           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    

                           PUBLIC HEARING

    

                      40 CFR PARTS 51 AND 59 

    

                 NATIONAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND

    

              EMISSION STANDARDS FOR AEROSOL COATINGS

    

                           PROPOSED RULES

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

                        T R A N S C R I P T

                        

                            O F___T H E

                                

                    P U B L I C   H E A R I N G

                        

    

    

    

    

    

                      V O L U M E   1  O F  1

                      

    

                       P A G E S   1  -  42

                       

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

At Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007.



                                                 Vol. 1, p. 2           
      

                        A P P E A R A N C E S

                        

Name                    Affiliation          E-Mail Address

    Kaye Whitfield         EPA/OAQPS     whitfield.kaye@epa.gov

    

    Kim Teal               EPA/OAQPS     teal.kim@epa.gov

    

    Bruce Moore            EPA/OAQPS     moore.bruce@epa.gov

    

    Bill Johnson           EPA           johnson.williaml@epa.gov

    

    Terry Keating          EPA/OAQPS     keating.terry@epa.gov

    (Via telephone)

    

    Geoff Wilcox           EPA/OAQPS     wilcox.geoffrey@epa.gov

    (Via telephone)

    

    David Sanders          EPA/OAQPS     sanders.dave@epa.gov

    

    Bob Stallings          EPA/OAQPS     stallings.bob@epa.gov

    

    Kenyetta Johnson       EPA/OAQPS     johnson.kenyetta@epa.gov

    

    Susan Miller           Innovar Env.  smiller@innovar-env.com

    

    Robin Dunkins          EPA/OAQPS     dunkins.robin@epa.gov

    

    Tim Benner             EPA/ORD       benner.tim@epa.gov

    

    Talitha Peay           EPA/RTF       peay.talitha@epa.gov

    

    Tom Walton             EPA/OAQPS     walton.tom@epa.gov

    

    Robert Sliwinski       New York DEC/OTC

                                     rgsliwin@gov.dec.state.ny.us

    

                   ___________________________________

                                                      

              

    



                                                 Vol. 1, p. 3           
      

                 T A B L E   O F   C O N T E N T S

                     

                      E X A M I N A T I O N S

                      

    

      Proceedings             Name                       Page No.

          

    Colloquy/Introductions   Kim Teal                        4

                             Kaye Whitfield

    

    Presentation             Mr. Robert Sliwinski            7

    

    Questions/EPA                                           22

    

    Keyword Index                                           29

    

              



                                                 Vol. 1, p. 4           
      

              The following Public Hearing in the matter of the 

    Proposed Rule for National Volatile Organic Compound Emission 

    Standards for Aerosol Coatings was held by Chairperson Kaye 

    Whitfield, Presiding, and was reported by Manie P. Currin, 

    Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of 

    North Carolina at US EPA, Building C, Room 3113, Research 

    Triangle Park, North Carolina, on Tuesday, July 31, 2007, 

    beginning at 10:00 a.m.

              The following proceedings were had, to wit:

              ________________________________________

    



 1  Colloquy/Introductions                       Vol. 1, p. 5           
      

 2  

    

 3                 MS. TEAL:  I'm Kim Teal.  I work for the 

 4            National Resources and Commerce Group with Kaye.  

 5                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  And I'm Kaye 

 6            Whitfield.  I'm the project lead for the National 

 7            Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for 

 8            Aerosol Coatings, and this is a Public Hearing for 

 9            that particular proposed rule.  

10                 And we have one speaker with us this morning, 

11            Mr. Robert Sliwinski, of the New York State 

12            Department of Environmental Conservation?

13                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  Correct.  

14                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  And that will be our 

15            only presenter today.

16                 On the phone we have Geoff Wilcox from the 

17            Office of General Counsel, and Terry Keating from 

18            EPA/OAR. 

19                 MR. KEATING:  Office of Air and Radiation.

20                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Office of Air and 

21            Radiation.

22                 Is there anyone else on the phone?

23                 (No response.)

24                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  And in the room, we 

25            have Bill Johnson from the Office of Air Quality 



 1  Colloquy/Introductions                       Vol. 1, p. 6           
      

 2            Planning Standards; Kenyetta Johnson from the 

 3            Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and 

 4            Susan Miller from Innovar.

 5                 We also have the program leader for the 

 6            Consumer Products sector, Mr. Bruce Moore, and Kim 

 7            Teal, as well, from the Office of Air Quality 

 8            Planning and Standards.

 9                 MS. TEAL:  In starting the Hearing, I just 

10            want to remind you we only have one speaker, so I 

11            just want to remind you this won't be an 

12            information exchange opportunity.  It's simply an 

13            opportunity for you to present orally your comments 

14            that you plan to submit.  

15                 I assume you have a copy -- hard copy with 

16            those. 

17                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  A hard copy, yes.

18                 MS. TEAL:  If you can share that with the 

19            Court reporter --

20                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  (Interposing)  Absolutely. 

21                 MS. TEAL:  -- After you complete your 

22            testimony, we'd appreciate it.  

23                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  Certainly.

24                 The panel which is going to consist of Bruce 

25            and Kaye and then Geoff Wilcox on the phone.



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 7           
      

 2                 MR. WILCOX:  And Terry.  

 3                 MS. TEAL:  And Terry -- may have clarifying 

 4            questions if they need to.  Okay? 

 5                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  I understand.

 6                 MS. TEAL:  Great.

 7                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Okay.  Mr. Sliwinski.

 8            _________________________________________

 9  

10  PRESENTATION BY MR. SLIWINSKI:

11  

    

12                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  Thank you.

13                 Good morning, my name is Robert Sliwinski, the 

14            Director of Air Quality for the Division of Air 

15            Resources at New York State Department of 

16            Environmental Conservation.  

17                 I was a member of the Reactivity Research 

18            Working Group established by the EPA representing 

19            the State of New York and the Ozone Transport 

20            Commission.  

21                 The Reactivity Research Working Group was 

22            established in '98 to improve the scientific basis 

23            for reactivity-related policies and was proceeding 

24            towards that end until mid-2005 when its activities 

25            were transferred to the North American Research 



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 8           
      

 2            Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone, or NARSTO.  

