's
action, we're issuing technical
corrections and clarifications for that
rule. Today's action won't change the
volatile organic compound (VOC
content limits for architectural coatings
or the level of health protection that the
rule provides. In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), today's
action also amends the table that lists
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control numbers issued under
the PRA for the architectural coatings
regulation.
DATES: The effective date is June 30,
1999.
ADDRESSES: Technical Support
Documents. The promulgated regulation
is supported by two background
information documents: one specific to
the architectural coatings rule, and one
that addresses comments on the study
and Report to Congress under section
183(e). You can obtain both documents
from the docket for the architectural
coatings rule (see below); through the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
uatw/183e/aim/aimpg.html; or from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Library (MD-35), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
(919) 541-2777. Please refer to
"National Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Standards for Architectural
Coatings—Background for Promulgated
Standards," EPA-453/R-98-006b, or
"Response to Comments on Section
183(e) Study and Report to Congress,"
EPA-453/R-98-007.
Docket. Docket No. A-92-18 contains
information considered by EPA in
developing the promulgated standards
and this action. You can inspect the
docket and copy materials from 8 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The docket is
located at the EPA's Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center,
Waterside Mall, Room Ml 500, 1st Floor,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460; telephone (202) 260-7548 or fax
(202) 260-4400. A reasonable fee may
be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Linda Herring at (919) 541-5358,
Coatings and Consumer Products Group,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711 (herring.linda@epa.gov). Any
correspondence related to compliance
with this rule must be submitted to the
appropriate EPA Regional Office listed
in § 59.409 of 40 CFR Part 59 (see 63 FR
48848, September 11, 1998).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated
Entities. You may be affected by these
rule amendments if you fall into one of
the categories in the following table.
Category
Industry
State/local/tribal govern-
ments.
NAICS code
32551
325510
SIC
code
2851
Examples of regulated entities
Manufacturers (which includes packagers and repackagers) and importers of
coatings that are manufactured for sale or distribution in the U.S., including
tories.
State Departments of Transportation that manufacture their own coatings
architectural
all U.S. terri-
Architectural coatings are coatings
that are recommended for field
application to stationary structures and
their appurtenances, to portable
buildings, to pavements, or to curbs.
Use this table only as a guide because
this action may also regulate other
entities. To determine if it regulates
your facility, business, or organization,
carefully examine the applicability
criteria in § 59.400 of 40 CFR part 59. If
you have questions about how it
applies, contact Linda Herring (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble).
I. Technical Corrections
The EPA published in the Federal
Register of September 11, 1998 (63 FR
48848), the final rule regulating VOC
emissions from architectural coatings.
The preamble and rule (FR Doc. 98-
22659) contain errors and require
clarification. Thus, we're correcting and
clarifying the rule as follows.
1. We are adding a definition for the
term "megagram" to § 59.401. We are
adding this definition at the request of
some regulated entities to assist them in
understanding and applying the units of
measure used in the rule.
2. We are correcting § 59.402(a) by
adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (a) to clarify that we'll use
-------
34998
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 125/Wednesday, June 30, 1999/Rules and Regulations
metric units, rather than English units,
to determine compliance.
3. We are correcting § 59.402(c)(l),
(c)(3) through (c)(8), and (c)(15), to use
consistent terminology throughout the
section. We are removing the phrases
"are also recommended for use as" and
"are recommended for use as," and
replacing them with the phrase "also
meet the definition for."
4. We are correcting § 59.402(c)(13) by
adding the word "sealers," which we
omitted by mistake in the published
rule.
5. We are adding a paragraph (16) to
§ 59.402(c). This addition corrects an
inadvertent overlap between the
definitions for zone marking coating and
traffic marking coating.
6. We are adding a paragraph (17) to
§ 59.402(c). This addition corrects an
inadvertent overlap between the
definitions for rust preventative coatings
and primers and undercoaters.
7. We are correcting the definition for
the term "Volume Manufactured or
Imported" in equation 2, which is
referenced in § 59.403(c). This change
clarifies that for the exceedance fee, you
must include the volume of any water
and exempt compounds in the coating
and exclude the volume of colorant
added to tint bases when calculating the
volume manufactured or imported.
8. We are adding a sentence to the end
of §59.404(a)(l). This addition clarifies
that you must use metric units, not
English units, to determine compliance.
9. We are correcting § 59.404(a)(4) by
removing the erroneous cross-reference
to § 59.408(1), which does not exist.
10. We are adding a sentence to the
end of § 59.404 (b) to clarify that the
VOC amount used in the tonnage
exemption calculations excludes the
volume of any colorant added to tint
bases.
11. We are correcting the definition
for the term "VOCC" in equation 3,
which is referenced in § 59.404(b). This
change is necessary to be consistent
with the clarifying changes to the terms
used in equation 4, described in change
numbers 12 and 14 below. The change
is intended to distinguish between the
term "VOCC" and the new term "VOC
Amount" in equation 4.
12. We are replacing the term "VOC
Content" with "VOC Amount" in
equation 4, which is referenced in
§ 59.404(b). We're replacing the term
"VOC Content" with "VOC Amount" to
distinguish this term from the term
"VOC Content." The term "VOC
Amount" in equation 4 is used only for
calculating the grams VOC per liter of
each coating claimed under the tonnage
exemption. The VOC amount in
equation 4 includes the volume of water
and exempt compounds (see change
number 13 below). The "VOC Content"
in § 59.406 is used for calculating the
trams VOC per liter of each coating to
determine compliance with the VOC
content limits. The VOC content in
§ 59.406 excludes the volume of any
water and exempt compounds, except
for low solids stains and low solids
wood preservatives.
13. We are correcting the definition
for the term "Volume Manufactured or
Imported" in equation 4, which is
referenced in § 59.404(b), to clarify that
for the tonnage exemption, the volume
of coating is calculated including the
volume of any water and exempt
compounds, and excluding the volume
of any colorant added to tint bases.
14. We are removing the term and
definition of "VOC Content" in equation
4, which is referenced in § 59.404(b),
and replacing it with the term and
definition of "VOC Amount." We're
adding a definition for the new term
"VOC Amount" to clarify that for the
tonnage exemption, you determine the
VOC amount by calculating the grams of
VOC in each liter of coating including
the volume of any water and exempt
compounds. Colorant added to tint
bases is not included in this calculation,
and the reference to it in the final rule
which we are correcting was in error.
15. We are correcting § 59.405(a)(3)(i)
and (ii) to allow you to label the VOC
content in either metric or English units.
16. We are correcting § 59.407(b) (5) to
make this paragraph concerning
recordkeeping for the exceedance fee
consistent with the definition of
"Volume Manufactured or Imported" in
Equation 2.
17. We are correcting § 59.407(c) (2) to
make this paragraph concerning
recordkeeping for the tonnage
exemption consistent with the
definition for "VOC Amount" in
equation 4.
18. We are correcting § 59.407(c)(3), to
reflect EPA's intent for the tonnage
exemption: Records must be kept of the
volume of coating manufactured or
imported, not the sales volume.
19. We are correcting the first
sentence of § 59.408(b) to reflect EPA's
intent that the deadline for submitting
the initial notification report for
coatings registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) is March 13, 2000; and the
deadline for submitting the report for all
other coatings subject to the rule is
September 13, 1999.
20. We are correcting § 59.408(d)(5) to
make this paragraph concerning
reporting for the exceedance fee
consistent with the revised definition
for "Volume Manufactured or
Imported" in equation 2.
21. We are correcting § 59.408(e)(2) to
make this paragraph concerning
reporting for the tonnage exemption
consistent with the definition for "VOC
Amount" in equation 4.
22. We are correcting § 59.408(e)(3) to
reflect EPA's intent that reports be
submitted for the volume of coating
manufactured or imported, not the sales
volume.
23. We are correcting the addresses
for EPA Regional Offices. These are
administrative changes of addresses of
EPA Regional Offices necessary to
ensure that submittals by regulated
entities reach the correct EPA address.
24. In the third column of table to
Subpart D—Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) Content Limits for Architectural
Coatings, for Anti-fouling coatings, we
are correcting the number of pounds
VOC per gallon to read "3.8." The
number "3.3" was a typographical error.
We're making these technical
corrections effective immediately. By
issuing these technical corrections
directly as a final rule, we're foregoing
an opportunity for public comment on
a notice of proposed rulemaking.
Section 553(b) of title 5 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.) and section 307(b)
of the Act permit an agency to forego
notice and comment when "the Agency
for good cause finds (and incorporates
the finding and brief statement of
reasons therefore in the rule issues) that
notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest." We find that
notice and comment regarding these
minor technical corrections are
unnecessary because the corrections are
not controversial and don't
substantively change the requirements
of the architectural coatings rule. We
find that this constitutes good cause
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and section 307(b)
of the Act for a determination that the
issuance of a notice of proposed
rulemaking is unnecessary.
Amendment to 40 CFR Part 9
Today, we're amending the table of
currently approved information
collection request (ICR) control numbers
issued by OMB for various EPA
regulations. The amendment updates
the table to list those information
collection requirements promulgated
under the "National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings," which
appeared in the Federal Register on
September 11, 1998, at 63 FR 48848.
The affected regulations are codified at
40 CFR part 59. We'll continue to
present the OMB control numbers in a
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 125/Wednesday, June 30, 1999/Rules and Regulations
34999
consolidated table format to be codified
in 40 CFR part 9 of the EPA's
regulations, and in each CFR volume
containing EPA regulations. The table
lists CFR sections with reporting,
recordkeeping, or other information
collection requirements, and the current
OMB control numbers. This listing of
the OMB control numbers and their
subsequent codification in the CFR
satisfy the requirements of the PRA (44
U.S.C. 3501, etseq.) and OMB's
implementing regulations at 5 CFR part
1320.
The ICR was subject to public notice
and comment before OMB's approval.
Due to the technical nature of the table,
we find there is "good cause" under
section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) to
amend this table without prior notice
and comment.
Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information that
we considered in developing the rule
and today's technical amendments. The
docket is a dynamic file, since we add
material throughout the rulemaking
development. The docketing system
allows you to identify and locate
documents so you can participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the
statement of basis and purpose of the
proposed and promulgated standards
and EPA responses to significant
comments, the contents of the docket
will serve as the record in case of
judicial review (see 42 U.S.C.
7607(d)(7)(A)).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The OMB has approved the
information collection requirements of
the previously promulgated rule under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, etseq.,
and has assigned OMB Control Number
2060-0393. A copy of the ICR No.
1750.02 may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2137), 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling
(202) 260-2740. The information
collection requirements were effective
upon OMB's approval on January 8,
1999.
Today's amendments to the rule will
have no effect on the estimates of the
information collection burden. The
technical changes are clarifications of
requirements and don't impose
additional requirements. Therefore, we
haven't revised the ICR.
Today's action amends 40 CFR part 9
by adding the architectural coatings ICR
to section 9.1, OMB approvals under the
PRA.
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must
determine whether a regulatory action is
"significant" and therefore subject to
OMB review and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Executive
Order defines "significant regulatory
action" is one that is likely to result in
a rule that may:
1. Have an annual effect on the economy
of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect
in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
2. Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency;
3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising
out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the
Executive Order.
The regulation published on
September 11, 1998 was considered a
"significant regulatory action" under
criterion (4) above, based on the novel
use of economic incentives (an
exceedance fee) for this industry.
Therefore, EPA submitted the final rule
to OMB for review before publication.
Today's amendments to the rule include
minor technical corrections and
clarifications to several rule
requirements. Therefore, EPA
determined that this action is not
significant and does not require OMB
review.
D. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a
mandate upon a State, local, or tribal
government, unless the Federal
Government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by those governments, or
EPA consults with those governments. If
EPA complies by consulting, Executive
Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to
the OMB a description of the extent of
EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected State, local,
and tribal governments, the nature of
their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments,
and a statement supporting the need to
issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting
elected officials and other
representatives of State, local, and tribal
governments "to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of
regulatory proposals containing
significant unfunded mandates."
In compliance with Executive Order
12875, EPA involved State and local
governments in the development of the
rule published on September 11, 1998.
Today's action does not create a
mandate upon State, local, or tribal
governments because it clarifies and
makes minor technical corrections to
several rule requirements and it does
not impose any additional requirements.
Accordingly, the requirements of
section l(a) of Executive Order 12875 do
not apply to this rule.
E. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or
uniquely affects the communities of
Indian tribal governments, and that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal
governments, or EPA consults with
those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a
separately identified section of the
preamble to the rule, a description of
the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with representatives of affected tribal
governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order
13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments "to provide
meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory policies on
matters that significantly or uniquely
affect their communities."
Today's rule does not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments. The EPA is
not aware of any tribal governments that
manufacture or import architectural
coatings. Nevertheless, today's action
does not create a mandate upon tribal
governments because it clarifies and
makes minor technical corrections to
several rule requirements and it does
not impose any additional requirements.
Accordingly, the requirements of
section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this rule.
