![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings
Related Material
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: December 30, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 249)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67784-67788]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30de97-40]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 59
[AD-FRL-5942-1]
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Automobile Refinish Coatings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 30, 1996, the EPA proposed volatile organic compound
(VOC) emission standards for automobile refinish coatings. In today's
document, the EPA is proposing several changes to the rule regarding
applicability, test methods, and multi-colored topcoats.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 13,
1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate) to:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention:
Docket No. A-95-18, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Docket. Docket No. A-95-18 is available for public inspection and
copying from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, at the EPA's
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room
M-1500, Ground Floor, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
document, contact Mr. Mark Morris at (919) 541-5416, Organic Chemicals
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ground level-ozone, a major component of
``smog,'' is formed in the atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of
nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>) in the presence of sunlight. Elevated levels
of ozone can cause a range of health effects including respiratory
symptoms (e.g. cough, chest pain, shortness of breath, wheezing, throat
irritation), increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits
for respiratory causes (e.g. aggravation of asthma), decreased lung
function; inflammation of the lung, and possible long-term damage to
the lungs. Groups at increased risk of experiencing acute health
effects from ozone include active children, adults who regularly work
or exercise outside, and people with pre-
[[Page 67785]]
existing respiratory disease. Elevated ozone levels also can cause
effects such as agricultural crop loss, damage to forests and
ecosystems, and visible injury to foliage of sensitive species.
In the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (Act), Congress
directed EPA to issue standards to reduce emissions from consumer and
commercial products because these products, although individually small
sources of emissions, together contribute significantly to the ozone
pollution problem. In 1990, consumer and commercial products emitted
approximately 6 million tons of VOC nationwide, or about 28 percent of
all man-made VOC.
Section 183(e) of the Act requires the Administrator to study and
report to Congress on emissions of VOC into the ambient air from
consumer and commercial products and their potential to contribute to
ozone nonattainment levels. In addition, section 183(e) requires the
Administrator to list those categories of consumer and commercial
products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions, on
a reactivity-adjusted basis, in ozone nonattainment areas and establish
priorities for their regulation. The list is to be divided into four
groups, with one group regulated every 2 years until all four groups
are regulated.
The EPA submitted the Report to Congress on March 15, 1995, and on
this same date established the priority list for future regulation of
the consumer and commercial products that account for 80 percent of VOC
emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, in nonattainment areas
(published on March 23, 1995, at 56 FR 15264). Automobile refinish
coatings are in the first group of products to be regulated. On April
30, 1996, the EPA proposed volatile organic compound emission standards
for automobile refinish coatings.
In today's supplemental notice, the EPA is proposing several
changes to the rule regarding applicability, test methods, and multi-
colored topcoats. The EPA welcomes comments on these proposed changes.
Applicability
Components of Multiple Manufacturers
Regulated entities under the proposed rule included only
manufacturers and importers of complete automobile refinish coatings.
The VOC content of an automobile refinish coating depends, however, on
the VOC content levels of all components that make up the coating.
Coating users sometimes combine components made by multiple
manufacturers when preparing a coating. Since components themselves are
not coatings, a manufacturer who produces only hardeners, for example,
would not be subject to the proposed rule. Such a manufacturer could
recommend that its hardener be combined with components of other
manufacturers, possibly resulting in a coating that exceeds the VOC
content standards of the rule. Such a situation could essentially
undermine the impact of the proposed rule. In the preamble to the
proposed rule, the EPA stated that the rule may need to apply to all
automobile refinish coating component manufacturers and importers to be
effective. Commenters on the proposed rule recommended that the EPA
expand the applicability of the rule to include all component
manufacturers and importers to address the problem of components that
may result in noncompliant coatings. No commenter was opposed to
expanding the applicability.
At the time of the proposed rule, the EPA had not addressed how to
determine compliance with the rule if applicability were expanded to
include manufacturers and importers of coating components; therefore,
the EPA did not propose a compliance mechanism for the rule for
coatings consisting of components of multiple entities. The EPA is
proposing in this supplemental notice to include as regulated entities
all manufacturers and importers of automobile refinish coating
components. The EPA is thus also proposing a mechanism for determining
compliance with the rule for coatings consisting of components made or
imported by multiple entities.
For the purposes of this proposed rulemaking, an automobile
refinish coating is defined to include any combination of coating
components recommended for automobile refinishing by the manufacturer
or importer of one or more of the coating components. A recommendation
for use in automobile refinishing that appears on a product container
or in any product literature shall constitute a recommendation for
automobile refinishing use.