 3                 I am presenting testimony on behalf of the 

 4            State of New York and the Ozone Transport 

 5            Commission.  The Ozone Transport Commission is a 

 6            consortium of twelve (12) northeastern states and 

 7            the District of Columbia formed under Section 184 

 8            of the Clean Air Act responsible for advising EPA 

 9            on transport issues for the developing and 

10            implementing regional solutions to the ground-level 

11            ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 

12            regions.  

13                 I'd like to thank EPA for scheduling this 

14            hearing and allowing me to present these comments. 

15                 I'm here today to provide comments on the 

16            proposed regulation, National VOC Emission 

17            Standards for Aerosol Coatings, to be codified 

18            under 40 CFR Part 59, Subpart E.  

19                 The intent of this rule is to achieve a 

20            reduction in emissions of high reactive organic 

21            compounds that promo- -- promote the formation of 

22            high levels of ozone.  

23                 The recommended approach is to establish a 

24            scale called the reactivity factor for each 

25            chemical compound that participates in the 



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 9           
      

 2            photochemical oxidant chemistry of ozone formation, 

 3            thus providing a means for substitution or 

 4            replacement of high reactive compounds currently in 

 5            use for improving ozone air quality.

 6                 In the preamble for the proposed rule, EPA 

 7            states the substitution of a less reactive VOC for 

 8            more reactive VOC can be effective in controlling 

 9            the ozone in episodes where NOx is at its highest 

10            levels, such as in urban areas, for example.  

11                 EPA goes on to state that the downwind ozone 

12            could increase due to upwind substitution of larger 

13            amounts of lesser reactive VOCs.  

14                 Contrary to EPA's assertion that realistic 

15            changes in the formulation are unlikely to result 

16            in noticeable increases in the ozone downwind, EPA 

17            does not actually know this to be the case.  This 

18            is important for the simple fact that ozone 

19            nonattainment areas in the Northeastern United 

20            States have the highest recorded ozone values 

21            downwind of the urban centers, and this effort has 

22            the potential to increase ozone in the very places 

23            where ozone reductions are most needed, confounding 

24            the ozone attainment plans that are being developed 

25            by the States.



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 10          
      

 2                 Also, increase in ozone in downwind areas of 

 3            urban centers could result in more impacts to 

 4            agricultural and forested areas of the country.  

 5            EPA needs to consider the impact this proposed rule 

 6            will have on agricultural and forest areas, 

 7            especially in light of the recently proposed 

 8            revisions to the secondary ozone NAAQS.  

 9                 The statements in the preamble, made related 

10            to future ozone levels, seem to be based on 

11            expectations rather than demonstrations bass- -- 

12            based on reference modeling efforts.

13                 Given the potential for further tightening of 

14            the current ozone NAAQS, it is critical that EPA 

15            perform such studies demonstrating that there would 

16            be no increases of downwind ozone, so that the 

17            implementation of this rule does not worsen the 

18            ozone nonattainment problem found in the 

19            Northeastern United States.

20                 EPA states that this rule would produce both 

21            VOC emissions and the amount of ozone generated 

22            from the use of -- in aerosol coatings.  This is 

23            not necessarily a guaranteed result, as a 

24            replacement of high reactive compounds with low 

25            reactive ones could potentially result in an 



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 11          
      

 2            increase of mass from VOCs emitted into the 

 3            atmosphere.  

 4                 Given the unknowns in photo-chemical 

 5            atmospheric chemistry, this increased mass is just 

 6            as likely to result in more ozone formation as  

 7            not.

 8                 This proposal could also have negative impacts 

 9            on other air pollution concerns, namely, increased 

10            emissions of hazardous air pollutants and increased 

11            ambient levels of PM2.5.  

12                 Table two in the proposed rule lists organic 

13            compounds with their reactivity, but does not 

14            include information developed by Carter's 

15            classification of relatively certain, or category 

16            one, or uncertainty less than a factor of two, 

17            category two, nor if the compound is a hazardous 

18            air pollutant.  In fact, the list includes known 

19            hazardous air pollutants with good toxicity 

20            information databases and health-based exposure 

21            values in chemicals that have minimal toxicity data 

22            associated with them.

23                 The list also contains chemicals, carbon 

24            tetrachloride and 1,1,1 - trichloroethane, with low 

25            reactivity factors that have been banned under 



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 12          
      

 2            Title VI of the clean -- of the Clean Air Act, 

 3            because they are considered stratospheric ozone 

 4            depletors. 

 5                 It appears that the toxicity of the chemicals 

 6            was not considered in this proposal.  For example, 

 7            benzene, a known human carcinogen has low react- -- 

 8            reactivity factor, zero point eight one (0.81), 

 9            while other less toxic chemicals have high 

10            reactivity factors.  So the possible end result 

11            will be the reformulation of an aerosol coating 

12            that contains more air toxics of concern.

13                The sample example holds true for the di- -- 

14            for the diisocyanate compounds listed in the 

15            proposal.  The reactivities for these highly tox- 

16            -- toxic compounds range from zero to zero point 

17            ninety-three (0.93).  

18                 Simply stated, EPA will overlook the fact -- 

19            basic fact that all VOCs are not equal when it 

20            comes down to their individual toxic potential.  

21                 In addition, claims are made regarding 

22            toxicity reductions from this proposed rule based 

23            on reduced xylene and toluene use, without any 

24            attempt to quantify them.  

25                 Since this rule has been in place in 



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 13          
      

 2            California for some years, EPA needs to analyze the 

 3            reformulation data from California to determine 

 4            whether the rule has improved ozone levels and if 

 5            it had any negative impact on product toxicity, and 

 6            whether those results could be translated to the 

 7            National market.  

 8                 EPA has not considered any negative co-effects 

 9            that may arise from the implementation of this rule 

10            on fine particulate matter, especially given the 

11            potential for increase in emissions of low reactive 

12            VOCs on a mass-basis and the impact this may have 

13            on the primary organic aerosol emissions and 

14            secondary organic aerosol formation.

15                 Given that PM2.5 nonattainment is coincident 

16            with ozone nonattainment in many areas throughout 

17            the country and with the revised PM2.5 NAAQS, this 

18            would be even more so in the near future.  