-------
35000
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 125/Wednesday, June 30, 1999/Rules and Regulations
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
of 1980 (5U.S.C. 601, etseq), as
amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), requires EPA to give
special consideration to the effect of
Federal regulations on small entities
and to consider regulatory options that
might mitigate any such impacts. As
discussed in the preamble to the rule
published on September 11, 1998 (63 FR
48874-48875), EPA prepared analyses
to support both the proposed and final
rules to meet the requirements of the
RFA as modified by SBREFA.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble to the rule, EPA believes that
the measures adopted in the final rule
will significantly mitigate the economic
impacts on small businesses that might
otherwise have occurred. Today's action
is not subject to the requirements of the
RFA as modified by SBREFA because it
only makes minor technical corrections
and clarifications to some of the rule's
requirements and it does not impose
any additional requirements.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the last
costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirement that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that today's
action does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to either
State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, in any
one year. Therefore, the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA do
not apply to this action. The EPA has
likewise determined that today's
amendments to the rule do not include
regulatory requirements that would
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Thus, today's action is not
subject to the requirements of section
203 of the UMRA.
H. Submission to Congress and the
General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. §801, etseq., as added by the
SBREFA of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing the rule, its
amendments, and other required
information to the United States Senate,
the United States House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a "major rule"
as defined by 5 U.S.C. §804(2).
/. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-
113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
material specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business
practices, etc.) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standard bodies. The NTTAA requires
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when EPA decides not to
use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble to the final rule (63 FR 48876),
EPA determined that its analytical test
method for determining product
compliance under the rule is consistent
with the requirements of NTTAA.
Today's action does not amend or
modify the rule's test method and,
therefore, the requirements of the
NTTAA do not apply.
/. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
applies to any rule that EPA determines
(1) is economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) for which the environmental
health or safety risk addressed by the
rule has a disproportionate effect on
children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by EPA.
Today's action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is not
an economically significant regulatory
action as defined by Executive Order
12866, and it does not address an
environmental health or safety risk that
would have a disproportionate effect on
children.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 9 and
59
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Architectural
coatings, Consumer and commercial
products, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: June 21, 1999.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assis tan t Adminis tra tor for Air and
Radiation.
Technical Corrections
The EPA published in the Federal
Register of September 11, 1998 (63 FR
48848), the final rule regulating VOC
emissions from architectural coatings.
The preamble and rule (FR Doc. 98-
22659) contain errors and require
clarification. Thus, we're correcting and
clarifying the preamble and rule as
follows.
A. In the Federal Register issue of
September 11, 1998 in FR Doc. 98-
22659, on page 48851, second column,
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 125/Wednesday, June 30, 1999/Rules and Regulations
35001
in the last line of the first paragraph in
section II.A., correct the date "March 10,
2000" to read "March 13, 2000."
B. In the rule FR Doc. 98-22659
published on September 11, 1998 (63 FR
48848), make the following corrections.
PART 59—[CORRECTED]
Subpart D—[Corrected]
§59.401 [Corrected]
1. On page 48879, in the second
column, correct § 59.401 by adding
immediately before the definition of
Matallic pigmented coating the
definition for the term "megagram" to
read as follows. "Megagram means one
million grams or 1.102 tons."
§59.402 [Corrected]
2. On page 48880, in the third
column, correct § 59.402(a) by adding
the following sentence to the end of
paragraph (a): "Compliance with the
VOC content limits will be determined
based on the VOC content, as expressed
in metric units."
3. On page 48880, in the third
column, and page 48881, in the first and
third columns, correct § 59.402(c)(l),
(c)(3) through (c)(8), and (c)(15), by
removing the phrases "are also
recommended for use as" and "are
recommended for use as," and replacing
them with the phrase "also meet the
definition for."
4. On page 48881, in the second
column, correct § 59.402(c) (13) to read:
"Quick-dry primers, sealers, and
undercoaters that also meet the
definition for primers, sealers, or
undercoaters are subject only to the
VOC content limit in table 1 of this
subpart for quick-dry primers, sealers,
and undercoaters."
5. On page 48881, in the third
column, add the following new
paragraph (c)(16) to §59.402: "(16) Zone
marking coatings that also meet the
definition for traffic marking coatings
are subject only to the VOC content
limit in table 1 of this subpart for zone
marking coatings."
6. On page 48881, in the third
column, add the following new
paragraph (c)(17) to §59.402: "(17) Rust
preventative coatings that also meet the
definition for primers or undercoaters
are subject only to the VOC content
limit in table 1 of this subpart for rust
preventative coatings."
§59.403 [Corrected]
7. On page 48881, in the first column,
correct the definition for the term
"Volume Manufactured or Imported" in
equation 2, which is referenced in
§59.403(c), to read: "The volume of the
coating manufactured or imported per
year, in liters, including the volume of
any water and exempt compounds and
excluding the volume of any colorant
added to tint bases. Any volume for
which a tonnage exemption in claimed
under §59.404 of this subpart is also
excluded."
§59.404 [Corrected]
8. On page 48881, in the third
column, add the following sentence to
the end of § 59.404(a)(l): "Compliance
with the tonnage exemption will be
determined based on the amount of
VOC, as expressed in metric units."
9. On page 48881, in the third
column, correct § 59.404(a) (4) to read:
"The reporting requirements of
§59.408(b) and (e) of this subpart."
10. On page 48882, in the first
column, add the following sentence to
the end of § 59.404 (b): "The VOC
amount shall be determined without
colorant that is added after the tint base
is manufactured or imported."
11. On page 48882, in the third
column, correct the definition for the
term "VOCC" in equation 3, which is
referenced in § 59.404(b), to read:
"Megagrams of VOC, for each coating (c)
claimed under the exemption, as
computed by equation 4."
12. On page 48882, in equation 4,
which is referenced in § 59.404(b),
replace the term "VOC Content" with
"VOC Amount."
13. On page 48882, in the first
column, correct the definition for the
term "Volume Manufactured or
Imported" in equation 4, which is
referenced in § 59.404(b), to read:
"Volume of the coating manufactured or
imported, in liters, including the
volume of any water and exempt
compounds and excluding the volume
of any colorant added to tint bases, for
the time period the exemption is
claimed."
14. On page 48882, in the first
column, correct the term and definition
of "VOC Content" in equation 4, which
is referenced in § 59.404(b), to read as
follows: "VOC Amount = Grams of VOC
per liter of coating thinned to the
manufacturer's maximum
recommendation, including the volume
of any water and exempt compounds."
§59.405 [Corrected]
15. On page 48882, in the first
column, correct §59.405(a) (3) (i) and (ii)
to read:
"(i) The VOC content of the coating,
displayed in units of grams of VOC per
liter of coating or in units of pounds of
VOC per gallon of coating; or
"(ii) The VOC content limit in table 1
of this subpart with which the coating
is required to comply and does comply,
displayed in units of grams of VOC per
liter of coating or in units of pounds of
VOC per gallon of coating."
§59.407 [Corrected]
16. On page 48883, in the third
column, correct § 59.407(b)(5) to read:
"The total volume of each coating
manufactured or imported per calendar
year, in liters, including the volume of
any water and exempt compounds and
excluding the volume of any colorant
added to tint bases."
17. On page 48883, in the third
column, correct § 59.407(c)(2) to read:
"The VOC amount as used in equation
4."
18. On page 48883, in the third
column, correct § 59.407(c)(3) to read:
"The volume manufactured or
imported, in liters, for each coating for
which the exemption is claimed for the
time period the exemption is claimed."
§59.408 [Corrected]
19. On page 48884, in the first
column, correct the first sentence of
§ 59.408(b) to read: "Each manufacturer
and importer of any architectural
coating subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall submit an initial
notification report no later than the
applicable compliance date specified in
§ 59.400, or within 180 days after the
date that the first architectural coating is
manufactured or imported, whichever is
later."
20. On page 48884, in the second
column, correct § 59.408(d)(5) to read:
"The total volume of each coating
manufactured or imported per calendar
year, in liters, including the volume of
any water and exempt compounds and
excluding the volume of any colorant
added to tint bases."
21. On page 48884, in the second
column, correct § 59.408(e)(2) to read:
"The VOC amount as used in equation
4."
22. On page 48884, in the second
column, correct § 59.408(e)(3) to read:
"The volume manufactured or
imported, in liters, for each coating for
which the exemption is claimed for the
time period the exemption is claimed."
§59.409 [Corrected]
23. On page 48884, in the third
column, correct the addresses for EPA
Regional Offices as follows:
For Region I, correct the street address
by removing "J.F.K. Federal Building,
Boston, MA 02203-2211" and replacing
it with "One Congress Street, Boston,
MA 02114-2023."
For Region II, correct the name of the
division by removing "Division of
Environmental Planning and
-------
35002
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 125/Wednesday, June 30, 1999/Rules and Regulations
Protection" and replacing it with
"Division of Enforcement and
Compliance Assistance."
For Region VII, correct the street
address by removing "726 Minnesota
Avenue" and replacing it with "901
North 5th Street."
Table 1 to Subpart D
24. On page 48886, in the third
column of table 1 to Subpart D—Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Content
Limits for Architectural Coatings, for
"Anti-fouling coatings," correct the
number of pounds VOC per gallon to
read "3.8."
Amendment to 40 CFR Part 9
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, part 9 of title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 9—OMB APPROVALS UNDER
THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135, etseq., 136-136y;
15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671;
21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251, etseq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318,
1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and
(e), 1361; E.G. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,
242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-l, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-l,
300J-2, 300J-3, 300J-4, 300J-9, 1857, etseq.,
6901-6992R, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657,
11023, 11048.
2. In §9.1 amend the table by
removing the heading "National Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Standards
for Automobile Refinish Coatings" and
add in its place the heading "National
Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Consumer and
Commercial Products"; and by adding
new entries under the heading in
numerical order to read as follows:
§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
40 CFR citation
OMB control
No.
40 CFR citation
OMB control
No.
National Volatile Organic Compound Emis-
sion Standards for Consumer and Commer-
cial Products
59.405
59.407
59.408
2060-0393
2060-0393
2060-0393
[FR Doc. 99-16384 Filed 6-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 009-130c; FRL-6368-4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; California State
Implementation Plan Revision; San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: This action redesignates the
number of a paragraph in Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations that
appeared in a direct final rule published
in the Federal Register on June 3, 1999.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective
on August 2, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie
A. Rose, Rulemaking Office, Air
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Telephone: (415) 744-1184.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 3,
1999, at 64 FR 29790, EPA published a
direct final rulemaking action approving
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD),
Rule 1010 and Rule 1130 of the
California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This action contained
amendments to 40 CFR part 52, subpart
F. The amendments which incorporated
material by reference into § 52.220,
Identification of plan, paragraph
(c) (199) (i) (D) (4) are being redesignated
as (c)(199)(i)(D)(5) in this action.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a "significant regulatory action"
and, is therefore not subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget.
In addition, this action does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior
consultation with State officials as
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58
FR 58093, October 28, 1993), or involve
special consideration of environmental
justice related issues as required by
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
Because this action is not subject to
notice-and-comment requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute, it is not subject to
the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(l)(A) as added
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA
submitted a report containing this rule
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller
General of the General Accounting
Office prior to publication of this rule in
today's Federal Register. This rule is
not a "major rule" as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the
State Implementation Plan for the State of
California was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: June 14, 1999.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52— [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
redesignating the paragraph
(c)(199)(i)(D)(4) added at 64 FR 29793
on June 3, 1999 as (c)(199)(i)(D)(5).
[FR Doc. 99-16386 Filed 6-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[GA-33-2-9926a; FRL-6368-6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Georgia:
Approval of Revisions to the Georgia
State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
-------
Appendix B
APPENDIX B
Fact sheets for each architectural coating category,
including the definitions and VOC content limit
-------
Definition:
Appendix B
ANTENNA COATINGS
A coating formulated and recommended for application to
equipment and associated structural appurtenances that are used
to receive or transmit electromagnetic signals.
VOC content limit: 530 grams per liter (4.4 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets
the definition of...
and also meets the
definition of...
then your coating is
subject to the following
VOC content limit...
Antenna Coatings
Industrial maintenance
Primers
530 g/l for antenna coatings
530 g/l for antenna coatings
Any category other than
industrial maintenance or
primers
The lowest VOC content
limit for any category for
which the coating meets the
definition
ANTI-FOULING COATINGS
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to
submerged stationary structures and their appurtenances to
prevent or reduce the attachment of marine or freshwater biological
organisms, including, but not limited to, coatings registered with the
EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(7 U.S.C. Section 136, et seq.) and nontoxic foul-release coatings.
VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallons)
If your coating meets the definition for anti-fouling coatings and the definition for other
categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-1
-------
Appendix B
ANTI-GRAFFITI COATINGS
Definition: A clear or opaque high performance coating formulated and
recommended for application to interior and exterior walls, doors,
partitions, fences, signs, and murals to deter adhesion of graffiti
and to resist repeated scrubbing and exposure to harsh solvents,
cleansers, or scouring agents used to remove graffiti.
Related definitions:
Clear: Showing light to pass through, so that the substrate may be
distinctly seen.
Opaque: Not allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate is
concealed from view.