Determining compliance for coatings consisting of components made
or imported by one regulated entity is relatively easy. In general,
determining compliance with the proposed rule would consist of ``spot
checking,'' where the EPA would obtain coating components, mix the
components in the ratios recommended by the regulated entity (on the
containers or in any product literature), and analyze the resulting
coating using Reference Method 24. The EPA considered requiring
regulated entities to perform VOC testing of their coatings on a
regular basis (e.g., every nth batch) to demonstrate compliance with
the rule, but believes that such a requirement would be economically
infeasible. The EPA believes that random spot checks will be adequate
to encourage regulated entities to assure that all of their coating
batches are compliant; however, the EPA welcomes comments on other ways
to demonstrate compliance.
Determining the compliance of coatings that consist of components
made or imported by multiple regulated entities is more difficult. The
EPA considered several options for determining compliance in these
cases. The EPA considered requiring regulated entities (that recommend
the use of their components with those of other regulated entities) to
use Reference Method 24 to test the coatings resulting from their
recommendations. Using this information, the entities would establish
the maximum allowable VOC content of their components, and the EPA
would spot check components to determine compliance. However, the EPA
has no standard method for determining the VOC content of components.
Also, the VOC content of a coating is not simply the sum of the VOC
contents its components, so component VOC content is not necessarily an
indicator of the VOC content of the overall coating. Therefore, the EPA
believes it is technically infeasible to determine compliance using
component VOC content information.
Because of the technical infeasibility of the approach described
above, the EPA has concluded that the responsibility for coatings
should be based on product recommendations. In other words, if an
entity recommends a combination of components (made or imported by one
or more regulated entities), then that entity is responsible for the
compliance of the resulting coating. There may be cases where a coating
resulting from an entity's recommendation is noncompliant because of
the components of other entities. Since this occurrence may be beyond
the control of the recommending entity in some circumstances, the EPA
considered allowing the entity to provide the EPA with new or existing
Reference Method 24 test data demonstrating the compliance of the
coating resulting from their recommendation. This option is technically
feasible, and is the most appealing since compliance is determined in
essentially the same way for all regulated entities. It is this option
that the EPA is proposing in today's
[[Page 67786]]
notice to address coatings consisting of components of multiple
regulated entities.
It is important to note that regulated entities would be liable
only for those coatings they recommend. For example, if a regulated
entity recommends that three of its coating components be combined and
used in automobile refinishing, it is responsible for the coating that
results from that combination. If a regulated entity recommends the
substitution of one of its components for that of another regulated
entity, the former entity is responsible for the resulting coating. A
regulated entity is not responsible for coatings resulting from the
recommendations of others, even if such recommendations involve the use
of components of that regulated entity. The EPA solicits comments on
the compliance mechanism proposed in today's notice.
Touch-Up Coatings
Two commenters on the proposed rule recommended exempting touch-up
coatings from the rule. The commenters stated that such coatings are
sold in small containers, are applied by brush, and are used only for
minor scratches or nicks that do not require more extensive repair.
Touch-up coatings differ from typical refinish topcoats in that
they are typically used by automobile owners to repair minor scratches
or nicks, require no mixing prior to application, and are sold in small
containers. Since the EPA has already exempted coatings supplied in
nonrefillable aerosol containers from the proposed rule, aerosol touch-
up coatings are already exempted under the proposed rule. In this
notice, the EPA is proposing to exempt all touch-up coatings because
they are a relatively insignificant emissions source. The EPA is
proposing the following definition for touch-up coatings, obtained from
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1151:
Touch-up coatings are coatings applied by brush, air-brush, or
non-refillable aerosol can to cover minor surface damage and
dispensed in containers of no more than eight ounces.
The EPA welcomes comments on the definition and exemption of touch-up
coatings proposed in today's document.
Test Methods
One commenter on the proposed rule stated that the EPA had not
designated a reliable test method for determining the acid content of
pretreatment wash primers. The proposed method, ASTM Test Method D
1613-91, covers the determination of total acidity in organic compound
and hydrocarbon mixtures used in paints and other substances. This
method consists of a titration using a color indicator to determine the
endpoint of the titration. The EPA agrees that since some pretreatment
wash primers are pigmented, tests using color indicators may not work.
However, the proposed method can be used to determine the acid content
of the acid-containing component of the primer.
