National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings
Related Material
[Federal Register: September 11, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 176)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48848-48887]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11se98-25]
[[Page 48848]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 48849]]
dockets are located at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M1500, 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 Sec. 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 Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................... Manufacturers (which includes
packagers and repackagers) and
importers of architectural
coatings that are manufactured
for sale or distribution in
the United States, including
all United States territories.
State/local/tribal governments......... State Departments of
Transportation 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 Sec. 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)(1)
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
[[Page 48850]]
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,
[[Page 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, et seq.,)
(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.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grams per Pounds per
Coating category liter gallon<SUP>a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antenna coatings........................ 530 4.4
Anti-fouling coatings................... 450 3.8
Anti-graffiti coatings.................. 600 5.0
Bituminous coatings and mastics......... 500 4.2
Bond breakers........................... 600 5.0
Calcimine recoater...................... 475 4.0
Chalkboard resurfacers.................. 450 3.8
Concrete curing compounds............... 350 2.9
Concrete curing and sealing compounds... 700 5.8
[[Page 48852]]
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.......................... <SUP>b120 <SUP>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.......................... <SUP>b120 <SUP>b1.0
Zone marking coatings................... 450 3.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a English units are provided for information only. Enforcement of the
rule will be based on the metric units.
<SUP>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 or importer must
comply with the lowest applicable VOC content limit, unless an
exception is specified in
[[Page 48853]]
Sec. 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 combined may not exceed During the time period of
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 megagrams (25 tons) VOC................ September 13, 1999 through
December 31, 2000.
18 megagrams (20 tons) VOC................ Calendar year 2001
9 megagrams (10 tons) VOC................. 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 Sec. 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.
[[Page 48854]]
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 (BAC), and defines BAC 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 BAC 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 BAC 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.D and V.G).
The final VOC content limits in conjunction with the exceedance fee
and tonnage exemption reflect the EPA's determination of BAC 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,
October 8, 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
[[Page 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
[[Page 48856]]
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 PM10 NAAQS'' concerning
credit for VOC emission reductions towards rate-of-progress
requirements. The guidance indicates that the EPA may give credit for
VOC reductions within 100 kilometers of nonattainment areas. In
addition, the June 1997 recommendations made by OTAG supported the
EPA's use of VOC regulations that apply to both nonattainment and
attainment areas to implement section 183(e) of the Act for certain
products. The particular product categories OTAG cited for national VOC
regulations are automobile 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.
[[Page 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
Sec. 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)(1)(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
[[Page 48858]]
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 BAC 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 BAC 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 BAC. 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 BAC. 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
BAC for architectural coatings. The EPA's process for developing BAC
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
[[Page 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 BAC, 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
BAC, 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 BAC decision, but
often found no basis for making substantive changes to the proposed
rule.
Relationship of BAC to State and Local Regulations
State and local regulations were one of the primary factors used by
the EPA to develop BAC. 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 BAC.'' 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, BAC 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 BAC
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 BAC
analysis is an appropriate balancing of the relevant factors to achieve
BAC 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 BAC 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 BAC 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 BAC. 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
BAC 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 BAC
at the level of the lowest-VOC product. It requires that the EPA
determine BAC 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 BAC, 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
[[Page 48860]]
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/l)) and for bituminous coatings and
mastics (500 g/l), 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/l to 350 g/l. A third commenter suggested adopting one roof
coating category that includes bituminous materials at a VOC content
limit of 300 g/l, 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/l) than
other roofing materials (250 g/l) 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/l
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/l 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/l 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/l provides persuasive evidence that this limit is achievable
nationwide. Therefore, the EPA has retained the VOC content limit of
250 g/l for roof coatings in the final rule.
Concrete Curing Compounds
Several commenters commented on the proposed VOC content limit of
350 g/l 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/l. On the other hand, one commenter took issue with
the achievability and performance at the proposed limit of 350 g/l. The
latter commenter suggested a VOC content limit of 625 g/l 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/l 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/l 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/l 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/l. 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/l VOC content limit. As
discussed earlier, the EPA has revised the definition of architectural
coating to
[[Page 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/l
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/l to 730 g/l. 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/l, and the information provided by
the commenters, the EPA has raised the VOC content limit for clear
shellac from 650 g/l to 730 g/l.
Nuclear Coatings
Four commenters objected to the proposed 420 g/l VOC content limit
for nuclear coatings, in light of the 450 g/l 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/l. 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/l proposed), and one of these
commenters specifically requested that the EPA increase the level to
450 g/l. 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/l 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/l 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/l VOC level proposed for floor
coatings. Although the commenter reportedly has developed lower-
performing systems that meet the 400 g/l 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/l 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/l 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/l.
Based on information from commenters, the EPA agrees that opaque
floor coatings should be subject to the 400 g/l 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/l for clear
varnishes. An exception paragraph has been included in Sec. 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/l and 400 g/l,
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/l for all
waterproofing sealers and treatments and explained that this level
would still
[[Page 48862]]
require reformulation of existing technologies. Another manufacturer
has reported that it has not been successful in reformulating to meet
the 600 g/l 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/l 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/l. 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/l. Before
proposal, industry representatives (Docket Item No. III-B-1) argued
that multipurpose waterproofing sealers at 400 g/l 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/l 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/l (for example, Arizona and California) or
600 g/l (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/l).
However, several commenters stated that calcimine recoaters have a
higher VOC content of 475 g/l, 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/l 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/l.
Concrete Curing and Sealing Compounds
Under the proposed rule, these coatings would be subject to the 350
g/l 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/l 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/l. While waterborne products below 350 g/l 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/l.
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/l. 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/l 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/l if the EPA regulated these products.
[[Page 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/l as requested by the
commenters.
Zone Marking Coatings
Under the proposed rule, zone marking coatings were subject to the
150 g/l 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/l content limit for
zone marking coatings. First, the 150 g/l 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/l. 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/l 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/l VOC content limit for varnishes.
Commenters argued that conversion varnishes cannot be reformulated to
meet the 450 g/l 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/l.
Due to the chemical make-up of these products, manufacturers reportedly
have been unable to reformulate to meet the 450 g/l 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/l
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/l 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/l.
However, because the products are waterborne, the VOC ``less water''
calculation results in a range up to 700 g/l. 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/l. 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/l 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/l 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/l 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/l VOC content limit. The current VOC content of the
commenter's products is 714 g/l. According to the commenter, the 400 g/
l 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.
[[Page 48864]]
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/l
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/l 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
[[Page 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/l [5 pounds per gallon
(lb/gal)] coating.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.012
Alternatively, a manufacturer could exempt 18,939 liters (5,000
gallons) of an 800 g/l (6.67 lb/gal) coating plus 13,731 liters (3,625
gallons) of a 550 g/l (4.58 lb/gal) coating.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.013
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
[[Page 48866]]
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 prov ![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}