VOC content limit: 600 grams per liter (5.0 pounds per gallon)
then your coating is
If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following
the definition of... definition of... VOC content limit...
Anti-graffiti coatings Industrial maintenance 600 g/l for anti-graffiti
coatings
Any category other than The lowest VOC content
industrial maintenance limit for all categories for
which the coating meets the
definition
B-2
-------
Appendix B
BITUMINOUS COATINGS & MASTICS
Definition: A coating or mastic formulated and recommended for roofing,
pavement sealing, or waterproofing that incorporates bitumens.
Bitumens are black or brown materials including, but not limited to,
asphalt, tar, pitch, and asphaltite that are soluble in carbon
disulfide, consist mainly of hydrocarbons, and are obtained from
natural deposits of asphalt or as residues from the distillation of
crude petroleum or coal.
VOC content limit: 500 grams per liter (4.2 pounds per gallon)
Bituminous coatings and mastics are always subject to the 500 gram per liter
(4.2 pounds per gallon) limit even if they meet the definition of another category.
BOND BREAKERS
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application between
layers of concrete to prevent a freshly poured top layer of concrete
from bonding to the layer over which it is poured.
VOC content limit: 600 grams per liter (5.0 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for bond breakers and the definition for other
categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-3
-------
Appendix B
CALCIMINE RECOATER
Definition: A flat solventborne coating formulated and recommended
specifically for recoating calcimine-painted ceilings and other
calcimine-painted substrates.
VOC content limit: 475 grams per liter (4.0 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for calcimine recoater and the definition for other
categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
CHALKBOARD RESURFACERS
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to
chalkboards to restore a suitable surface for writing with chalk.
VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for chalkboard resurfacers and the definition for
other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-4
-------
Appendix B
CONCRETE CURING COMPOUNDS
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to freshly
placed concrete to retard the evaporation of water.
VOC content limit: 350 grams per liter (2.9 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for concrete curing compounds and the definition for
other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
CONCRETE CURING AND SEALING COMPOUNDS
Definition: A liquid membrane-forming compound marketed and sold solely for
application to concrete surfaces to reduce the loss of water during
the hardening process and to seal old and new concrete providing
resistance against alkalis, acids, and ultraviolet light, and provide
adhesion promotion qualities. The coating must meet the
requirements of American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) C 1315-95, Standard Specification for Liquid Membrane-
Forming Compounds Having Special Properties for Curing and
Sealing Concrete.
VOC content limit: 700 grams per liter (5.8 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for concrete curing and sealing compounds and the
definition for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those
categories.
B-5
-------
Appendix B
CONCRETE PROTECTIVE COATINGS
Definition: A high-build coating, formulated and recommended for application
in a single coat over concrete, plaster, or other cementitious
surfaces. These coatings are formulated to be primerless, one-
coat systems that can be applied over form oils and/or uncured
concrete. These coatings prevent spilling of concrete in freezing
temperatures by providing long-term protection from water and
chloride ion intrusion.
VOC content limit: 400 grams per liter (3.3 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for concrete protective coatings and the definition for
other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
CONCRETE SURFACE RETARDERS
Definition: A mixture of retarding ingredients such as extender pigments,
primary pigments, resin, and solvent that interact chemically with
the cement to prevent hardening on the surface where the retarder
is applied, allowing the retarded mix of cement and sand at the
surface to be washed away to create an exposed aggregate finish.
VOC content limit: 780 grams per liter (6.5 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for concrete surface retarders and the definition for
other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-6
-------
Appendix B
CONVERSION VARNISH
Definition:
A clear acid curing coating with an alkyd or other resin blended with
amino resins and supplied as a single component or
two-component product. Conversion varnishes produce a hard,
durable, clear finish designed for professional application to wood
flooring. The film formation is the result of an acid-catalyzed
condensation reaction, affecting a transetherification at the reactive
ethers of the amino resins.
VOC content limit: 725 grams per liter (6.0 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets
the definition of...
and also meets the
definition of...
then your coating is
subject to the following
VOC content limit...
Conversion varnish
Floor coating
725 g/l for conversion
varnish
Any category other than
floor coating
The lowest VOC content
limit for all categories for
which the coating meets the
definition
Definition:
DRY FOG COATINGS
A coating formulated and recommended only for spray application
such that overspray droplets dry before subsequent contact with
incidental surfaces in the vicinity of the surface coating activity.
VOC content limit: 400 grams per liter (3.3 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for dry fog coatings and the definition for other
categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-7
-------
Appendix B
EXTREME HIGH DURABILITY COATINGS
Definition: An air dry coating, including a fluoropolymer-based coating, that is
formulated and recommended for touchup of precoated
architectural aluminum extrusions and panels and to ensure the
protection of architectural subsections, and that meets the
weathering requirements of American Architectural Manufacturer's
Association (AAMA) specification 605-98, Voluntary Specification
Performance Requirements and Test Procedures for High
Performance Organic Coatings on Aluminum Extrusions and
Panels.
VOC content limit: 800 grams per liter (6.7 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for extreme high durability coatings and the
definition for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those
categories.
FAUX FINISHING/GLAZING
Definition: A coating used for wet-in-wet techniques, such as faux woodgrain,
faux marble, and simulated aging, which require the finish to
remain wet for an extended period of time.
VOC content limit: 700 grams per liter (5.8 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for faux finishing/glazing and the definition for other
categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-8
-------
Appendix B
FIRE-RETARDANT/RESISTIVE COATINGS-CLEAR
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended to retard ignition and
flame spread, or to delay melting or structural weakening due to
high heat, that has been fire tested and rated by a certified
laboratory for use in bringing buildings and construction materials
into compliance with Federal, State, and local building code
requirements.
Related definitions:
Clear: Allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate may be
distinctly seen.
VOC content limit: 850 grams per liter (7.1 pounds per gallon)
Clear fire-retardant/resistive coatings are subject only to the 850 gram per liter (7.1
pounds per gallon) limit even if they meet the definition of another category.
FIRE-RETARDANT/RESISTIVE COATINGS-OPAQUE
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended to retard ignition and
flame spread, or to delay melting or structural weakening due to
high heat, that has been fire tested and rated by a certified
laboratory for use in bringing buildings and construction materials
into compliance with Federal, State, and local building code
requirements.
Related definitions:
Opaque: Not allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate is
concealed from view.
VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)
Opaque fire-retardant/resistive coatings are subject only to the 450 gram per liter (3.8
pounds per gallon) limit even if they meet the definition of another category.
B-9
-------
Appendix B
FLAT COATINGS-EXTERIOR
Definition: A coating that is not defined under any other definition in this
section and that registers gloss less than 15 on an 85-degree
meter or less than 5 on a 60-degree meter according to the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D 523-
89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss.
Related definitions:
Exterior coatings: An architectural coating formulated and recommended for use in
conditions exposed to the weather.
VOC content limit: 250 grams per liter (2.1 pounds per gallon)
Since a flat coating is defined as "a coating that is not defined under any other
definition....", a coating that meets the flat coating definition cannot meet any other
category definition. Therefore, a flat coating will always be subject to a VOC content
limit of 250 grams per liter (2.1 pounds per gallon).
B-10
-------
Appendix B
FLAT COATINGS-INTERIOR
Definition: A coating that is not defined under any other definition in this
section and that registers gloss less than 15 on an 85-degree
meter or less than 5 on a 60-degree meter according to the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D 523-
89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss.
Related definitions:
Interior coatings: An architectural coating formulated and recommended for use in
conditions not exposed to natural weathering.
VOC content limit: 250 grams per liter (2.1 pounds per gallon)
Since a flat coating is defined as "a coating that is not defined under any other
definition....", a coating that meets the flat coating definition cannot meet any other
category definition. Therefore, a flat coating will always be subject to a VOC content
limit of 250 grams per liter (2.1 pounds per gallon).
B-11
-------
Appendix B
FLOOR COATINGS
Definition: An opaque coating with a high degree of abrasion resistance that is
formulated and recommended for application to flooring including,
but not limited to, decks, porches, and steps in a residential setting.
VOC content limit: 400 grams per liter (3.3 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets and also meets the then your coating is
the definition of... definition of... subject to the following
VOC content limit...
Floor coatings Conversion varnish 725 g/l for conversion
varnish
Varnish 450 g/l varnish
Any category other than The lowest VOC content
varnish or conversion limit for all categories for
varnish which the coating meets the
definition
B-12
-------
Definition:
Appendix B
FLOW COATINGS
A coating that is used by electric power companies or their
subcontractors to maintain the protective coating systems present
on utility transformer units.
VOC content limit: 650 grams per liter (5.4 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets
the definition of...
and also meets the
definition of...
then your coating is
subject to the following
VOC content limit...
Flow coatings
Industrial maintenance
650 g/l for flow coatings
Any category other than
industrial maintenance
The lowest VOC content
limit for all categories for
which the coating meets the
definition
FORM RELEASE COMPOUNDS
Definition:
A coating formulated and recommended for application to a
concrete form to prevent the freshly placed concrete from bonding
to the form. The form may consist of wood, metal, or some
material other than concrete.
VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for form release compounds and the definition for
other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-13
-------
Appendix B
GRAPHIC ARTS COATINGS (SIGN PAINTS)
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for hand-application by
artists using brush or roller techniques to indoor or outdoor signs
(excluding structural components) and murals including lettering
enamels, poster colors, copy blockers, and bulletin enamels.
VOC content limit: 500 grams per liter (4.2 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for graphic arts coatings (sign paints) and the
definition for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those
categories.
HEAT REACTIVE COATINGS
Definition: A high performance phenolic-based coating requiring a minimum
temperature of 191 °C (375 °F) to 204 °C (400 °F) to obtain
complete polymerization or cure. These coatings are formulated
and recommended for commercial and industrial use to protect
substrates from degradation and maintain product purity in which
one or more of the following extreme conditions exist:
1. Continuous or repeated immersion exposure of 90 to
98 percent sulfuric acid, or oleum;
2. Continuous or repeated immersion exposure to strong
organic solvents;
3. Continuous or repeated immersion exposure to petroleum
processing at high temperatures and pressures; and
4. Continuous or repeated immersion exposure to food or
pharmaceutical products which may or may not require high
temperature sterilization.
VOC content limit: 420 grams per liter (3.5 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for heat reactive coatings and the definition for other
categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-14
-------
Appendix B
HIGH TEMPERATURE COATINGS
Definition: A high performance coating formulated and recommended for
application to substrates exposed continuously or intermittently to
temperatures above 202°C (400°F).
VOC content limit: 650 grams per liter (5.4 pounds per gallon)
then your coating is
If your coating meets the and also meets the subject to the following
definition of... definition of... VOC content limit...
High temperature coatings Industrial maintenance 650 g/l for high temperature
coatings
Metallic pigmented 650 g/l for high temperature
coatings
Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit
metallic pigmented and for all categories for which
industrial maintenance the coating meets the
definition
B-15
-------
Appendix B
IMPACTED IMMERSION COATINGS
Definition: A high performance maintenance coating formulated and
recommended for application to steel structures subject to
immersion in turbulent, debris-laden water. These coatings are
specifically resistant to high-energy impact damage caused by
floating ice or debris.
VOC content limit: 780 grams per liter (6.5 pounds per gallon)
then your coating is
If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following
the definition of... definition of... VOC content limit...
Impacted immersion Industrial maintenance 780 g/l for impacted
coatings immersion coatings
Any category other than The lowest VOC content
industrial maintenance limit for all categories for
which the coating meets the
definition
B-16
-------
Appendix B
INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE COATINGS
Definition: A high performance architectural coating, including primers,
sealers, undercoaters, intermediate coats, and topcoats formulated
and recommended for application to substrates exposed to one or
more of the following extreme environmental conditions in an
industrial, commercial, or institutional setting:
1. Immersion in water, wastewater, or chemical solutions
(aqueous and nonaqueous solutions), or chronic exposure
of interior surfaces to moisture condensation;
2. Acute or chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic, or acidic
agents, or to chemicals, chemical fumes, or chemical
mixtures or solutions;
3. Repeated exposure to temperatures above 120 °C (250 °F);
4. Repeated (frequent) heavy abrasion, including mechanical
wear and repeated (frequent) scrubbing with industrial
solvents, cleansers, or scouring agents; or
5. Exterior exposure of metal structures and structural
components.
VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the and also meets the definition
definition of... of...
then your coating is subject
to the following VOC content
limit...
Industrial maintenance
Antenna coatings
Anti-graffiti coating
Flow coatings
High temperature coating
Impacted immersion coating
530 g/l for antenna coatings
600 g/l for anti-graffiti coatings
650 g/l for flow coatings
650 g/l for high temperature
coatings
780 g/l for impacted immersion
coatings
Mastic texture coating
450 g/l for industrial
maintenance
Metallic pigmented coating
Pretreatment wash primer
500 g/l for metallic pigmented
coatings
780 g/l for pretreatment wash
primers
Primer
450 g/l for industrial
maintenance
B-17
-------
Appendix B
INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE COATINGS (Continued)
then your coating is subject
If your coating meets the and also meets the definition to the following VOC content
definition of... of... limit...