19                 EPA must look to the im- -- at the impacts of 

20            increasing the use of low reactive VOCs on PM2.5 

21            before setting up a regulatory framework to 

22            encourage the substitution.  This is supported by 

23            the conclusions in the June, 2007 Columbia 

24            Geosciences report to NARSTO, titled "The 

25            Reactivity Research Working Group".  



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 14          
      

 2                 This rule is unlikely to realize the ozone 

 3            benefits that EPA claims it will.  This is because 

 4            the rule provides for exemptions for small 

 5            manufacturers, companies that are not currently in 

 6            the California market, and variances if a 

 7            manufacturer cannot comply because of technological 

 8            or economic reasons.

 9                 Small entities, manufacturers with capacities 

10            not in excess of seventy-five hundred (7500) 

11            kilograms of total VOCs, are exempted if they 

12            provide an annual report to EPA that establishes 

13            that these products are properly exempted on a mass 

14            basis.

15                 If EPA finalizes this aspect of the 

16            regulation, it should include language that 

17            reflects that these small entities should provide 

18            information on a chemical basis, CAS -- CAS Number, 

19            in addition to the mass-based information.  

20                 If EPA is to pursue a reactivity-based rule, 

21            it should understand the nature of the products it 

22            exempts as well as those it regulates.  

23                 New York's experience with small manufacturers 

24            is that the -- is that nearly all entities that fit 

25            into this description will take advantage of this 



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 15          
      

 2            provision.  This exemption provision will have a 

 3            substantial impact on rule penetration.

 4                 It could also put these manufacturers in a  

 5            position of competitive advantage which they will 

 6            readily use to expand market share.  EPA needs to 

 7            monitor these entities closely to understand the 

 8            impacts this provision will have on rule   

 9            efficacy.

10                 The extension to January 1, 2011 for any 

11            product not currently in the California market will 

12            reduce the rule penetration and rule efficy (sic) 

13            -- rule efficacy until much after the attainment 

14            date for most areas around the country.  

15                 The variance provisions make quantification of 

16            the actual benefit of the proposed rule still more 

17            uncertain.  It's not possible to predict how many 

18            of these manufacturers will be able to satisfy the 

19            technology and economic hardship provisions of the 

20            rules going well into the future.  

21                 It is important for EPA to establish a 

22            centralized review of the variance provisions to 

23            assure the consistent Nationwide application of 

24            these provisions.

25                 In the May 30, 2007 guidance memorandum, 



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 16          
      

 2            emission reduction credit for three Federal Rules 

 3            for categories of consumer and commercial products 

 4            under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act, EPA 

 5            states, "it is working so that fully creditable 

 6            emission reductions will be achieved by January 1, 

 7            2009".  The extensions virtually -- the exemptions 

 8            virtually guarantee that the emissions reductions 

 9            will not be achieved in that time frame.

10                 EPA needs to adjust the emission crediting 

11            allowed for SIP purposes to account for this 

12            reduced efficacy as well as the impact of the in- 

13            -- small manufacturer exemption and variance 

14            provisions.

15                 The recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

16            of the proposed rule require manufacturers to 

17            report basic information to EPA regional office -- 

18            offices and keep on-site all formulation data for 

19            each batch of product for five years.  This brings 

20            to light a series of concerns related to the 

21            enforcement of these proposed regulations.

22                 The use of regional offices to collect 

23            National product information is cumbersome and 

24            unwise.  In fact, when the State of New York 

25            requested information on variance and exceedence 



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 17          
      

 2            fee reports completed under the national AIM rule 

 3            and sent to the regional offices, EPA could not 

 4            produce all of the reports because they were not 

 5            maintained.

 6                 Another concern is how EPA determined the 

 7            adequate length of time for retaining records to 

 8            determine compliance.  Has EPA determined how long 

 9            the product would remain on the shelf?  Is 

10            retaining the records of batch formulation for five 

11            years adequate for compliance purposes of these 

12            products?

13                 EPA suggests that the electronic reporting of 

14            this data to a centralized database would ease the 

15            enforcement of the rule.  We support that concept.  

16            Without fully -- without full electronic reporting 

17            of all formulation data and formal structure, the 

18            burden on EPA's compliance and enforcement staff 

19            would be too great to result in any effective 

20            enforcement.  Even with all this data, EPA would  

21            still need to get out into the field to determine 

22            if what's reported is what's happening.

23                 This requires a tremendous staff workload 

24            commitment, and the resources to perform the 

25            necessary testing to determine product compliance.  



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 18          
      

 2            EPA needs to identify the resources it will use to 

 3            assure the compliance.  To the best of my 

 4            knowledge, EPA's track record on enforcement of 

 5            section 183(e) consumer product regulations is 

 6            nonexistent.

 7                 I know of no single investigation related to 

 8            these regulations promulgated under section 183(e).  

 9            Please correct me if I'm misinformed.

10                 These proposed regulations are not practically 

11            enforceable.  Identifying the vis- -- individual 

12            compounds that make up an aerosol coating product 

13            makes the determination exponentially more 

14            difficult than mass-based VOC limits.  

15                 In order to determine compliance, EPA will 

16            need to know the formulation of every single 

17            aerosol coating product on the market. In addition, 

18            it will need to be able to readily access this 

19            information and be able to compare it to the 

20            reactivity limits in the proposed rule.  

21                 In order to avoid confusion and provide 

22            regulatory certainty, it should make baseline 

23            compliance determinations for each product 

24            formulation prior to rule implementation and at the 

25            time of each new reformulation.  



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 19          
      

 2                 Still, this does not assure that compliance as 

 3            each batch of product manufactured could have 

 4            somewhat different components than exist in the 

 5            baseline formulation.  While not necessarily 

 6            indicative of noncompliance, the company will need 

 7            to understand the tolerances this formulation has 

 8            respective to the reactivity limits in the proposed 

 9            rule.  So for each batch, the compliance 

10            determination needs to be made by the company to 

11            assure that it meets the prescribed formulation 

12            criteria.  

13                 How does EPA determine whether product on the 

14            shelf is in compliance?  