Pretreatment wash primers typically consist of two components: a
``base'' coating and a catalyst. The base contains the pigment, and the
catalyst contains the acid. The catalyst is a mixture of organic
compounds that contains acid; therefore, it is in the scope of the
proposed method. The EPA is proposing in this notice that the proposed
test method be used to determine the acid content of the catalyst, and
that calculations involving the acid content of the catalyst and the
mixing ratio of the base to the catalyst be performed to determine the
overall weight percent of acid in a primer.
In the proposed rule, anti-glare/safety coatings were included in
the specialty coating category, and were defined as coatings that do
not reflect light. One commenter stated that anti-glare coatings do
reflect some light, and that it would be more appropriate to call such
coatings ``low gloss coatings'' and specify a gloss value to delineate
them from other coatings. The EPA agrees, and is proposing in this
notice to replace ``anti-glare/safety coatings'' with ``low-gloss
coatings,'' defined as topcoats with specular gloss values of 25 or
less with a 60 deg. gloss meter. The EPA is proposing that ASTM Test
Method D 523-89 be used for the determination of specular gloss of
coatings. This method is used by industry for this purpose. The EPA
requests comments on the appropriateness of both of the test methods
described above.
Multi-Colored Topcoats
One commenter on the proposed rule suggested the addition of a
coating category for multi-colored topcoats, which are wear-resistant
and durable coatings used mainly for lining the cargo beds of pickup
trucks and other utility vehicles. The commenter stated that the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1151 has a separate
category and VOC content standard for multi-colored topcoats, and
recommended the EPA either include a separate category for these
coatings or include them in the definition of specialty coatings.
The EPA did not specifically address multi-colored topcoats in the
proposed rule. Since the EPA has no information indicating that such
coatings can meet the topcoat standard, and because of their special
use as protective coatings, the EPA is proposing in today's notice to
include multi-colored topcoats in the specialty coating category. The
EPA is proposing in today's notice to define multi-colored topcoats as
topcoats which exhibit more than one color, are packaged in a single
container, and are applied in a single coat. The EPA solicits comments
on this proposed definition of multi-colored topcoats, and the addition
of such topcoats to the specialty coatings category.
Administrative Requirements
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the information
collection requirements contained in the April 30, 1996, proposed rule
(61 FR 19005) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned OMB control number 2060-0353. The EPA
estimated there were thirty regulated entities under that proposed
rule. In today's supplemental proposal, the EPA is proposing to expand
applicability; however, this expansion of applicability serves mainly
to elucidate which entity is responsible for a given coating. The EPA
does not expect a significant increase in the number of regulated
entities as a result of today's action because most entities that make
or import coatings also make or import coating components. Therefore,
the EPA's original estimate of regulated entities accounts for the
entities that would be subject as a result of today's supplemental
proposal.
Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the
EPA must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of this Executive
Order to prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the
[[Page 67787]]
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the executive order. Today's
supplemental proposal is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the executive order.
Executive Order 12875
To reduce the burden of federal regulations on States and small
governments, the President issued Executive Order 12875 on October 26,
1993, entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. In
particular, this executive order is designed to require agencies to
assess the effects of regulations that are not required by statute and
that create mandates upon State, local, or tribal governments. This
regulation does not create mandates upon State, local, or tribal
governments.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
The EPA performed an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
to determine the extent of any impacts under the proposed rule. This
IRFA was included in the docket for the proposed rule. In this
supplemental proposal, the EPA is proposing to expand the class of
regulated entities to include all automobile refinish coating component
manufacturers and importers. For the purposes of this supplemental
proposal, the EPA is now updating the IFRA.
The EPA estimates there are about 20-25 companies producing
automobile refinish coating components. At least 10 of these are large
companies that have the majority of the industry market share. The EPA
believes that the remaining 10-15 companies have fewer than 500
employees and are therefore small entities in accordance with Small
Business Administration regulations. Several of the small companies
produce only thinners and reducers. The thinners/reducers used in low-
VOC coatings are not significantly different from those used in
conventional coatings; therefore, the proposed rule will not have a
significant impact on manufacturers of thinners/reducers because
little, if any, reformulation of these components will be necessary
under the proposed rule. Some of the remaining small companies already
produce low-VOC coating components because they operate in areas that
already have State or local automobile refinish rules in effect. Most
State and local rules are at least as stringent as the proposed
national rule. The EPA concludes, therefore, that the proposed rule
would not have a significant impact on these companies.