Industrial maintenance Repair and maintenance 650 g/l for repair and
thermoplastic coatings maintenance thermoplastic
coatings
Sealer 450 g/l for industrial
maintenance
Thermoplastic rubber coatings 550 g/l for thermoplastic rubber
and mastics coatings
Undercoater 450 g/l for industrial
maintenance
Any category other than those The lowest VOC content limit
listed above for all categories for which the
coating meets the definition
B-18
-------
Appendix B
LACQUERS
Definition: A clear or pigmented wood finish, including clear lacquer sanding
sealers, formulated with cellulosic or synthetic resins to dry by
evaporation without chemical reaction and to provide a solid,
protective film. Lacquer stains are considered stains, not lacquers.
VOC content limit: 680 grams per liter (5.7 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets
the definition of...
and also meets the
definition of...
then your coating is
subject to the following
VOC content limit...
Lacquers
Nonferrous ornamental
metal lacquers and surface
protectants
870 g/l for nonferrous
ornamental metal lacquers
and surface protectants
Other architectural coating
applications to wood,
except stains
680 g/l for lacquers
Any category or application
other than those listed
above.
The lowest VOC content
limit for all categories for
which the coating meets the
definition
Definition:
MAGNESITE CEMENT COATINGS
A coating formulated and recommended for application to
magnesite cement decking to protect the magnesite cement
substrate from erosion by water.
VOC content limit: 600 grams per liter (5.0 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for magnesite cement coatings and the definition for
other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-19
-------
Appendix B
MASTIC TEXTURE COATINGS
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended to cover holes and minor
cracks and to conceal surface irregularities, and is applied in a
single coat of at least 10 mils (0.010 inch) dry film thickness.
VOC content limit: 300 grams per liter (2.5 pounds per gallon)
then your coating is
If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following
the definition of... definition of... VOC content limit...
Mastic texture coatings Industrial maintenance 450 g/l for industrial
maintenance
Any category other than The lowest VOC content
industrial maintenance limit for all categories for
which the coating meets the
definition
B-20
-------
Definition:
Appendix B
METALLIC PIGMENTED COATINGS
A nonbituminous coating containing at least 0.048 kilogram of
metallic pigment per liter of coating (0.4 pound per gallon)
including, but not limited to, zinc pigment.
VOC content limit: 500 grams per liter (4.2 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets
the definition of...
and also meets the
definition of...
then your coating is
subject to the following
VOC content limit...
Metallic pigmented
coatings
High temperature coatings
650 g/l for high temperature
coatings
Industrial maintenance
500 g/l for metallic
pigmented coatings
Primers
500 g/l for metallic
pigmented coatings
Roof coatings
500 g/l for metallic
pigmented coatings
Any category other than
those listed above
The lowest VOC content
limit for all categories for
which the coating meets the
definition
B-21
-------
Appendix B
MULTI-COLORED COATINGS
Definition:
A coating that is packaged in a single container and exhibits more
than one color when applied.
VOC content limit: 580 grams per liter (4.8 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for multi-colored coatings and the definition for other
categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
NONFERROUS ORNAMENTAL METAL LACQUERS
AND SURFACE PROTECTANTS
Definition: A clear coating formulated and recommended for application to
ornamental architectural metal substrates (bronze, stainless steel,
copper, brass, and anodized aluminum) to prevent oxidation,
corrosion, and surface degradation.
VOC content limit: 870 grams per liter (7.3 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets
the definition of...
and also meets the
definition of...
then your coating is
subject to the following
VOC content limit...
Nonferrous ornamental
metal lacquers and
surface protectants
Lacquers
870 g/l for nonferrous
ornamental metal lacquers
and surface protectants
Any category other than
lacquers
The lowest VOC content
limit for all categories for
which the coating meets the
definition
B-22
-------
Appendix B
NONFLAT COATINGS-EXTERIOR
Definition: A coating that is not defined under any other definition in this
section and that registers a gloss of 15 or greater on an 85-degree
meter or 5 or greater on a 60-degree meter according to ASTM
Method D 523-89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss.
Related definitions:
Exterior coating: An architectural coating formulated and recommended for use in
conditions exposed to the weather.
VOC content limit: 380 grams per liter (3.2 pounds per gallon)
Since a nonflat coating is defined as "a coating that is not defined under any other
definition....", a coating that meets the nonflat coating definition cannot meet any other
category definition. Therefore, a nonflat coating will always be subject to a VOC content
limit of 380 grams per liter (3.2 pounds per gallon).
NONFLAT COATINGS-INTERIOR
Definition: A coating that is not defined under any other definition in this
section and that registers a gloss of 15 or greater on an 85-degree
meter or 5 or greater on a 60-degree meter according to ASTM
Method D 523-89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss.
Related definitions:
Interior coating: An architectural coating formulated and recommended for use in
conditions not exposed to natural weathering.
VOC content limit: 380 grams per liter (3.2 pounds per pounds)
Since a nonflat coating is defined as "a coating that is not defined under any other
definition....", a coating that meets the nonflat coating definition cannot meet any other
category definition. Therefore, a nonflat coating will always be subject to a VOC content
limit of 380 grams per liter (3.2 pounds per gallon).
B-23
-------
Appendix B
NUCLEAR COATINGS
Definition: A protective coating formulated and recommended to seal porous
surfaces such as steel (or concrete) that otherwise would be
subject to intrusion by radioactive materials. These coatings must
be resistant to long-term (service life) cumulative radiation
exposure (ASTM Method D 4082-89, Standard Test Method for
Effects of Gamma Radiation on Coatings for Use in Light-Water
Nuclear Power Plants ), relatively easy to decontaminate, and
resistant to various chemicals to which the coatings are likely to be
exposed (ASTM Method D 3912-80 (Reapproved 1989), Standard
Test Method for Chemical Resistance of Coatings Used in Light-
Water Nuclear Power Plants
VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for nuclear coatings and the definition for other
categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-24
-------
Appendix B
PRETREATMENTWASH PRIMERS
Definition: A primer that contains a minimum of 0.5 percent acid, by weight,
that is formulated and recommended for application directly to bare
metal surfaces in thin films to provide corrosion resistance and to
promote adhesion of subsequent topcoats.
VOC content limit: 780 grams per liter (6.5 pounds per gallon)
then your coating is
If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following
the definition of... definition of... VOC content limit...
Pretreatment wash Industrial maintenance 780 g/l for pretreatment
primers wash primers
Primers 780 g/l for pretreatment
wash primers
Any category other than The lowest VOC content
primers or industrial limit for all categories for
maintenance which the coating meets the
definition
B-25
-------
Appendix B
PRIMERS AND UNDERCOATERS
Definition:
Primer:
Undercoater:
A coating formulated and recommended for application to a
substrate to provide a firm bond between the substrate and
subsequent coatings.
A coating formulated and recommended to provide a smooth
surface for subsequent coatings.
VOC content limit: 350 grams per liter (2.9 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the
definition of...
and also meets the definition
of...
then your coating is subject to
the following VOC
content limit...
Primers Antenna coatings 530 g/l for antenna coatings
Industrial maintenance 450 g/l for industrial maintenance
Metallic pigmented coatings 500 g/l for metallic pigmented
coatings
Pretreatment wash primers 780 g/l for pretreatment wash
primers
Quick-dry primers 450 g/l for quick-dry primers
Rust preventative coatings 400 g/l for preventative coatings*
Any category other than those The lowest VOC content limit for
listed above all categories for which the
coating meets the definition
Undercoaters Industrial maintenance 450 g/l for industrial maintenance
Quick-dry undercoaters 450 g/l for quick-dry undercoaters
Rust preventative coatings 400 g/l for preventative coatings*
Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit for
industrial maintenance or quick- all categories for which the
dry undercoaters coating meets the definition
*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent
overlap between the definitions for rust preventative coatings and primers and
undercoaters.
B-26
-------
Appendix B
QUICK DRY COATINGS - ENAMELS
Definition: A nonflat coating that has the following characteristics:
1. Is capable of being applied directly from the container under
normal conditions with ambient temperatures between
16 and 2700(60 and 8QOF);
2. When tested in accordance with ASTM Method D 1640-83
(Reapproved 1989), Standard Test Methods for Drying,
Curing, or Film Formation of Organic Coatings at Room
Temperature sets to touch in 2 hours or less, is tack free in
4 hours or less, and dries hard in 8 hours or less by the
mechanical test method; and
3. has a dried film gloss of 70 or above on a 60 degree meter.
VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for quick dry coatings - enamels and the definition
for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-27
-------
Appendix B
QUICK-DRY COATINGS - PRIMERS, SEALERS AND UNDERCOATERS
Definition: A primer, sealer, or undercoater that is dry to the touch in a % hour
and can be recoated in 2 hours when tested in accordance with
ASTM Method D 1640-83 (Reapproved 1989), Standard Test
Methods for Drying, Curing, or Film Formation of Organic Coatings
at Room Temperature (incorporated by reference-see §59.412 of
this subpart).
VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)
then your coating is
If your coating meets the and also meets the subject to the following
definition of... definition of... VOC content limit...
Quick-dry primers Primers 450 g/l for quick-dry primers
Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit
primers for all categories for which
the coating meets the
definition
Quick-dry sealers Sanding sealers 550 g/l for sanding sealers
Sealers 450 g/l for quick dry sealers*
Waterproofing sealers and 600 g/l for waterproofing
treatments sealers and treatments
Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit
those listed above for all categories for which
the coating meets the
definition
Quick-dry undercoaters Undercoaters 450 g/l for quick-dry
undercoaters
Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit
undercoaters for all categories for which
the coating meets the
definition
*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent
omission of the word "sealers."
B-28
-------
Appendix B
REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE THERMOPLASTIC COATINGS
Definition: An industrial maintenance coating that has vinyl or chlorinated
rubber as a primary resin and is recommended solely for the repair
of existing vinyl or chlorinated rubber coatings without the full
removal of the existing coating system.
VOC content limit: 650 grams per liter (5.4 pounds per gallon)
then your coating is subject
If your coating meets the and also meets the to the following VOC
definition of... definition of... content limit...
Repair and maintenance Industrial maintenance 650 g/l for repair and
thermoplastic coatings maintenance thermoplastic
coatings
Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit
industrial maintenance for all categories for which the
coating meets the definition
ROOF COATINGS
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to exterior
roofs for the primary purpose of preventing penetration of the
substrate by water or reflecting heat and reflecting ultraviolet
radiation. This definition does not include thermoplastic rubber
coatings.
VOC content limit: 250 grams per liter (2.1 pounds per gallon)
then your coating is subject
If your coating meets the and also meets the to the following VOC
definition of... definition of... content limit...
Roof coatings Metallic pigmented coatings 500 g/l for metallic pigmented
coatings
Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit
metallic pigmented coatings for all categories for which the
coating meets the definition
B-29
-------
Appendix B
RUST PREVENTATIVE COATINGS
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for use in preventing the
corrosion of ferrous metal surfaces in residential situations.
VOC content limit: 400 grams per liter ( 3.3 pounds per gallon)
then your coating is subject
If your coating meets the and also meets the to the following VOC
definition of... definition of... content limit...
Rust preventative coatings Primer 400 g/l rust preventative
coatings*
Undercoater 400 g/l for rust preventative
coatings*
Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit
primer and undercoater for all categories for which the
coating meets the definition
*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent
overlap between the definitions for rust preventative coatings and primers and
undercoaters.
B-30
-------
Appendix B
SANDING SEALERS
Definition: A clear wood coating formulated and recommended for application
to bare wood to seal the wood and to provide a coat that can be
sanded to create a smooth surface. A sanding sealer that also
meets the definition of a lacquer is not included in this category, but
is included in the lacquer category.
VOC content limit: 550 grams per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon)
then your coating is
If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following
the definition of... definition of... VOC content limit...
Sanding sealers Quick-dry sealers 550 g/l for sanding sealers
Any category other than The lowest VOC content
quick-dry sealers limit for all categories for
which the coating meets the
definition
B-31
-------
Appendix B
SEALERS (INCLUDING INTERIOR CLEAR WOOD SEALERS)
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to a
substrate for one or more of the following purposes: to prevent
subsequent coatings from being absorbed by the substrate; to
prevent harm to subsequent coatings by materials in the substrate;
to block stains, odors, or efflorescence; to seal fire, smoke, or
water damage; or to condition chalky surfaces.
VOC content limit: 400 grams per liter (3.3 pounds per gallon)
then your coating is
If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following
the definition of... definition of... VOC content limit...
Sealers Industrial maintenance 450 g/l for industrial
maintenance
Quick-dry sealers 450 g/l for quick-dry sealers
Any category other than The lowest VOC content
industrial maintenance and limit for all categories for
quick-dry sealers which the coating meets the
definition
B-32
-------
Appendix B
SHELLACS-CLEAR
Definition: A clear coating formulated with natural resins (except nitrocellulose
resins) soluble in alcohol (including, but not limited to, the resinous
secretions of the lac beetle, Laciffer lacca). Shellacs dry by
evaporation without chemical reaction and provide a quick-drying,
solid protective film that may be used for blocking stains.