15                 It will need to determine the constituents of 

16            the product and whether those constituents meet the 

17            baseline formulation for which compliance is 

18            determined.  Since it is much more efficient to 

19            determine what's in the product if the constituents 

20            are already known, EPA will need to get the batch 

21            formulation data from the company before it begins 

22            its analysis.  

23                 Since each batch will differ slightly, or 

24            somewhat more based on the manufacturing controls, 

25            EPA will need to determine what -- if what is 



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 20          
      

 2            reported as constituents matches the actual 

 3            measured contents and if that actual formulation is 

 4            compliant or not. 

 5                 This does not even speak to the ability of 

 6            test results being -- to be able to be repeated or 

 7            confirmed.  This is a much more complicated 

 8            scenario than what needs to be done to determine 

 9            compliance with a mass-based VOC limit.

10                 Contrary to the statement in the preamble of 

11            the proposed rule that this regulation was needed 

12            because there's areas of the country that need VOC 

13            substitution strategies to address nonattainment 

14            issues, there are many opportunities to reduce VOC 

15            mass by implementing readily available and proven 

16            programs.

17                 Since most nonattainment areas around the 

18            country have not taken aggressive steps to limit 

19            VOCs, there are significant reductions that can be 

20            obtained from proven programs such as implementing 

21            RACT or updating decades-old RACT programs, fuel 

22            strategies, or other area source regulations -- 

23            consumer products, architectural coatings, Stage I 

24            vapor recovery.  

25                 EPA should look to adopt National programs for 



 1  Presentation/Mr. Sliwinski                   Vol. 1, p. 21          
      

 2            these emission sources before embarking into VOC 

 3            substitution with all the previously mentioned 

 4            complications and unknowns.

 5                 Is there an effective way to implement a 

 6            manageable National VOC aerosol coatings rule?  I 

 7            believe so.  

 8                 The 1996 CARB mass-based limits are 

 9            technologically feasible and reduce VOC emissions 

10            from this category by twelve percent (12%).  In 

11            addition, the 2002 CARB mass-based limits appear to 

12            be both feasible and available for some categories 

13            of aerosol coatings.  

14                 With all the uncertainty, especially the 

15            toxicity, PM two and a half (PM2.5), and downwind 

16            ozone, and enforceability concerns surrounding the 

17            proposed reactivity approach, which when fully 

18            implemented only yields an equivalent nineteen 

19            percent (19%) VOC benefit, EPA may be better served 

20            to establish a National rule based on the 1996 CARB 

21            rule amended with 2002 CARB mass-based limits known 

22            to be feasible.  This would be akin to what the 

23            States, Oregon and Washington, have adopted.

24                 Given that these limits are feasible for all 

25            manufacturers, the small manufacturer exemption, 



 1  Questions/EPA                                Vol. 1, p. 22          
      

 2            the extended compliance date of January 1, 2011 for 

 3            non-California products, and the variance 

 4            provisions would all be unnecessary.  

 5                 This approach would, therefore, achieve the 

 6            most reductions of the proposed without imparting 

 7            the serious concerns mentioned above.  EPA can then 

 8            undertake the necessary studies to address the 

 9            above concerns and not rely on expectations that 

10            may not hold to be true.

11                 I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to 

12            provide a comment on this important National rule 

13            for the State of -- for the State of New York and 

14            the Ozone Transport Commission.  

15                 We will be filing more complete comments by 

16            the August 30th deadline.  

17                 Thank you.

18            _________________________________________

19  

    

20                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Thank you, Mr. 

21            Sliwinski.  Does anyone have a clarifying question 

22            or comment for Mr. Sliwinski?

23                 MR. KEATING:  I have a question I'd like to 

24            ask.

25                 (No response.)



 1  Questions/EPA                                Vol. 1, p. 23          
      

 2                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Which one is on the 

 3            phone?

 4                 MR. KEATING:  This is Terry.

 5                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Terry and Geoff.  

 6            Anyone else?

 7                 MR. WILCOX:  Just me and Terry, I guess.  

 8                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Okay.

 9                 MR. BENNER:  And Tim Benner, as well.

10                 MR. MOORE:  Tim Benner.

11                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Tim Benner, Office of 

12            Research and Development.

13                 Does anyone on the phone have a clarifying 

14            question or comment for Mr. Sliwinski?

15                 MR. KEATING:  This is Terry.  I'd like to ask; 

16            you referred to what I thought was a June, 2007 

17            Columbia Geosciences report?

18                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  Yes, for NARSTO.

19                 MR. KEATING:  Thank you.  You said that was 

20            done through the Reactivity Research Working Group.

21                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  It was titled the "Reactivity 

22            Research Working Group", but it was done through 

23            NARSTO.

24                 MR. KEATING:  Okay.

25                 Is that -- I'm not sure I'm aware of that 



 1  Questions/EPA                                Vol. 1, p. 24          
      

 2            work.

 3                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  It was given to me by a 

 4            colleague, Nicole Paul-Sisla, with the State of New 

 5            York, and I looked at that and put it in my 

 6            comments.  Some of the conclusions they talk about 

 7            the entire process as well as the modeling; all of 

 8            the process of the reactivity versus the research 

 9            findings.

10                 MS. TEAL:  Will you be submitting those as 

11            part of your comments?

12                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  I could, I could.

13                 MS. TEAL:  Attached with your comment?

14                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  I could.  I believe it's 

15            available publicly, too.

16                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  I'm sorry.  Do you 

17            have any -- anything else to add Terry?  

18                 MR. KEATING:  It sure would be nice if that 

19            were submitted to us, because if that was done in 

20            response to the RWG, the RWG hasn't met for, you 

21            know, well over a year, and that was not part of 

22            any work plan, so it would be nice to know what -- 

23            you know, it would be nice to see that -- that 

24            document.

25                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  I don't know the context of 



 1  Questions/EPA                                Vol. 1, p. 25          
      

 2            the report other than what it is.  I wouldn't be 

 3            able to restate it.  It's a summary of the 

 4            activities.

 5                 MR. KEATING:  Okay.

 6                 BRUCE MOORE:  Bruce Moore.  I don't have a 

 7            clarifying question, but I would like to thank Rob, 

 8            and commend you on the quality of the presentation 

 9            and the well thought out comments you've provided, 

10            thank you.

11                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  You're welcome.