The remaining small companies will be impacted by the proposed
rule, but the EPA believes that the impact will not be significant. The
impacts of the proposed rule are from process modifications, training,
and reporting requirements, as discussed in the IRFA. Process
modifications are those changes that may be necessary for the
production of low-VOC (high-solids) coatings, including the use of
different mixing and pumping equipment. Some manufacturers affected by
State and local rules have already complied with those rules by
changing the recommended mixing ratios of components and have not
changed the components themselves in a significant way; therefore, few
process modifications have likely been necessary in these cases. Where
process modifications are necessary, their impact will not be
significant; when such impacts are examined assuming that they will be
passed on to the user (as was done in the IFRA), the impacts do not
significantly affect the cost of coatings or refinish jobs.
The EPA believes that the impacts from training and reporting
requirements will be minimal. Many States have developed automobile
refinish rules since the time the impacts analysis for the proposed
national rule was performed, and the regulated entities have already
taken steps to comply with such regulations. It is likely that most, if
not all, regulated entities are already familiar with low-VOC coatings;
therefore, the need for training (and, thus, training costs) are likely
overstated in the analysis for the proposed rule. Training was
estimated to cost less than $500 per individual for the proposed rule.
For small entities with few employees needing training, this cost would
not be significant. Reporting requirements of the proposed rule consist
of an initial report that provides the EPA with basic information about
regulated entities (name, location, etc.), and periodic reports (if
necessary) to explain any date codes that regulated entities may use to
indicate the manufacture date of components. Given the limited nature
of the reporting requirements, the EPA believes that the impact of the
reporting requirements will not be significant.
The EPA does not have data sufficient to quantify precisely the
impact of the proposed rule by measures such as percentage of sales,
but the nature of the impacts are such that the impacts will be small.
The EPA bases this conclusion upon the information that was reasonably
available to Agency, and hereby solicits further relevant information
regarding the cost of compliance with the proposed rule.
There are several aspects of the proposed rule which the EPA has
instituted to minimize any impacts to small entities. First, the EPA
has proposed not to require a regulated entity to perform initial VOC
testing of its coating components or any of the coatings that might
result from the combination of the entity's components with those of
other regulated entities. The EPA believes that such an approach would
have required regulated entities to perform numerous tests which, in
the aggregate, could have imposed significant costs upon regulated
entities. The EPA believes that such a requirement would have had a
disproportionate impact upon small entities. Instead, the EPA has
proposed to link responsibility for a coating's compliance with the
regulated entity's recommendations for use. The EPA will assure
compliance by ``spot-checking'' the VOC content of the coatings that
result from such recommendations.
Second, the EPA has proposed not to require a regulated entity to
perform periodic VOC testing of its coating component batches. The EPA
considered requiring regulated entities to periodically test batches of
their components to ensure that the VOC content of coatings resulting
from the combination of such components would be compliant. As
discussed above, compliance with the proposed rule will be determined
by the spot-checking of coatings. Regulated entities may rely on
formulation data only to assure themselves of their compliance, or they
may decide to perform some VOC testing for this purpose, but the EPA is
not requiring batch testing. The EPA believes that not requiring batch
testing will limit the impact upon regulated entities and, in
particular, will help to alleviate impacts upon small entities.
Finally, the EPA has proposed not to require recordkeeping by
regulated entities. The EPA considered requiring regulated entities to
maintain records containing information on coating component batches
but determined that such records would not aid significantly in the
enforcement of the standard. As
[[Page 67788]]
stated above, the only reporting requirements are an initial report
that allows the EPA to determine the universe of regulated entities,
and reports that explain date codes if such codes are used to indicate
the date of manufacture. The EPA believes that minimization of
recordkeeping and reporting requirements will help to decrease impacts
upon small entities.
For the foregoing reasons, the EPA anticipates that the proposed
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The EPA believes that this conclusion is appropriate
with respect to all entities to be regulated under the proposed rule,
including the component manufacturers and importers encompassed by this
supplemental proposal.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more.
The EPA has determined that today's action does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of section 202 of
the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.
Electronic Submission of Comments
Comments may be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic comments must
be submitted as an ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption. Comments will also be accepted on diskette
in WordPerfect 5.1 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic
form must be identified by the docket number A-95-18. No Confidential
Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-mail.
Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Automobile
refinish coatings, Consumer and commercial products, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: December 9, 1997.
Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 97-33963 Filed 12-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P