Related definitions:
Clear. Allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate may be
distinctly seen.
VOC content limit: 730 grams per liter (6.1 pounds per gallon)
Clear shellacs are subject only to the 730 gram per liter (6.1 pounds per gallon) limit
even if they meet the definition of another category.
SHELLACS-OPAQUE
Definition: A pigmented coating formulated with natural resins (except
nitrocellulose resins) soluble in alcohol (including, but not limited to,
the resinous secretions of the lac beetle, Laciffer lacca). Shellacs
dry by evaporation without chemical reaction and provide a quick-
drying, solid protective film that may be used for blocking stains.
Related definitions:
Opaque: Not allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate is
concealed from view.
VOC content limit: 550 grams per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon)
Opaque shellacs are subject only to the 550 gram per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon) limit
even if they meet the definition of another category.
B-33
-------
Appendix B
STAINS-CLEAR AND SEMI IRAN SPARE NT
Definition: A coating that produces a dry film with minimal coloring. This
includes lacquer stains.
Related definitions:
Clear: Allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate may be
distinctly seen.
Semitransparent: Not completely concealing the surface of a substrate or its natural
texture or grain pattern.
VOC content limit: 550 grams per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for stains-clear and semitransparent and the
definition for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those
categories.
STAINS-OPAQUE
Definition: A coating that produces a dry film with minimal coloring. This
includes lacquer stains.
Related definitions:
Opaque: Not allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate is
concealed from view.
VOC content limit: 350 grams per liter (2.9 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for stains-opaque and the definition for other
categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-34
-------
Appendix B
STAINS - LOW SOLIDS
Definition: A coating that produces a dry film with minimal coloring. This
includes lacquer stains.
Related definitions:
Low solids: Containing 0.12 kilogram or less of solids per liter (1 pound or less
of solids per gallon) of coating material and for which at least half of
the volatile component is water.
VOC content limit: 120 grams per liter (1.0 pound per gallon)3
aUnits are grams of VOC per liter (pounds of VOC per gallon) of coating, including water
and exempt compounds, thinned to the maximum thinning recommended by the
manufacturer.
STAIN CONTROLLERS
DEFINITION: A conditioner or pretreatment coating formulated and
recommended for application to wood prior to the application of a
stain in order to prevent uneven penetration of the stain.
VOC content limit: 720 grams per liter (6.0 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for stain controllers and the definition for other
categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-35
-------
Appendix B
SWIMMING POOL COATINGS
Definition:
A coating formulated and recommended to coat the interior of
swimming pools and to resist swimming pool chemicals.
VOC content limit: 600 grams per liter (5.0 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for swimming pool coatings and the definition for
other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
THERMOPLASTIC RUBBER COATINGS AND MASTICS
Definition: A coating or mastic formulated and recommended for application to
roofing or other structural surfaces and that incorporates no less
than 40 percent by weight of thermoplastic rubbers in the total resin
solids and may also contain other ingredients including, but not
limited to, fillers, pigments, and modifying resins.
VOC content limit: 550 grams per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets
the definition of...
and also meets the
definition of...
then your coating is
subject to the following
VOC content limit...
Thermoplastic rubber
coatings and mastics
Industrial maintenance
550 g/l for thermoplastic
rubber coatings and
mastics
Any category other than
industrial maintenance
The lowest VOC content
limit for all categories for
which the coating meets the
definition
B-36
-------
Appendix B
TRAFFIC MARKING COATINGS
Definition:
A coating formulated and recommended for marking and striping
streets, highways, or other traffic surfaces including, but not limited
to, curbs, beams, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, and airport
runways.
Related definitions:
Zone marking coating:
VOC content limit:
A coating formulated and recommended for marking and
striping driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, curbs, or airport
runways, and sold or distributed in a container with a volume
of 19 liters (5 gallons) or less.
150 grams per liter (1.3 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets
the definition of...
and also meets the
definition of...
then your coating is
subject to the following
VOC content limit...
Traffic Marking
Coatings
Zone marking coating
450 g/l for zone marking
coatings*
Any category other than
zone marking coatings
The lowest VOC content
limit for all categories for
which the coating meets the
definition
*Regulation correction [§ 59.402], see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent
overlap between the definitions for traffic marking coatings and zone marking coatings.
B-37
-------
Appendix B
VARNISHES
Definition: A clear wood coating formulated and recommended for application
to bare wood to seal the wood and to provide a coat that can be
sanded to create a smooth surface. A sanding sealer that also
meets the definition of a lacquer is not included in this category, but
is included in the lacquer category.
VOC content limit: 450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)
then your coating is
If your coating meets and also meets the subject to the following
the definition of... definition of... VOC content limit...
Varnishes Floor coatings 450 g/l for varnish
Any category other than The lowest VOC content
floor coatings limit for all categories for
which the coating meets the
definition
B-38
-------
Appendix B
WATERPROOFING SEALERS AND TREATMENTS
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended for application to a porous
substrate for the primary purpose of preventing the penetration of
water.
VOC content limit: 600 grams per liter (5.0 pounds per gallon)
then your coating is subject
If your coating meets the and also meets the to the following VOC
definition of... definition of... content limit...
Waterproofing sealers and Quick-dry sealers 600 g/l for waterproofing
treatments sealers and treatments
Any category other than The lowest VOC content limit
quick-dry sealers for all categories for which the
coating meets the definition
WOOD PRESERVATIVES-BELOW-GROUND
Definition: A coating that is formulated and recommended to protect
below-ground wood from decay or insect attack and that is
registered with the EPA under FIFRA.
Related definitions:
Wood preservatives: A coating formulated and recommended to protect exposed
wood from decay or insect attack, registered with the EPA
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA).
VOC content limit: 550 grams per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for wood preservatives-below-ground and the
definition for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those
categories.
B-39
-------
Appendix B
WOOD PRESERVATIVES-CLEAR AND SEMI IRAN SPARE NT
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended to protect exposed wood
from decay or insect attack, registered with the EPA under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Related definitions:
Clear: Allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate may be
distinctly seen.
Semtransparent: Not completely concealing the surface of a substrate or its
natural texture or grain pattern.
VOC content limit: 550 grams per liter (4.6 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for wood preservatives-clear and semitransparent
and the definition for other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of
those categories.
WOOD PRESERVATIVES-OPAQUE
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended to protect exposed wood
from decay or insect attack, registered with the EPA under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(7 U.S.C. Section 136, etseq.).
Related definitions:
Opaque: Not allowing light to pass through, so that the substrate is
concealed from view.
VOC content limit: 350 grams per liter (2.9 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets the definition for wood preservatives-opaque and the definition for
other categories, you must comply with the lowest VOC limit of those categories.
B-40
-------
Appendix B
WOOD PRESERVATIVES-LOW SOLIDS
Definition: A coating formulated and recommended to protect exposed wood
from decay or insect attack, registered with the EPA under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Related definitions:
Low solids: Means containing 0.12 kilogram or less of solids per liter (1 pound
or less of solids per gallon) of coating material and for which at
least half of the volatile component is water.
VOC content limit: 120 grams per liter (1.0 pound per gallon)3
aUnits are grams of VOC per liter (pounds of VOC per gallon) of coating, including water
and exempt compounds, thinned to the maximum thinning recommended by the
manufacturer.
B-41
-------
Appendix B
ZONE MARKING COATINGS
Definition:
A coating formulated and recommended for marking and striping
driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, curbs, or airport runways, and
sold or distributed in a container with a volume of 19 liters
(5 gallons) or less.
Related definitions:
Traffic marking coating:
VOC content limit:
A coating formulated and recommended for marking and
striping streets, highways, or other traffic surfaces including,
but not limited to, curbs, beams, driveways, parking lots,
sidewalks, and airport runways.
450 grams per liter (3.8 pounds per gallon)
If your coating meets
the definition of...
and also meets the
definition of...
then your coating is
subject to the following
VOC content limit...
Zone marking coatings Traffic marking coatings
450 g/l for zone marking
coatings*
Any category other than
traffic marking coatings
The lowest VOC content
limit for all categories for
which the coating meets the
definition
*Regulation correction [§ 59.402 (c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent
overlap between the definitions for zone marking coatings and traffic marking coatings.
B-42
-------
Appendix C
APPENDIX C
Summary of the exceptions to meeting the
most restrictive coating category VOC content limit
-------
Appendix C
SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE
COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT
If your coating meets the
definition of...
Antenna coatings
Anti-graffiti coatings
Bituminous coatings and
mastics
Conversion varnish
Fire retardant/resistive
coatings - Clear
Fire retardant/resistive
coatings - Opaque
Floor coatings
Flow coatings
and also meets the definition of...
Industrial maintenance
Primers
Any category other than industrial
maintenance or primers
Industrial maintenance
Any category other than industrial
maintenance
Any other category
Floor coating
Any category other than floor coating
Any other category
Any other category
Conversion varnish
Varnish
Any category other than varnish or
conversion varnish
Industrial maintenance
Any category other than industrial
maintenance
then your coating is subject to
the following VOC content limit...
530 g/l for antenna coatings
530 g/l for antenna coatings
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
600 g/l for anti-graffiti coatings
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
500 g/l for bituminous
725 g/l for conversion varnish
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
850 g/l for fire retardant/resistive
coatings - clear
450 g/l for fire retardant/resistive
coatings - opaque
725 g/l for conversion varnish
450 g/l for varnish
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
650 g/l for flow coatings
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
C-1
-------
Appendix C
SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE
COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT (CONTINUED)
If your coating meets the
definition of...
High temperature coatings
Impacted immersion
coatings
Industrial maintenance
and also meets the definition of...
Metallic pigmented
Industrial maintenance
Any category other than metallic
pigmented or industrial maintenance
Industrial maintenance
Any category other than industrial
maintenance
Antenna coatings
Anti-graffiti coating
Flow coatings
High temperature coating
Impacted immersion coating
Mastic texture coating
Metallic pigmented coating
Pretreatment wash primers
Primers
Repair and maintenance
thermoplastic coatings
Sealers
Thermoplastic rubber coatings and
mastics
Undercoaters
Any category other than those listed
above
then your coating is subject to
the following VOC content limit...
650 g/l for high temperature
coatings
650 g/l for high temperature
coatings
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
780 g/l for impacted immersion
coatings
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
530 g/l for antenna coatings
600 g/l for anti-graffiti coatings
650 g/l for flow coatings
650 g/l for high temperature
coatings
780 g/l for impacted immersion
coatings
450 g/l for industrial maintenance
500 g/l for metallic pigmented
coatings
780 g/l for pretreatment wash
primers
450 g/l for industrial maintenance
650 g/l for repair and maintenance
thermoplastic coatings
450 g/l for industrial maintenance
550 g/l for thermoplastic rubber
coatings
450 g/l for industrial maintenance
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
C-2
-------
Appendix C
SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE
COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT (CONTINUED)
If your coating meets the
definition of...
Lacquers
Mastic texture coatings
Metallic pigmented coatings
Nonferrous ornamental
metal lacquers and surface
protectants
Pretreatment wash primers
and also meets the definition of...
Nonferrous ornamental metal
lacquers and surface protectants
Other architectural coating
applications to wood, except stains
Any category or application other
than those listed above.
Industrial maintenance
Any category other than industrial
maintenance
High temperature coatings
Industrial maintenance
Primers
Roof coatings
Any category other than those listed
above
Lacquers
Any category other than lacquers
Primers
Industrial maintenance
Any category other than primers or
industrial maintenance
then your coating is subject to
the following VOC content limit...
870 g/l for nonferrous ornamental
metal lacquers and surface
protectants
680 g/l for lacquers
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
450 g/l for industrial maintenance
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
650 g/l for high temperature
coatings
500 g/l for metallic pigmented
coatings
500 g/l for metallic pigmented
coatings
500 g/l for metallic pigmented
coatings
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
870 g/l for nonferrous ornamental
metal lacquers and surface
protectants
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
780 g/l for pretreatment wash
primers
780 g/l for pretreatment wash
primers
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
C-3
-------
Appendix C
SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE
COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT (CONTINUED)
If your coating meets the
definition of...
Primers
Undercoaters
Quick-dry primers
Quick-dry sealers
and also meets the definition of...
Antenna coatings
Industrial maintenance
Metallic pigmented coatings
Pretreatment wash primers
Quick-dry primers
Rust preventative coatings
Any category other than those listed
above
Industrial maintenance
Quick-dry undercoaters
Rust preventative coatings
Any category other than industrial
maintenance or quick-dry
undercoaters
Primers
Any category other than primers
Sanding sealers
Sealers
Waterproofing sealers and
treatments
Any category other than those listed
above
then your coating is subject to
the following VOC content limit...