12                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Anyone else?

13                 MR. WILCOX:  I'd like to second what Bruce 

14            just said.  We appreciate the substantive input. 

15                 MS. TEAL:  Geoff Wilcox.

16                 MR. KEATING:  This is Terry.  Before we run 

17            away with Robert, I -- I'd like to ask -- you were 

18            asked about -- about EPA needing to look at the 

19            downwind impact, and the need to assess impact on 

20            agricultural impacts and other nonpublic health 

21            impact.  

22                 I'm wondering if you have a particular -- a 

23            particular study or, you know, modeling formulation 

24            in mind when -- when you say that?  

25                 Do you have an idea what you would like to see 



 1  Questions/EPA                                Vol. 1, p. 26          
      

 2            in terms of a modeling declaration?

 3                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  I'm not an expert in modeling, 

 4            so I -- I can't answer that question for you, but I 

 5            -- I could -- I assure you that we will have a more 

 6            fully -- fully developed comments along those lines 

 7            when we can get to our written conv- -- our written 

 8            comments.

 9                 MR. KEATING:  Okay.  

10                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Anyone else?

11                 MR. KEATING:  Thank you very much for the 

12            input.

13                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  You're welcome.  

14                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Okay.  Well, that 

15            concludes, then, our Public Hearing.  Thank you so 

16            much, Mr. Sliwinski, for attending.

17                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  Thank you.

18                 ______________________________

19                    (DISCUSSION OFF RECORD.)

20                 ______________________________

21  _____________________________________________________________

22      (WHEREUPON, THE HEARING WAS CONCLUDED AT 10:31 A.M.)

23  _____________________________________________________________

24  

25  



 1  Questions/EPA                                Vol. 1, p. 27          
      

 2  07-31-07:MPC:lpf:08-03-07

 3  

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



                                               Vol. 1, p.   28          
      

                       C E R T I F I C A T E

                       _____________________

                                  

                                  

              I, Manie P. Currin, Court Reporter and Notary 

         Public in and for the State of North Carolina, duly

         commissioned, qualified and authorized to take and

         certify hearings, do hereby certify that on Tuesday,

         July 31, 2007, I stenographically reported the foregoing

         hearing at the time and place aforesaid, and that same

         was reduced to typewritten form under my direct

         supervision; that the transcript contained herein, pages

         1-28 inclusive, is a true and correct transcription of

         said proceedings to the best of my ability and

         understanding; that I am not related to any of the

         parties to this action; that I am not of counsel; and

         that I am not interested in the event of this cause.

              IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand,

          this the 3rd day of August, 2007.

    

    

                               _______________________________

                                       COURT REPORTER

    

    

    

    

    Manie P. Currin and Associates, LLC

    Court Reporters

    203 East Industry Drive - Suite C

    Oxford, North Carolina  27565

    Telephone:  (919) 693-6954

    



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 29          
      

                           KEYWORD INDEX

                           _____________

    

     1.  aerosol                       21.  manufacturers

                                                         

     2.  air                           22.  mass

     3.  batch                         23.  NAAQS

     4.  California                    24.  NARSTO

     5.  CARB                          25.  New York

     6.  chemicals                     26.  organic

     7.  Clean Air                     27.  ozone

     8.  compound                      28.  PM2.5

     9.  compounds                     29.  proposal

    10.  downwind                      30.  proposed

    11.  emission                      31.  provisions

    12.  emissions                     32.  reactive

    13.  EPA                           33.  reactivity

    14.  exempted                      34.  regulation

    15.  exemption                     35.  reporting

    16.  exempts                       36.  research

    17.  formulation                   37.  rule

    18.  hazardous                     38.  source

    19.  impact                        39.  sources

    20.  manufacturer                  40.  standards

    

    

    



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 30          
      

                      KEYWORD INDEX  (Cont'd.)

                      ________________________

    

    41.  toxic                           

    42.  urban                             

    43.  variance                             

    44.  VOC                             

    45.  VOCs                             

              _____________________________________________

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 31          
      

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "aerosol"

    ____  _______          ___________________

    

    5      8  Aerosol Coatings, and this is a Public Hearing for 

    8     17  Standards for Aerosol Coatings, to be codified 

    10    22  from the use of -- in aerosol coatings.  This is 

    12    11  will be the reformulation of an aerosol coating 

    13    13  on the primary organic aerosol emissions and 

    13    14  secondary organic aerosol formation.

    18    12  compounds that make up an aerosol coating product 

    18    17  aerosol coating product on the market. In addition, 

    21     6  manageable National VOC aerosol coatings rule?  I 

    21    13  of aerosol coatings.  

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "air"

    ____  _______          _______________

    

    5     25  have Bill Johnson from the Office of Air Quality 

    6      3  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and 

    6      7  Teal, as well, from the Office of Air Quality 

    7     14  Director of Air Quality for the Division of Air 

    8      8  of the Clean Air Act responsible for advising EPA 

    9      5  use for improving ozone air quality.

    11     9  on other air pollution concerns, namely, increased 

    11    10  emissions of hazardous air pollutants and increased 

    11    18  air pollutant.  In fact, the list includes known 

    11    19  hazardous air pollutants with good toxicity 

    12     2  Title VI of the clean -- of the Clean Air Act, 

    12    12  that contains more air toxics of concern.

    16     4  under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act, EPA 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "batch"

    ____  _______          _________________

    

    16    19  each batch of product for five years.  This brings 

    17    10  retaining the records of batch formulation for five 

    19     3  each batch of product manufactured could have 

    19     9  rule.  So for each batch, the compliance 

    19    20  are already known, EPA will need to get the batch 

    19    23                 Since each batch will differ

              slightly, or 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "California"

    ____  _______          ______________________

    

    13     2  California for some years, EPA needs to analyze the 

    13     3  reformulation data from California to determine 

    14     6  the California market, and variances if a 

    15    11  product not currently in the California market will 

    22     3  non-California products, and the variance 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "CARB"

    ____  _______          ________________



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 32          
      

    

    21     8                 The 1996 CARB mass-based limits are 

    21    11  addition, the 2002 CARB mass-based limits appear to 

    21    20  to establish a National rule based on the 1996 CARB 

    21    21  rule amended with 2002 CARB mass-based limits known 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "chemicals"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    