530 g/l for antenna coatings
450 g/l for industrial maintenance
500 g/l for metallic pigmented
coatings
780 g/l for pretreatment wash
primers
450 g/l for quick-dry primers
400 g/l for rust preventative*
coatings
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
450 g/l for industrial maintenance
450 g/l for quick-dry undercoaters
400 g/l for rust preventative*
coatings
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
450 g/l for quick-dry primers
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
550 g/l for sanding sealers
450 g/l for quick-dry sealers
600 g/l for waterproofing sealers
and treatments
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent
overlap between the definitions for rust preventative coatings and primers and
undercoaters.
C-4
-------
Appendix C
SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE
COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT (CONTINUED)
If your coating meets the
definition of...
Quick-dry undercoaters
Repair and maintenance
thermoplastic coatings
Roof coatings
Rust preventative coatings
Sanding sealers
and also meets the definition of...
Undercoaters
Any category other than
undercoaters
Industrial maintenance
Any category other than industrial
maintenance
Metallic pigmented coatings
Any category other than metallic
pigmented coatings
Primers
Undercoaters
Any category other than primers or
undercoaters
Quick-dry sealers
Any category other than sanding
sealers
then your coating is subject to
the following VOC content limit...
450 g/l for quick-dry undercoaters
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
650 g/l for repair and maintenance
thermoplastic coatings
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
500 g/l for metallic pigmented
coatings
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
400 g/l for rust preventative
coatings.*
400 g/l for rust preventative
coatings.*
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition.
550 g/l for sanding sealers
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest information.
The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent overlap between the
definitions for rust preventative coatings and primers and undercoaters.
C-5
-------
Appendix C
SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE
COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT (CONTINUED)
If your coating meets the
definition of...
Sealers
Shellac- Clear
Shellac- Opaque
Thermoplastic rubber
coatings and mastics
Traffic marking coatings
Varnishes
Waterproofing sealers and
treatments
and also meets the definition of...
Industrial maintenance
Quick-dry sealers
Any category other than industrial
maintenance and quick-dry sealers
Any other category
Any other category
Industrial maintenance
Any category other than industrial
maintenance
Zone marking coatings
Any category other than zone
marking coatings
Floor coatings
Any category other than floor
coatings
Quick-dry sealers
Any category other than quick-dry
sealers
then your coating is subject to
the following VOC content limit...
450 g/l for industrial maintenance
450 g/l for quick-dry sealers*
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
730 g/l for shellac - clear
550 g/l for shellac - opaque
550 g/l for thermoplastic rubber
coatings and mastics
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
450 g/l zone marking coatings**
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition.
450 g/l for varnish
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
600 g/l for waterproofing sealers
and treatments
The lowest VOC content limit for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
*Regulation correction [§ 59.402(c), see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent
omission of the word "sealers."
**Regulation change [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent
overlap between the definitions for traffic marking coatings and zone marking coatings.
C-6
-------
Appendix C
SUMMARY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO MEETING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE
COATING CATEGORY VOC CONTENT LIMIT (CONTINUED)
If your coating meets the
definition of...
Zone marking coatings
and also meets the definition of...
Traffic marking coatings
Any category other than traffic
marking coatings
then your coating is subject to
the following VOC content limit...
450 g/l for zone marking coatings*
The lowest VOC content for all
categories for which the coating
meets the definition
*Regulation change [§ 59.402(c)], see page 7 for where to get the latest
information. The technical correction notice (Appendix A) corrects an inadvertent
overlap between the definitions for traffic marking coatings and zone marking coatings.
C-7
-------
Appendix D
APPENDIX D
Organic compounds that have been exempted from EPA's
definition of a Volatile Organic Compound in 40 CFR 51.100
-------
Appendix D
Organic compounds that have been exempted from EPA's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
definition of a Volatile Organic Compound in
Compound
methane
ethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)
1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113)
dichloromethane (methylene chloride)
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)
dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12)
chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22)
trifluoromethane (HFC-23)
1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC-11 4)
chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-11 5)
1,1,1-trifluoro-2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123)
1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a)
1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b)
1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b)
2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124)
pentafluoroethane (HFC-125)
1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134)
1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a)
1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a)
Perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:
cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes;
cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated ethers with no
unsaturations;
cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary amines
with no unsaturations; and,
sulfur containing perfluorocarbons with no unsaturations and with
sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine
EPA adopted a definition of VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s)
parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCPTF)
cyclic, branched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes
40 CFR 51. 100.
Exemption
July8, 1977
July8, 1977
JulyS, 1977
JulyS, 1977
June 4, 1979
May 16, 1980
July 22, 1980
July 22, 1980
July 22, 1980
July 22, 1980
July 22, 1980
July 22, 1980
January 18, 1989
January 18, 1989
January 18, 1989
January 18, 1989
March 18, 1991
March 18, 1991
March 18, 1991
March 18, 1991
March 18, 1991
March 18, 1991
March 18, 1991
March 18, 1991
March 18, 1991
Februarys, 1992
Octobers, 1994
Octobers, 1994
FR
42 FR 35314
42 FR 35314
42 FR 35314
42 FR 35314
44 FR 32042
45 FR 32424
45 FR 48941
45 FR 48941
45 FR 48941
45 FR 48941
45 FR 48941
45 FR 48941
54 FR 1988
54 FR 1988
54 FR 1988
54 FR 1988
56 FR 11418
56 FR 11418
56 FR 11418
56 FR 11418
56 FR 11418
56 FR 11418
56 FR 11418
56 FR 11418
56 FR 11418
57 FR 3941
59 FR 50693
59 FR 50693
D-1
-------
Appendix D
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Compound
acetone
tetrachloroethane (perchloroethylene)
3,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca)
1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cb)
1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,5-decafluoropentane (HFC-43-10mee)
difluoromethane (HFC-32)
ethylfluoride (HFC-161)
1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236fa)
1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoroproane (HFC-245ca)
1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ea)
1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb)
1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245fa)
1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236ea)
1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc)
chlorofluoromethane (HCFC-31)
1-chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-151a)
1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a)
1,1,1 ,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxy-butane (C4F9OCH3)
2-(difluoromethoxymethyl)-1 , 1 ,1 ,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane
((CF3)2CFCF2OCH3)
1-ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane (C4F9OCH2H5)
2-(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-1 ,1 , 1 ,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane
((CF3)2CFCF2OC2H5)
methvl acetate
Exemption
June 16, 1995
February 7, 1996
Octobers, 1996
Octobers, 1996
Octobers, 1996
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
August 25, 1997
Aoril9. 1998
FR
60 FR 31633
61 FR4588
61 FR 52848
61 FR 52848
61 FR 52848
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
62 FR 44900
63 FR 17331
Date shown is publication date of the Notice in the Federal Register.
30 to 60 days after this publication date.
Actual exemption date is generally
D-2
-------
Appendix E
APPENDIX E
EPA's Test Method 24: Determination of volatile matter content, water content,
density volume solids, and weight solids of surface coatings
-------
Appendix E
EMISSION MEASUREMENT TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER
NSPS TEST METHOD
(EMTICM-24, 7/10/92)
Method 24 - Determination of Volatile Matter Content,
Water Content, Density, Volume Solids, and
Weight Solids of Surface Coatings
1. APPLICABILITY AND PRINCIPLE
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to the determination of volatile matter content, water
content, density, volume solids, and weight solids of paint, varnish, lacquer, or related surface
coatings.
1.2 Principle. Standard methods are used to determine the volatile matter content, water
content, density, volume solids, and weight solids of the paint, varnish, lacquer, or related
surface coatings.
2. APPLICABLE STANDARD METHODS
Use the apparatus, reagents, and procedures specified in the standard methods below:
2.1 ASTM D 1475-60 (Reapproved 1980), Standard Test Method for Density of Paint,
Varnish, Lacquer, and Related Products.
2.2 ASTM D 2369-81, Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings.
2.3 ASTM D 3792-79, Standard Test Method for Water Content of Water Reducible Paints
by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph.
2.4 ASTM D 4017-81, Standard Test Method for Water in Paints and Paint Materials by the
Karl Fischer Titration Method.
2.5 ASTM 4457-85 Standard Test Method for Determination of Dichloromethane and 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph
(incorporated by reference-see §60.17).
3. PROCEDURE
3.1 Multicomponent Coatings. Multicomponent coatings are coatings that are packaged in two
or more parts, which are combined before application. Upon combination a coreactant from one
part of the coating chemically reacts, at ambient conditions, with a coreactant from another part
of the coating. To determine the total volatile content, water content, and density of
E-1
-------
_ Appendix E
multicomponent coatings, follow the procedures in section 3.7. For all other coatings analyze as
follows:
3.2 Volatile Matter Content. Use the procedure in ASTM D 2369-81 to determine the
volatile matter content (may include water) of the coating.
3.2.1 Record the following information:
W., = Weight of dish and sample before heating, g.
W2 = Weight of dish and sample after heating, g.
W3 = Sample weight, g.
3.2.2 Run analyses in pairs (duplicate sets) for each coating until the criterion in
Section 4.3 is met. Calculate the weight fraction of the volatile matter (Wv) for each
analysis as follows:
Wv = (W! - W2)/W3 Eq. 24-1
Record the arithmetic average (Wv).
3.3 Water Content. For waterborne (water reducible) coatings only, determine the
weight fraction of water (Ww) using either ASTM D 3792-79 or ASTM D 401 7—81 . A
waterborne coating is any coating which contains more than 5 percent water by weight
in its volatile fraction. Run duplicate sets of determinations until the criterion in
Section 4.3 is met. Record the arithmetic average (WJ.
3.4 Coating Density. Determine the density (Dc, kg/liter) of the surface coating using
the procedure in ASTM D 1475-60. Run duplicate sets of determinations for each
coating until the criterion in Section 4.3 is met. Record the arithmetic average (Dc).
3.5 Solids Content. Determine the volume fraction (Vs) solids of the coating by
calculation using the manufacturer's formulation.
3.6 Exempt Solvent Content. Determine the weight fraction of exempt solvents (WE)
by using ASTM Method D4457-85 (incorporated by reference-see §60.17). Run a
duplicate set of determinations and record the arithmetic average (WE).
3.7 To determine the total volatile content, water content, and density of
multicomponent coatings, use the following procedures:
E-2
-------
Appendix E
3.7.1 Prepare about 100 ml of sample by mixing the components in a storage container,
such as a glass jar with a screw top or a metal can with a cap. The storage container
should be just large enough to hold the mixture. Combine the components (by weight
or volume) in the ratio recommended by the manufacturer. Tightly close the container
between additions and during mixing to prevent loss of volatile materials. However,
most manufacturers mixing instructions are by volume. Because of possible error
caused by expansion of the liquid when measuring the volume, it is recommended that
the components be combined by weight. When weight is used to combine the
components and the manufacturer's recommended ratio is by volume, the density must
be determined by section 3.4.
3.7.2 Immediately after mixing, take aliquots from this 100 ml sample for determination
of the total volatile content, water content, and density. To determine water content
follow section 3.3. To determine density, follow section 3.4. To determine total volatile
content, use the apparatus and reagents described in ASTM D2369-81, sections 3 and
4, respectively (incorporated by reference, and see §60.17) the following procedures:
3.7.2.1 Weigh and record the weight of an aluminum foil weighing dish. Add 3+1 ml of
suitable solvent as specified in ASTM D2369-81 to the weighing dish. Using a syringe
as specified in ASTM D2369-81, weigh to 1 mg, by difference, a sample of coating into
the weighing dish. For coatings believed to have a volatile content less than 40 weight
percent, a suitable size is 0.3 + 0.10 g, but for coatings believed to have a volatile
content greater than 40 weight percent, a suitable size is 0.5 + 0.1 g.
NOTE: If the volatile content determined pursuant to section 5 is not in the range
corresponding to the sample size chosen repeat the test with the appropriate sample
size. Add the specimen dropwise, shaking (swirling) the dish to disperse the specimen
completely in the solvent. If the material forms a lump that cannot be dispersed,
discard the specimen and prepare a new one. Similarly, prepare a duplicate. The
sample shall stand for a minimum of 1 hour, but no more than 24 hours prior to being
oven fried at 110 + 5°C, for 1 hour.
3.7.2.2 Heat the aluminum foil dishes containing the dispersed specimens in the forced
draft oven for 60 min at 110+5°C. Caution - provide adequate ventilation, consistent
with accepted laboratory practice, to prevent solvent vapors from accumulating to a
dangerous level.
3.7.2.3 Remove the dishes from the oven, place immediately in a desiccator, cool to
ambient temperature, and weigh to within 1 mg.
3.7.2.4 Run analyses in pairs (duplicate sets) for each coating mixture until the criterion
in section 4.3 is met. Calculate Wv following Equation 24-1 and record the arithmetic
average.
E-3
-------
Appendix E
4. DATA VALIDATION PROCEDURE
4.1 Summary. The variety of coatings that may be subject to analysis makes it
necessary to verify the ability of the analyst and the analytical procedures to obtain
reproducible results for the coatings tested. This is done by running duplicate analyses
on each sample tested and comparing results with the within-laboratory precision
statements for each parameter. Because of the inherent increased imprecision in the
determination of the VOC content of water-borne coatings as the weight percent water
increases, measured parameters for water-borne coatings are modified by the
appropriate confidence limits based on between-laboratory precision statements.
4.2 Analytical Precision Statements. The within-laboratory and between-laboratory
precision statements are given below:
Within-laboratory Between-laboratory
Laboratory
Volatile matter content, Wv 1.5% Wv 4.7% Wv
Water content, Ww 2.9% Ww 7.5% Ww
Density, Dc 001 kg/liter 0.002 kg/liter
4.3 Sample Analysis Criteria. For Wv and Ww, run duplicate analyses until the
difference between the two values in a set is less than or equal to the within-laboratory
precision statement for that parameter. For Dc run duplicate analyses until each value
in a set deviates from the mean of the set by no more than the within-laboratory
precision statement. If after several attempts it is concluded that the ASTM procedures
cannot be used for the specific coating with the established within-laboratory precision,
the Administrator will assume responsibility for providing the necessary procedures for
revising the method or precision statements upon written request to: Director, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division, MD-13, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
4.4 Confidence Limit Calculations for Waterborne Coatings. Based on the
between-laboratory precision statements, calculate the confidence limits for waterborne
coatings as follows: To calculate the lower confidence limit, subtract the appropriate
between-laboratory precision value from the measured mean value for that parameter.
To calculate the upper confidence limit, add the appropriate between-laboratory
precision value to the measured mean value for that parameter. For Wv and Dc, use
the lower confidence limits, and for Ww, use the upper confidence limit. Because Vs is
calculated, there is no adjustment for this parameter.
E-4
-------
Appendix E
5. CALCULATIONS
5.1 Nonaqueous Volatile Matter.
5.1.1 Solvent-borne Coatings.
W0 = Wv Eq. 24-2
where: W0 = Weight fraction nonaqueous volatile matter, g/g.
5.1.2 Waterborne Coatings.
W0 = Wv - Ww Eq. 24-3
5.2 Weight Fraction Solids.
Ws = 1 - Wv. Eq. 24-4
where: Ws = Weight solids, g/g.
E-5
-------
Appendix F
APPENDIX F
When do I include or exclude water, exempt compounds, and colorant
from my coating VOC and volume calculations?
-------
Appendix F
When do I include or exclude water, exempt compounds, and colorant
from my coating VOC and volume calculations?
For VOC Calculations:
When determining...
the weight of water
and exempt
compounds is...
and volume of and the weight and
water and exempt volume of colorants
compounds is... added to tint bases are.,
The "VOC content" of coatings
(except for low solids stains and
wood preservatives)
excluded
excluded
excluded
The "VOC content" of low solids
stains and wood preservatives
excluded
included
excluded
The "VOC amount" for the tonnage
exemption (regardless of the type
of coating)
excluded
included
excluded
For Volume Calculations:
When determining...
the volume of water and exempt
compounds is...
and the volume of colorants
added to tint bases is...
The "volume manufactured or
imported" for the tonnage
exemption
included
excluded
The "volume manufactured or
imported" for the exceedance fee
included
excluded
Colorants added to tint bases at the retail store or site of
coating application are excluded from all VOC and
volume calculations.
F-1
-------
Appendix G
APPENDIX G
EPA Regional Office addresses for information and
sending notifications and reports
-------
Appendix G
EPA REGIONAL OFFICES
EPA Region I
Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont
Director, Office of Mailcode: S.A.A. J.F.K.
Environmental Stewardship One Congress Street,
Boston, MA 02203-2211
EPA Region II
New Jersey, New York, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands
Director, Division of
Enforcement and
Compliance Assistance
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
EPA Region III
Delaware, District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia
Director, Air Protection
Division
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
EPA Region IV
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
Director, Air Pesticides,
and Toxics Management
Division
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
EPA Region V
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Director, Air and Radiation 77 West Jackson Boulevard
Division Chicago, IL 60604-3507
EPA Region VI
Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
Director, Multimedia
Planning and Permitting
Division
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas TX 75202-2733
EPA Region VII
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska
Director, Air, RCRA, and
Toxics Division
901 N. 5th Street
Kansas City, KS66101
EPA Region VIII
Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming
Director, Office of
Partnerships and
Regulatory Assistance,
999 18th Street, Suite 500,
Denver, Colorado 80202-
2466
EPA Region IX
American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Guam, Hawaii,
Nevada
Director, Air Division
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
EPA Region X
Alaska, Oregon, Idaho,
Washington
Director, Office of Air
Quality
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
WA98101
G-1
-------
Appendix H
APPENDIX H
Worksheets for estimating and computing total mass of VOC for the tonnage exemption and
calculating exceedance fees
1. How to estimate the total megagrams of VOC for a coating
2. Figure H1. Tonnage exemption: Total mass of VOC for various volumes of coatings
(megagrams)
3. Worksheet for computing total VOC mass for the tonnage exemption compliance option
4. How to estimate the exceedance fee for a coating.
5. Figure H2. Exceedance fee for selected volumes of coatings (dollars)
6. Worksheet for computing exceedance fees
-------
Appendix H
APPENDIX H
1. How to estimate the total megagrams of VOC for a coating
You should use the attached worksheet while following the example calculation in
Section 3.8 of this guide to determine the exact total mass (in megagrams) of VOC for a coating.
Use Figure H1 in this appendix to estimate the total mass of VOC for your coatings.
Figure H1 can be used to quickly estimate the total mass of VOC (in megagrams) for
each of your coatings. This figure can be used to estimate the total mass of VOC for a coating
to determine the volume of each coating (or two or more coatings) you can exempt. The volume
of any individual coating in the shaded area does not qualify for the initial exemption of
23 megagrams because it exceeds the limit of 23 megagrams for the period from September 13,
1999 through December 31, 1999. Similarly, you can use Figure H1 to determine the volume of
a coating that would qualify for the subsequent 18 megagram and 9 megagram exemptions for
the year 2001 and the year 2002, etc.
Let's say you manufacture 40,000 liters of a coating with a VOC content of 450 grams
per liter of coating (including volume of water and exempt compounds). First locate the row in
the first column that represents the volume of your coating. Move across that row until you come
to the column that represents the number of grams of VOC contained in 1 liter of the coating.
The "18" in this cell represents the total megagrams of VOC for that coating. If you choose to
exempt from the regulation 18 megagrams of VOC for this coating, you may exempt up to
5 megagrams of VOC for another coating(s) before reaching the maximum exemption of
23 megagrams for the initial exemption time period.
H-1
-------
2. Figure H1. Tonnage exemption: Total mass of VOC for various volumes of coatings (megagrams)
Volume Manufactured
or Imported
(gallons)
1,321
2,642
3,963
5,284
6,605
7,926
9,247
10,568
11,889
13,210
14,531
15,852
17,173
18,494
19,815
21,136
22,457
23,778
25,099
26,420
27,741
29,062
30,383
(liters)
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
75,000
80,000
85,000
90,000
95,000
100,000
105,000
110,000
115,000
Grams VOC Per Liter of Coating (Including volume of water and exempt compounds)
200
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
250
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
28
29
300
2
3
5
6
8
9
11
12
14
15
17
18
20
21
23
24
26
27
29
30
32
33
35
350
2
4
5
7
9
11
12
14
16
18
19
21
23
25
26
28
30
32
33
35
37
39
40
400
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
450
2
5
7
9
11
14
16
18
20
23
25
27
29
32
34
36
38
41
43
45
47
50
52
500
3
5
8
10
13
15
18
20
23
25
28
30
33
35
38
40
43
45
48
50
53
55
58
550
3
6
8
11
14
17
19
22
25
28
30
33
36
39
41
44
47
50
52
55
58
61
63
600
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
69
650
3
7
10
13
16
20
23
26
29
33
36
39
42
46
49
52
55
59
62
65
68
72
75
700
4
7
11
14
18
21
25
28
32
35
39
42
46
49
53
56
60
63
67
70
74
77
81
750
4
8
11
15
19
23
26
30
34
38
41
45
49
53
56
60
64
68
71
75
79
83
86
800
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
850
4
9
13
17
21
26
30
34
38
43
47
51
55
60
64
68
72
77
81
85
89
94
98
900
5
9
14
18
23
27
32
36
41
45
50
54
59
63
68
72
77
81
86
90
95
99
104
This figure can be used to compute the total mass of VOC for a coating to determine if the total mass of VOC for all exempt coatings is less than the allowed.
The shaded areas indicate levels that exceed the maximum allowable tonnage exemption (i.e., 23 megagrams) for the period from September 13, 1999 through
December 31, 2000.
-------
Appendix H
3. Worksheet for computing total VOC mass for the tonnage exemption
compliance option
A BCD
VOC Amount
(Grams VOC
Annual Volume Manufactured per liter of Total grams
Coating or Imported coating ** VOC Total Mg VOC
Name (Liters*) [grams/liter]) (C = AXB) (D = C-MX106)
TOTAL
*Multiply gallons x 3.785412 to obtain liters.
"Include volume of water and exempt compounds. (See Appendix F.)
H-3
-------
Appendix H
4. How to estimate the exceedance fee for a coating
You should use the attached worksheet while following the example calculation
in Section 3.9 of this guide to determine the exact exceedance fee for selected
coatings. Use the worksheet in this appendix to estimate the exceedance fee for a
selected coating.
Figure H2 can be used to quickly determine the approximate fee for each of your
coatings. For example, let's say you manufacture 200,000 liters of a coating that has a
VOC content of 300 grams per liter and the VOC content limit for your coating is
350 grams per liter. Choose the appropriate number of liters in the first column. In this
case you would use the row at 208,198 liters. Move across that row until you come to
the column that represents the difference between the VOC content of the coating and
the applicable VOC content limit. For your coating, this would be the column labeled 50
grams per liter. The $29,333 in this column represents the fee for that coating.
H-4
-------
5. FIGURE H2. Exceedance fee for selected volumes of coatings (dollars)
Volume of Coating
Manufactured or
Imported
(gallons)
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
75,000
80,000
85,000
90,000
95,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
500,000
(liters)
18,927
37,854
56,781
75,708
94,635
113,562
132,489
151,416
170,344
189,271
208,198
227,125
246,052
264,979
283,906
302,833
321 ,760
340,687
359,614
378,541
567,812
757,082
946,353
1,135,624
1 ,324,894
1,514,165
1 ,892,706
VOC Content of the Coating in Excess of the VOC Level in the Rule (grams per liter)*
50
2,667
5,333
8,000
10,667
13,333
16,000
18,667
21 ,333
24,000
26,667
29,333
32,000
34,667
37,333
40,000
42,667
45,333
48,000
50,667
53,333
80,000
106,667
133,333
160,000
186,667
213,333
266,667
100
5,333
10,667
16,000
21 ,333
26,667
32,000
37,333
42,667
48,000
53,333
58,667
64,000
69,333
74,667
80,000
85,333
90,667
96,000
101,333
106,667
160,000
213,333
266,667
320,000
373,333
426,667
533,333
150
8,000
16,000
24,000
32,000
40,000
48,000
56,000
64,000
72,000
80,000
88,000
96,000
1 04,000
112,000
120,000
128,000
136,000
1 44,000
152,000
160,000
240,000
320,000
400,000
480,000
560,000
640,000
800,000
200
10,667
21,333
32,000
42,667
53,333
64,000
74,667
85,333
96,000
106,667
117,333
128,000
138,667
149,333
160,000
170,667
181,333
192,000
202,667
213,333
320,000
426,667
533,333
640,000
746,667
853,333
1 ,066,667
250
13,333
26,667
40,000
53,333
66,667
80,000
93,333
106,667
120,000
133,333
146,667
160,000
173,333
186,667
200,000
213,333
226,667
240,000
253,333
266,667
400,000
533,333
666,667
800,000
933,333
1 ,066,667
1 ,333,333
300
16,000
32,000
48,000
64,000
80,000
96,000
112,000
128,000
144,000
160,000
176,000
192,000
208,000
224,000
240,000
256,000
272,000
288,000
304,000
320,000
480,000
640,000
800,000
960,000
1,120,000
1 ,280,000
1 ,600,000
350
18,667
37,333
56,000
74,667
93,333
112,000
130,667
149,333
168,000
186,667
205,333
224,000
242,667
261 ,333
280,000
298,667
317,333
336,000
354,667
373,333
560,000
746,667
933,333
1,120,000
1 ,306,667
1 ,493,333
1 ,866,667
400
21,333
42,667
64,000
85,333
106,667
128,000
149,333
170,667
192,000
213,333
234,667
256,000
277,333
298,667
320,000
341 ,333
362,667
384,000
405,333
426,667
640,000
853,333
1 ,066,667
1 ,280,000
1 ,493,333
1 ,706,667
2,133,333
450
24,000
48,000
72,000
96,000
120,000
144,000
168,000
192,000
216,000
240,000
264,000
288,000
312,000
336,000
360,000
384,000
408,000
432,000
456,000
480,000
720,000
960,000
1 ,200,000
1 ,440,000
1 ,680,000
1 ,920,000
2,400,000
500
26,667
53,333
80,000
106,667
133,333
160,000
186,667
213,333
240,000
266,667
293,333
320,000
346,667
373,333
400,000
426,667
453,333
480,000
506,667
533,333
800,000
1 ,066,667
1 ,333,333
1 ,600,000
1 ,866,667
2,133,333
2,666,667
550
29,333
58,667
88,000
117,333
146,667
176,000
205,333
234,667
264,000
293,333
322,667
352,000
381 ,333
410,667
440,000
469,333
498,667
528,000
557,333
586,667
880,000
1,173,333
1 ,466,667
1 ,760,000
2,053,333
2,346,667
2,933,333
600
32,000
64,000
96,000
128,000
160,000
192,000
224,000
256,000
288,000
320,000
352,000
384,000
416,000
448,000
480,000
512,000
544,000
576,000
608,000
640,000
960,000
1 ,280,000
1 ,600,000
1 ,920,000
2,240,000
2,560,000
3,200,000
700
37,333
74,667
112,000
149,333
186,667
224,000
261 ,333
298,667
336,000
373,333
410,667
448,000
485,333
522,667
560,000
597,333
634,667
672,000
709,333
746,667
1,120,000
1 ,493,333
1 ,866,667
2,240,000
2,613,333
2,986,667
3,733,333
'grams of VOC per liter of coating, excluding the volume of water and exempt compounds, except for low-solids stains and low-solids wood preservatives (for which volume of water and
exempt compounds is included).