    11    21  values in chemicals that have minimal toxicity data 

    11    23                 The list also contains chemicals,

              carbon 

    12     5                 It appears that the toxicity of the

              chemicals 

    12     9  while other less toxic chemicals have high 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "Clean Air"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    

    8      8  of the Clean Air Act responsible for advising EPA 

    12     2  Title VI of the clean -- of the Clean Air Act, 

    16     4  under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act, EPA 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "compound"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    

    5      7  Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for 

    8     25  chemical compound that participates in the 

    11    17  category two, nor if the compound is a hazardous 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "compounds"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    

    8     21  compounds that promo- -- promote the formation of 

    9      4  replacement of high reactive compounds currently in 

    10    24  replacement of high reactive compounds with low 

    11    13  compounds with their reactivity, but does not 

    12    14  for the diisocyanate compounds listed in the 

    12    16  -- toxic compounds range from zero to zero point 

    18    12  compounds that make up an aerosol coating product 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "downwind"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    

    9     11                 EPA goes on to state that the

              downwind ozone 

    9     16  in noticeable increases in the ozone downwind, EPA 

    9     21  downwind of the urban centers, and this effort has 

    10     2                 Also, increase in ozone in downwind

              areas of 

    10    16  be no increases of downwind ozone, so that the 

    21    15  toxicity, PM two and a half (PM2.5), and downwind 

    25    19  downwind impact, and the need to assess impact on 



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 33          
      

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "emission"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    

    5      7  Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for 

    8     16  proposed regulation, National VOC Emission 

    16     2  emission reduction credit for three Federal Rules 

    16     6  emission reductions will be achieved by January 1, 

    16    10                 EPA needs to adjust the emission

              crediting 

    21     2  these emission sources before embarking into VOC 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "emissions"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    

    8     20  reduction in emissions of high reactive organic 

    10    21  VOC emissions and the amount of ozone generated 

    11    10  emissions of hazardous air pollutants and increased 

    13    11  potential for increase in emissions of low reactive 

    13    13  on the primary organic aerosol emissions and 

    16     8  virtually guarantee that the emissions reductions 

    21     9  technologically feasible and reduce VOC emissions 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "EPA"

    ____  _______          _______________

    

    5     18  EPA/OAR. 

    7     18  Working Group established by the EPA representing 

    8      8  of the Clean Air Act responsible for advising EPA 

    8     13                 I'd like to thank EPA for scheduling

              this 

    9      6                 In the preamble for the proposed

              rule, EPA 

    9     11                 EPA goes on to state that the

              downwind ozone 

    9     14                 Contrary to EPA's assertion that

              realistic 

    9     16  in noticeable increases in the ozone downwind, EPA 

    10     5  EPA needs to consider the impact this proposed rule 

    10    14  the current ozone NAAQS, it is critical that EPA 

    10    20                 EPA states that this rule would

              produce both 

    12    18                 Simply stated, EPA will overlook the

              fact -- 

    13     2  California for some years, EPA needs to analyze the 

    13     8                 EPA has not considered any negative

              co-effects 

    13    19                 EPA must look to the im- -- at the

              impacts of 

    14     3  benefits that EPA claims it will.  This is because 

    14    12  provide an annual report to EPA that establishes 



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 34          
      

    14    15                 If EPA finalizes this aspect of the 

    14    20                 If EPA is to pursue a

              reactivity-based rule, 

    15     6  readily use to expand market share.  EPA needs to 

    15    21                 It is important for EPA to establish

              a 

    16     4  under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act, EPA 

    16    10                 EPA needs to adjust the emission

              crediting 

    16    17  report basic information to EPA regional office -- 

    17     3  and sent to the regional offices, EPA could not 

    17     6                 Another concern is how EPA

              determined the 

    17     8  determine compliance.  Has EPA determined how long 

    17    13                 EPA suggests that the electronic

              reporting of 

    17    18  burden on EPA's compliance and enforcement staff 

    17    20  enforcement.  Even with all this data, EPA would  

    18     2  EPA needs to identify the resources it will use to 

    18     4  knowledge, EPA's track record on enforcement of 

    18    15                 In order to determine compliance,

              EPA will 

    19    13                 How does EPA determine whether

              product on the 

    19    20  are already known, EPA will need to get the batch 

    19    25  EPA will need to determine what -- if what is 

    20    25                 EPA should look to adopt National

              programs for 

    21    19  percent (19%) VOC benefit, EPA may be better served 

    22     7  the serious concerns mentioned above.  EPA can then 

    25    18  asked about -- about EPA needing to look at the 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "exempted"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    

    14    11  kilograms of total VOCs, are exempted if they 

    14    13  that these products are properly exempted on a mass 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "exemption"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    

    15     2  provision.  This exemption provision will have a 

    16    13  -- small manufacturer exemption and variance 

    21    25  manufacturers, the small manufacturer exemption, 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "exempts"

    ____  _______          ___________________

    

    14    22  exempts as well as those it regulates.  

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "formulation"

    ____  _______          _______________________



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 35          
      

    

    9     15  changes in the formulation are unlikely to result 

    16    18  offices and keep on-site all formulation data for 

    17    10  retaining the records of batch formulation for five 

    17    17  of all formulation data and formal structure, the 

    18    16  need to know the formulation of every single 

    18    24  formulation prior to rule implementation and at the 

    19     5  baseline formulation.  While not necessarily 

    19     7  to understand the tolerances this formulation has 

    19    11  assure that it meets the prescribed formulation 

    19    17  baseline formulation for which compliance is 

    19    21  formulation data from the company before it begins 

    20     3  measured contents and if that actual formulation is 

    25    23  particular study or, you know, modeling formulation 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "hazardous"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    

    11    10  emissions of hazardous air pollutants and increased 

    11    17  category two, nor if the compound is a hazardous 

    11    19  hazardous air pollutants with good toxicity 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "impact"

    ____  _______          __________________

    

    10     5  EPA needs to consider the impact this proposed rule 

    13     5  it had any negative impact on product toxicity, and 

    13    12  VOCs on a mass-basis and the impact this may have 

    15     3  substantial impact on rule penetration.

    16    12  reduced efficacy as well as the impact of the in- 

    25    19  downwind impact, and the need to assess impact on 

    25    21  impact.  

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "manufacturer"

    ____  _______          ________________________

    

    14     7  manufacturer cannot comply because of technological 

    16    13  -- small manufacturer exemption and variance 

    21    25  manufacturers, the small manufacturer exemption, 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "manufacturers"

    ____  _______          _________________________

    

    14     5  manufacturers, companies that are not currently in 

    14     9                 Small entities, manufacturers with

              capacities 

    14    23                 New York's experience with small

              manufacturers 

    15     4                 It could also put these

              manufacturers in a  

    15    18  of these manufacturers will be able to satisfy the 

    16    16  of the proposed rule require manufacturers to 



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 36          
      

    21    25  manufacturers, the small manufacturer exemption, 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "mass"

    ____  _______          ________________

    

    11     2  increase of mass from VOCs emitted into the 

    11     5  atmospheric chemistry, this increased mass is just 

    13    12  VOCs on a mass-basis and the impact this may have 

    14    13  that these products are properly exempted on a mass 

    14    19  in addition to the mass-based information.  

    18    14  difficult than mass-based VOC limits.  

    20     9  compliance with a mass-based VOC limit.

    20    15  mass by implementing readily available and proven 

    21     8                 The 1996 CARB mass-based limits are 

    21    11  addition, the 2002 CARB mass-based limits appear to 

    21    21  rule amended with 2002 CARB mass-based limits known 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "NAAQS"

    ____  _______          _________________

    

    10     8  revisions to the secondary ozone NAAQS.  

    10    14  the current ozone NAAQS, it is critical that EPA 

    13    17  the country and with the revised PM2.5 NAAQS, this 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "NARSTO"

    ____  _______          __________________

    

    8      2  Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone, or NARSTO.  

    13    24  Geosciences report to NARSTO, titled "The 

    23    18                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  Yes, for NARSTO.

    23    23  NARSTO.

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "New York"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    

    5     11  Mr. Robert Sliwinski, of the New York State 

    7     15  Resources at New York State Department of 

    7     19  the State of New York and the Ozone Transport 

    8      4  State of New York and the Ozone Transport 

    14    23                 New York's experience with small

              manufacturers 

    16    24  unwise.  In fact, when the State of New York 

    22    13  for the State of -- for the State of New York and 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "organic"

    ____  _______          ___________________

    

    5      7  Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for 

    8     20  reduction in emissions of high reactive organic 

    11    12                 Table two in the proposed rule lists

              organic 

    13    13  on the primary organic aerosol emissions and 

    13    14  secondary organic aerosol formation.



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 37          
      

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "ozone"

    ____  _______          _________________

    

    7     19  the State of New York and the Ozone Transport 

    8      2  Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone, or NARSTO.  

    8      4  State of New York and the Ozone Transport 

    8      5  Commission.  The Ozone Transport Commission is a 

    8     11  ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 

    8     22  high levels of ozone.  

    9      2  photochemical oxidant chemistry of ozone formation, 

    9      5  use for improving ozone air quality.

    9      9  the ozone in episodes where NOx is at its highest 

    9     11                 EPA goes on to state that the

              downwind ozone 

    9     16  in noticeable increases in the ozone downwind, EPA 

    9     18  is important for the simple fact that ozone 

    9     20  States have the highest recorded ozone values 

    9     22  the potential to increase ozone in the very places 

    9     23  where ozone reductions are most needed, confounding 

    9     24  the ozone attainment plans that are being developed 

    10     2                 Also, increase in ozone in downwind

              areas of 

    10     8  revisions to the secondary ozone NAAQS.  

    10    10  to future ozone levels, seem to be based on 

    10    14  the current ozone NAAQS, it is critical that EPA 

    10    16  be no increases of downwind ozone, so that the 

    10    18  ozone nonattainment problem found in the 

    10    21  VOC emissions and the amount of ozone generated 

    11     6  as likely to result in more ozone formation as  

    12     3  because they are considered stratospheric ozone 

    13     4  whether the rule has improved ozone levels and if 

    13    16  with ozone nonattainment in many areas throughout 

    14     2                 This rule is unlikely to realize the

              ozone 

    21    16  ozone, and enforceability concerns surrounding the 

    22    14  the Ozone Transport Commission.  

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "PM2.5"

    ____  _______          _________________

    

    11    11  ambient levels of PM2.5.  

    13    15                 Given that PM2.5 nonattainment is

              coincident 

    13    17  the country and with the revised PM2.5 NAAQS, this 

    13    20  increasing the use of low reactive VOCs on PM2.5 

    21    15  toxicity, PM two and a half (PM2.5), and downwind 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "proposal"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 38          
      

    11     8                 This proposal could also have

              negative impacts 

    12     6  was not considered in this proposal.  For example, 

    12    15  proposal.  The reactivities for these highly tox- 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "proposed"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    

    5      9  that particular proposed rule.  

    8     16  proposed regulation, National VOC Emission 

    9      6                 In the preamble for the proposed

              rule, EPA 

    10     5  EPA needs to consider the impact this proposed rule 

    10     7  especially in light of the recently proposed 

    11    12                 Table two in the proposed rule lists

              organic 

    12    22  toxicity reductions from this proposed rule based 

    15    16  the actual benefit of the proposed rule still more 

    16    16  of the proposed rule require manufacturers to 

    16    21  enforcement of these proposed regulations.

    18    10                 These proposed regulations are not

              practically 

    18    20  reactivity limits in the proposed rule.  

    19     8  respective to the reactivity limits in the proposed 

    20    11  the proposed rule that this regulation was needed 

    21    17  proposed reactivity approach, which when fully 

    22     6  most reductions of the proposed without imparting 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "provisions"

    ____  _______          ______________________

    

    15    15                 The variance provisions make

              quantification of 

    15    19  technology and economic hardship provisions of the 

    15    22  centralized review of the variance provisions to 

    15    24  these provisions.

    16    14  provisions.

    22     4  provisions would all be unnecessary.  

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "reactive"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    

    8     20  reduction in emissions of high reactive organic 

    9      4  replacement of high reactive compounds currently in 

    9      7  states the substitution of a less reactive VOC for 

    9      8  more reactive VOC can be effective in controlling 

    9     13  amounts of lesser reactive VOCs.  

    10    24  replacement of high reactive compounds with low 

    10    25  reactive ones could potentially result in an 

    13    11  potential for increase in emissions of low reactive 

    13    20  increasing the use of low reactive VOCs on PM2.5 



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 39          
      

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "reactivity"

    ____  _______          ______________________

    

    7     17                 I was a member of the Reactivity

              Research 

    7     21                 The Reactivity Research Working

              Group was 

    7     23  for reactivity-related policies and was proceeding 

    8     24  scale called the reactivity factor for each 

    11    13  compounds with their reactivity, but does not 

    11    25  reactivity factors that have been banned under 

    12     8  reactivity factor, zero point eight one (0.81), 

    12    10  reactivity factors.  So the possible end result 

    13    25  Reactivity Research Working Group".  

    14    20                 If EPA is to pursue a

              reactivity-based rule, 

    18    20  reactivity limits in the proposed rule.  

    19     8  respective to the reactivity limits in the proposed 

    21    17  proposed reactivity approach, which when fully 

    23    20  done through the Reactivity Research Working Group.

    23    21                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  It was titled the

              "Reactivity 

    24     8  the process of the reactivity versus the research 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "regulation"

    ____  _______          ______________________

    

    8     16  proposed regulation, National VOC Emission 

    14    16  regulation, it should include language that 

    20    11  the proposed rule that this regulation was needed 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "reporting"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    

    16    15                 The recordkeeping and reporting

              requirements 

    17    13                 EPA suggests that the electronic

              reporting of 

    17    16  Without fully -- without full electronic reporting 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "research"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    

    7     17                 I was a member of the Reactivity

              Research 

    7     21                 The Reactivity Research Working

              Group was 

    7     25  were transferred to the North American Research 

    13    25  Reactivity Research Working Group".  

    23    12  Research and Development.

    23    20  done through the Reactivity Research Working Group.



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 40          
      

    23    22  Research Working Group", but it was done through 

    24     8  the process of the reactivity versus the research 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "rule"

    ____  _______          ________________

    

    5      9  that particular proposed rule.  

    8     19                 The intent of this rule is to

              achieve a 

    9      6                 In the preamble for the proposed

              rule, EPA 

    10     5  EPA needs to consider the impact this proposed rule 

    10    17  implementation of this rule does not worsen the 

    10    20                 EPA states that this rule would

              produce both 

    11    12                 Table two in the proposed rule lists

              organic 

    12    22  toxicity reductions from this proposed rule based 

    12    25                 Since this rule has been in place in 

    13     4  whether the rule has improved ozone levels and if 

    13     9  that may arise from the implementation of this rule 

    14     2                 This rule is unlikely to realize the

              ozone 

    14     4  the rule provides for exemptions for small 

    14    20                 If EPA is to pursue a

              reactivity-based rule, 

    15     3  substantial impact on rule penetration.

    15     8  impacts this provision will have on rule   

    15    12  reduce the rule penetration and rule efficy (sic) 

    15    13  -- rule efficacy until much after the attainment 

    15    16  the actual benefit of the proposed rule still more 

    16    16  of the proposed rule require manufacturers to 

    17     2  fee reports completed under the national AIM rule 

    17    15  enforcement of the rule.  We support that concept.  

    18    20  reactivity limits in the proposed rule.  

    18    24  formulation prior to rule implementation and at the 

    19     9  rule.  So for each batch, the compliance 

    20    11  the proposed rule that this regulation was needed 

    21     6  manageable National VOC aerosol coatings rule?  I 

    21    20  to establish a National rule based on the 1996 CARB 

    21    21  rule amended with 2002 CARB mass-based limits known 

    22    12  provide a comment on this important National rule 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "source"

    ____  _______          __________________

    

    20    22  strategies, or other area source regulations -- 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "sources"

    ____  _______          ___________________

    



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 41          
      

    21     2  these emission sources before embarking into VOC 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "standards"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    

    5      7  Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for 

    6      2  Planning Standards; Kenyetta Johnson from the 

    6      3  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and 

    6      8  Planning and Standards.

    8     17  Standards for Aerosol Coatings, to be codified 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "toxic"

    ____  _______          _________________

    

    12     9  while other less toxic chemicals have high 

    12    16  -- toxic compounds range from zero to zero point 

    12    20  comes down to their individual toxic potential.  

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "urban"

    ____  _______          _________________

    

    9     10  levels, such as in urban areas, for example.  

    9     21  downwind of the urban centers, and this effort has 

    10     3  urban centers could result in more impacts to 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "variance"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    

    15    15                 The variance provisions make

              quantification of 

    15    22  centralized review of the variance provisions to 

    16    13  -- small manufacturer exemption and variance 

    16    25  requested information on variance and exceedence 

    22     3  non-California products, and the variance 

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "VOC"

    ____  _______          _______________

    

    8     16  proposed regulation, National VOC Emission 

    9      7  states the substitution of a less reactive VOC for 

    9      8  more reactive VOC can be effective in controlling 

    10    21  VOC emissions and the amount of ozone generated 

    18    14  difficult than mass-based VOC limits.  

    20     9  compliance with a mass-based VOC limit.

    20    12  because there's areas of the country that need VOC 

    20    14  issues, there are many opportunities to reduce VOC 

    21     2  these emission sources before embarking into VOC 

    21     6  manageable National VOC aerosol coatings rule?  I 

    21     9  technologically feasible and reduce VOC emissions 

    21    19  percent (19%) VOC benefit, EPA may be better served 

    



    EPA/VOC/Aerosols       Keyword Index         Vol. 1, p. 42          
      

    

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "VOCs"

    ____  _______          ________________

    

    9     13  amounts of lesser reactive VOCs.  

    11     2  increase of mass from VOCs emitted into the 

    12    19  basic fact that all VOCs are not equal when it 

    13    12  VOCs on a mass-basis and the impact this may have 

    13    20  increasing the use of low reactive VOCs on PM2.5 

    14    11  kilograms of total VOCs, are exempted if they 

    20    19  VOCs, there are significant reductions that can be 

              _________________________________________

    