-------
6. Worksheet for computing exceedance fees
Coating
TOTAL FEE
A
Annual Volume
Manufactured or Imported
(Liters*)
B
VOC
Content
(grams per
liter)
C
Applicable
Category in
the
Regulation
D
Applicable
VOC
Content
Limit
(grams per
liter)
E
(E = B - D)
VOC
Content
Above the
Limit
(grams per
liter)
F
(F = AXE)
Grams of
VOC Above
the Limit
G
Fee Rate
(dollars per
gram of
excess
VOC)
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
0.0028
H
(H = F X G)
Amount of
Fee Owed
for Each
Coating
(dollars)
*Multiply gallons x 3.785412 to obtain liters.
-------
Appendix I
APPENDIX I
Initial notification report example template
EPA National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings [40 CFR part 59, subpart D]
-------
Appendix I
Initial Notification Report
EPA National Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings
[40 CFR Part 59, Subpart D]
You may complete this form as your initial notification report. You may choose any format, as long as you
submit the information required by 40 CFR 59.408(b), subpart D. Submit this information to the
appropriate Regional Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by September 13, 1999
(March 13, 2000 if your only coatings are FIFRA-registered) or within 180 days of becoming a regulated
entity under the regulation. See end of this form for relevant regulation sections and 40 CFR 59.409,
subpart D for addresses of EPA Regional Offices.
Company Name.
Company Official Submission Date , 19
Name
Title
Signature
Mailing Address.
Phone Number / /
Fax Number /
E-Mail Address (optional)
Description of Date-Coding System
Code Explanation*
Placement on Containers.
Other Information
Note: You must notify EPA within 30 days of changes to the date coding system.
*The description of the date code should be adequate to enable EPA to use it to
determine the date of manufacture of a coating from the date code on the container.
1-1
-------
Appendix I
Compc
mv Name:
Product categories subject to 40 CFR part 59, subpart D that the company currently manufactures or
imports (See definitions at CFR 59.401 .) Check all that apply
Check
Here
-
-
Coating Category
Antenna coating
Anti-fouling coating
Anti-graffiti coating
Below-ground wood preservative
Bituminous coating and mastic
Bond breaker
Calcimine recoater
Chalkboard resurfacer
Concrete curing compound
Concrete curing and sealing compound
Concrete surface retarder
Concrete protective coating
Conversion varnish
Dry fog coating
Extreme high durability coating
Faux-finishing/glazing
Fire-retardant/resistive coating
clear
opaque
Flat coating
exterior
interior
Floor coating
Flow coating
Form release compound
Graphic arts coating or sign paint
Heat reactive coating
High temperature coating
Impacted immersion coating
Industrial maintenance coating
Lacquer
Magnesite cement coating
Mastic texture coating
Metallic pigmented coating
Multi-colored coating
Check
Here
-
-
-
-
Coating Category
Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and
surface protectant
Nonflat coating
exterior
interior
Nuclear coating
Pretreatment wash primer
Primer
Quick-dry enamel
Quick-dry primer, sealer, and undercoater
Repair and maintenance thermoplastic coating
Roof coating
Rust preventative coating
Sanding sealer
Sealer (including interior clear wood sealer)
Shellac
clear
opaque
Stain
clear and semitransparent
opaque
low solids
Stain controller
Swimming pool coating
Thermoplastic rubber coating and mastic
Traffic marking coating
Undercoater
Varnish
Waterproofing sealer and treatment
Wood preservative
below ground wood preservatives
clear and semitransparent
opaque
low solids
Zone marking coating
I-2
-------
Appendix I
Companv Name:
Name and Street Address of U.S. Manufacturing Facilities (see 40 CFR 59.408)
Name of facility
Street Address
Name of facility
Street Address
Name of facility
Street Address
Name of facility
Street Address
Name of facility
Street Address
Name of facility
Street Address
Name of facility
Street Address
Name of facility
Street Address
Name of facility
Street Address
Name of facility
Street Address
1-3
-------
Appendix I
Initial Notification Report Form for Architectural Coatings
Relevant Rule Sections and Addresses of EPA Regional Offices
§ 59.408 Reporting requirements.
(b) Each manufacturer and importer of any architectural coating subject to the provisions of this subpart shall submit
an initial notification report no later than September 13,1999 or within 180 days after the date that the first
architectural coating is manufactured or imported, whichever is later. The initial report must include the information
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section.
(1) The name and mailing address of the manufacturer or importer.
(2) The street address of each one of the manufacturer's or importer's facilities in the United States that is
producing, packaging, or repackaging any architectural coating subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(3) A list of the categories from table 1 of this subpart for which the manufacturer's or importer's coatings
meet the definitions in § 59.401 of this subpart.
(4) If a date code is used on a coating container to represent the date a coating was manufactured, as
allowed in § 59.405(a)(1) of this subpart, the manufacturer or importer of the coating shall include an explanation of
each date code in the initial notification report and shall submit an explanation of any new date code no later than
30 days after the new date code is first used on the container for a coating.
§ 59.409 Address of EPA Regional Offices.
Each manufacturer and importer of any architectural coating subject to the provisions of this subpart shall submit all
requests, reports, submittals, exceedance fee payments, and other communications to the Administrator pursuant to
this regulation to the Regional Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that serves the State or Territory
in which the corporate headquarters of the manufacturer or importer resides. These areas are indicated in the
following list of EPA Regional Offices.
EPA Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont), Director,
Office of Environmental Stewardship. Mailcode: SAA., One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02203-2211.
EPA Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands), Director, Division of Enforcement and
Compliance Assistance, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866.
EPA Region III (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia), Director,
Air Protection Division, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
EPA Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee), Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303.
EPA Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin), Director, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507.
EPA Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), Director, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
EPA Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska), Director, Air, RCRA, and Toxics Division, 901 N. 5th
Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.
EPA Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming), Director, Office of
Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.
EPA Region IX (American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada), Director, Air Division,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
EPA Region X (Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Washington), Director, Office of Air Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.
I-4
-------
Appendix J
APPENDIX J
Contacts and Resources
-------
CONTACTS AND RESOURCES
Appendix J
Contact
Address
Description
Unified Air Toxics Website: Rule
and Implementation Information
for Architectural Coatings
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/
183e/aim/aimpg.html
Regulation information
Technical information
Implementation information
EPA Office of Federal Register
Browse the list of CFR sections
affected.
http://www.access.gpo/nara/lsa/
browslsa.html
List of CFR sections that have
been updated.
EPA Clean Air Technology
Center
(919)541-0800
Resources on emerging and
existing air pollution prevention
and control technologies.
Federal Register Online via
Government Printing Office
Access
http://www.access.gpo.gov/
su docs/aces/aces140.html
Federal Register documents,
including the published
architectural coatings regulation
EPA Small Business Assistance
Program (SBAP)
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/sbap
State & local SBAP contacts
SBAP materials
Related web sites
Meetings & conferences
EPA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance: Policy
on Compliance Incentives For
Small Businesses
http://es.epa.gov/oeca/
smbusi.html
Applicability of EPA's policy to
promote environmental
compliance among small
businesses.
Criteria for civil penalty
mitigation.
EPA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance: Audit
Policy: Incentives for
Self-Policing
http://es.epa.gov/oeca/
auditpol.html
Applicability of EPA's policy to
enhance protection of human
health and the environment by
encouraging regulated entities
to voluntarily discover, and
disclose and correct violations of
environmental requirements.
EPA Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance: Audit
Policy Interpretive Guidance
http://es.epa.gov/oeca/
apolguid.html
Questions and answers on self-
disclosure
EPA Air Enforcement Division
General Clean Air Act Stationary
Source Policies and Guidance
http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ore/
aed/comp/bcomp
Clean Air Act Stationary Source
Civil Penalty Policy
J-1
-------
Appendix K
APPENDIX K
Glossary
-------
Appendix K
The glossary tells you where architectural coating terms are defined. Each term is defined in
either the regulation (Appendix A of this guide) or the category fact sheets (Appendix B of this
guide).
Categories Defined in the Regulation
(See the regulation, Appendix A of this guide and category fact sheets, Appendix B of this guide)
Antenna Coating
Anti-fouling Coating
Anti-graffiti Coating
Below-Ground Wood
Preservative
Bituminous Coating and Mastic
Bond Breaker
Calcimine Recoater
Chalkboard Resurfacer
Concrete Curing Compound
Concrete Curing and Sealing
Concrete Protective Coating
Concrete Surface Retarder
Conversion Varnish
Dry Fog
Flow Coating
Form Release Compound
Graphics Art Coating
Heat Reactive Coating
High Temperature Coating
Impacted Immersion Coating
Industrial Maintenance Coating
Interior Clear Wood Sealer
Lacquer
Magnesite Cement Coating
Mastic Texture Coating
Metallic Pigmented Coating
Multi-Colored Coating
Nonferrous Ornamental Metal
Lacquers and Surface
Protectant
Extreme High Durability Coating Nonflat Coating
Faux-Finishing/Glazing Nuclear Coating
Fire-retardant/Resistive Coating Pretreatment Wash Primer
(clear and opaque)
Flat Coating (interior and
exterior)
Floor Coating
Primers (and Undercoaters)
Quick-dry Enamel
Quick-dry primer, sealer, and
undercoaters
Repair and Maintenance
Thermoplastic Coating
Roof Coating
Rust Preventative Coating
Sanding Sealer
Sealer
Shellac (clear, opaque, and
clear and semitransparent)
Stain (opaque and low solids)
Stain Controller
Swimming Pool Coating
Thermoplastic Rubber Coating
and Mastic
Traffic Marking Coating
Undercoater
Varnish
Waterproofing Sealer and
Treatment
Wood Preservative (below
ground, clear and semi-
transparent, opaque, and low
solids)
Zone Marking Coating
K-1
-------
Appendix K
Other terms defined in the regulation
(See the regulation, Appendix A of this guide.)
Act
Adhesive
Administrator
Appurtenance
Architectural Coating
Clear
Coating
Colorant
Container
Exempt Compounds
Exterior Coating
Importer
Importer
Interior Coating
Label
Low Solids
Manufactured
Manufacturer
Opaque
Paint Exchange
Person
Pigmented
Post-consumer Coating
Recycled Coating
Repackage
Semitransparent
Shop Application
Tint Base
United States
Volatile Organic Compound or
VOC
VOC Content
K-2
-------
Appendix L
APPENDIX L
Questionnaire: How useful was this guide?
-------
Appendix L
Questionnaire
The EPA is including this brief questionnaire to solicit feedback from users as to the
usefulness, readability, and improvements needed for this guide. Please complete this
information and return it to the EPA at the following address:
U.S. EPA
Office of Policy
Regulatory Management Division
Mail Code 2136
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Date:
Title of Regulation or Program: Small Entity Compliance Guide:
National Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings
EPA 453/R-99-003
Name of Commenter (optional):.
Please take a moment to let us know if you found this guide useful by answering the
following questions. Thank you, your feedback is important to us.
1. I could easily understand what requirements I must meet.
2. The guide is written in understandable language.
3. The guide helped me understand the steps I must take to comply with the
regulation.
4. If you have suggestions to improve the guide, please indicate below:
L-1
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-453/R-99-003
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Small Entity Compliance Guide; National Volatile
Compound Emission Standards for Architectural C
Organic
oatings
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 1
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 1
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
July 1999
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D6-0011
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
On September 1 1, 1998, under authority of section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency published national volatile organic compound emission standards for architectural
coatings. The Small Entity Compliance Guide is intended to help architectural coating manufacturers and
importers, particularly those who are small entities, understand and comply with the standards. The guide is
required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Air pollution, Pollution control, Volatile Organic
compounds, Architectural coatings
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group
Air pollution control
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified 220
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page) 22. PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |