	 

NATIONAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND

EMISSION STANDARDS

FOR AEROSOL COATINGS

Summary of Public Comments and Responses

Natural Resources and Commence Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

November 15, 2007

	1.0 SUMMARY

On July 16, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed
national volatile organic emission standards for Aerosol Coatings
(72 FR 38951) under authority of section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act
(Act).  Public comments were requested on the proposal in the Federal
Register.  There were 18 commenters composed mainly of aerosol coating
manufacturers /distributors, States, public organizations, and industry
trade associations.

All of the comments that were submitted, along with responses to these
comments, are summarized in this document.  The summary of comments and
responses serves as the basis for the revisions made to the standards
between proposal and promulgation.

A list acronyms and abbreviations used in this document follows:

AIM		Architectural & Industrial Maintenance

BAC		Best Available Controls

CAA		Clean Air Act

CARB		California Air Resources Board

	CAS		Chemical Abstracts Service

	CASRN	Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number

EPA		United States Environmental Protection Agency 

FIFRA		Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act

HAP		Hazardous Air Pollutants

IVOC		Intermediate Volatility VOC

MACT		Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MC		Methylene Chloride

MIR		Maximum Incremental Reactivity

NAAQS	National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NARSTO 	North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone

NEI		National Emission Inventory

NESCAUM	Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

NESHAPS 	National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants	

NOx		Nitrogen oxides

OAR		Office of Air and Radiation

	OSHA		Occupational Safety and Health Act

	OTC		Ozone Transport Commission

POA		Primary Organic Aerosols

PM		Particulate Matter

PWR		Product Weighted Reactivity

RACT		Reasonably Available Control Technology

SIP		State Implementation Plan

RRWG	Reactivity Research Working Group

SOA		Secondary Organic Aerosols

SVOC		Semivolatile VOC

	VOC		Volatile Organic Compounds



	2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS

A total of 18 letters commenting on the proposed standards and the
background information for the proposed standards were received.  A
public hearing, with one presenter, was also held.  A list of the
commenters, their affiliations, and EPA docket number assigned to their
correspondence is given in table 2-1.  Table 2-1 also presents the
docket numbers for each comment letter, as well as a reference code,
used to identify specific commenters in the comment summary sections,
for each substantive comment letter.  The comment letters without
reference letters were short letters submitted in support of the
proposed rule, which are not summarized in this document.

The comments have been categorized under the following areas:

Best Available Controls: Mass versus Reactivity-Based Limits

Robustness of Relative Reactivity Scale

Particulate Matter, Stratospheric Ozone, and Toxic Impacts 

Regulated Entities and Small Business Exemption

Compliance Demonstration Requirements and Enforcement

Emission Reduction / SIP Credit

Clarifications / Specific Rule Questions

	TABLE 2-1.  LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED 

	NATIONAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND

EMISSION STANDARDS

FOR AEROSOL COATINGS

Docket Number ADVANCE \u2 a	

Reference used in this document	

Commenter and affiliation

	AA

	Robert Sliwinski

Division of Air Resources

NY State Department of Environmental Conservation

 [Speaking on behalf of NY and the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)]-
Public Hearing Comment

0034.1	BB	Heidi McAuliffe, Esq.

Counsel, Government Affairs

National Paint & Coatings Association

1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  2005-5597

0030.1	CC	Diane Nash

Manager, Quality Systems and Health, Safety & Environment

Akzo Nobel Car Refinishes North America

30 Brush Street

Pontiac, Michigan  48341

0035.1	DD	Arthur N. Marin

Executive Director

NESCAUM

101 Merrimac Street, 10th Floor

Boston, Massachusetts 02114

0038.1	EE	Anna Garcia

Acting Executive Director

Ozone Transport Commission

444 N. Capitol Street, NW

Suite 638

Washington, D.C. 20001

0041.1	FF	Sharon H. Kneiss

Vice President, Products Development

American Chemical Council- Solvent Industry Group

1300 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, Virginia  22209



0042.1	GG	Ann R. Gobin

Chief, Bureau of Air Management

Department of Environmental Protection

State of Connecticut

79 Elm Street

Hartford, Connecticut  06106-5127

0039.1	HH	Stephen P. Risetto

Executive Director

Halogenated Solvent Industry Alliance

1300 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, Virginia  22209

0040.1 through 0040.5	II	Patrice Simms

Senior Project Attorney

Natural Resources Defense Council



0043	JJ	D. Douglas Fratz, Vice President, Scientific and Technical
Affairs

Joseph T. Yost, Director, State Affairs

Consumer Specialty Products Association

900 17th Street, NW  Suite 300

Washington, D.C.  20006

0043.1	KK	Guo Lisheng

China WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry Center

Standard and Regulation Research Center

AQSIQ

P.R. China

0031.1

Roger R. Vanderlaan

Shield Packaging of CA

5165 G Street

Chino, California  91710

0033

Douglas Raymond

National Aerosol Association

djraymond@reg-resources.com

0027.1

Gary Silvers

Vice President, Research and Development

Meguiar’s

17991 Mitchell South

Irvine, California  92614

0026.1

Chad Moline

IKI Manufacturing Co, Inc.

116 N. Swift Street

Edgerton, Wisconsin  53534

0029.1

Jerry Ulrich

President

Four Star Chemical

3137 East 26th Street

Los Angeles, California  90023

0028.1

Michael Bell

Vice President

 BAF Industries

1451 Edinger Avenue, Suite F

Tustin, California  97280

0036

Steve Gaver

Technical Director

SEM Products, Inc.

651 Michael Wylie Drive

Charlotte, North Carolina 28217









 ADVANCE \u2 a ADVANCE \d2  The docket number for the Aerosol Coating
rule docket is EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971.

 ADVANCE \u2 

	

       Selection of Regulated Pollutant and Format of Regulation  

	Comment:  Eight commenters (AA, BB, DD, EE, FF, GG, II, and JJ)
commented on the use of a reactivity based rule versus a mass-based
rule.  Three commenters supported the reactivity-based rule, five
commenters raised concerns.  Below the supportive comments are
summarized first, followed by the concerns.  

	Three commenters (BB, FF, and JJ) supported EPA’s reactivity-based
rulemaking.  One commenter (BB), who also supported the development of
CARB’s reactivity-based rule, stated that EPA did a good job in
evaluating the reactivity regulation in California and the feasibility
of making it apply nationwide.  The commenter believes that EPA has
taken a “bold step forward in the arena of air quality regulations.”
 Another commenter (JJ) stated that they “strongly concur with the
reasoning provided in the preamble to the proposed rule regarding the
use of relative reactivity in general, and the Maximum Incremental
Reactivity (MIR) scale in particular, in national as well as local ozone
attainment strategies.”  This commenter further stated that the
reactivity-based rules do not unreasonably increase industry costs.  In
fact, the commenter stated that a reactivity-based approach would be
more cost-effective.  

	Another commenter (FF) stated that “[t]he rule is an important
advancement in the use of reactivity-based emissions regulations for
VOCs.”  The commenter provided the following points in support of this
rule and the future use of reactivity-based VOC emission limits in other
consumer product and coating standards:

Reactivity-based VOC emission regulations are more appropriate and
effective for addressing the environmental concern of interest, ozone
formation potential.  

This national proposed rule is based on an established CARB regulation
for aerosol coatings which has already been approved by EPA and in use
for several years. 

Reactivity-based VOC emission regulations provide product formulators
with more options for meeting environmental performance standards while
providing technically feasible product performance, and stimulating
future product development enhancements.  

There is evidence that lower mass-based VOC limits in some products may
be leading to the increased use of more photochemically reactive VOCs,
eliminating some of the anticipated environmental benefit (ozone
reduction) of these regulations, and possibly increasing the actual
ozone formation potential of the products themselves.

Two commenters (FF, JJ) stated that the reactivity-based approach is
consistent with the Agency’s September 2005 “Interim Guidance on
Control of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation
Plans,” which according to one commenter (FF) specifically
“encourages states to consider recent scientific information on the
photochemical reactivity of volatile organic compounds in the
development of state implementation plans designed to meet the national
ambient air quality standards for ozone [70 FR 54046-54051; September
13, 2005].”  The commenter (FF) concluded that reactivity-based VOC
standards should not be considered “only as a supplement to mass-based
approaches, but as a scientifically valid and appropriate means for
controlling ozone formation.”  The commenter also stated that in its
approval of the CARB regulation EPA appropriately stated that the
reactivity-based rule will improve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
in part by "creating an incentive for the use of solvents with
relatively low contribution to ozone formation [70 FR 1642].”  The
commenter (FF) further stated that some VOC mass-based limits in the
previous version of CARB's aerosol coatings rule "presented particularly
difficult reformulation challenges" for product manufacturers [70 FR
1642].  The commenter noted that EPA correctly noted that CARB's
regulation will preserve the air quality benefits of its previous rule,
while at the same time allowing manufacturers greater flexibility in
reformulating their products, by replacing existing mass-based VOC
limits for aerosol spray coatings with reactivity-based limits that are
designed to achieve equivalent air quality benefits [70 FR 1642].  The
commenter concluded that expanding this aerosol coating regulation to
the rest of the United States expands the benefits of this working
reactivity-based VOC regulation to other areas of the United States
where ozone formation is a concern, while allowing aerosol coating
manufacturers to develop single formulations for the entire United
States.  Another commenter (JJ) stated that reactivity-based approaches
should be considered in all ozone attainment evaluations for both VOC
and NOx.

	The commenter (FF) stated that the reactivity-bases approaches “can
help product formulators meet increasingly stringent environmental
requirements without compromising the efficacy of the formulated
products.”  The commenter further stated (FF) that:

The latter point has a direct bearing on the effectiveness of
environmental programs; products that do not work well can lead to
greater environmental impacts. For example, coatings that do not last as
long need to be applied more often, and cleaners that are not as
effective may need to be used in greater quantities. In both cases, the
net result can be an increase in total environmental emissions over
time, which can offset projected gains from reduced VOC content in each
individual product. A reactivity-based approach that allows formulators
the flexibility to use the most effective solvents while meeting
environmental requirements can lead to reduced environmental impacts
both in the near-term product reformulations and in the development of
future products.

	Five commenters (AA, DD, EE, GG, and II) raised concerns over the use
of a reactivity based approach.  Two commenters (DD, GG) believe that a
reactivity-based approach may have merit, but only if such an approach
“first addresses many unanswered questions about the potential adverse
impact of such an approach on other equally important, if not more so,
components of air quality management programs, namely, the effect on
ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) levels (and the resulting
nonattainment of the daily and annual federal PM2.5 standards) and air
toxics.”  The commenters also raised the issues of downwind ozone
impacts and enforceability.  Another commenter (EE) agreed that the use
of reactivity may have merit, but stated that it is premature for use in
a national rule “as there are many unanswered questions related to
ozone impacts, other air pollution impacts, and enforceability compared
with a mass-based approach.”

	One commenter (II) provided an extensive history of the evolution of
EPA’s use of reactivity, noting that EPA is not obligated to issue a
reactivity-based regulation.  The commenter pointed out that the
required reactivity-based portion of EPA’s obligation under §183(e)
was fulfilled during the listing process.  The commenter stated that:

The appropriateness of today’s proposal depends on whether or not EPA
has adequately addressed the complexity and uncertainties associated
with reactivity-based regulation to ensure that such regulation will
achieve the reductions in ozone predicted on a nationwide scale and be
at least as protective to the public as mass-based regulation of VOC
emissions.

The commenter (II) stated that, while the proposal appears to address
some of the identified uncertainties “to some degree, it is far from
clear that EPA has fully verified the appropriateness of a
reactivity-based approach in the context of a national rulemaking and
taken steps to ensure that the rule will result in the expected benefits
in every affected airshed.”  The commenter stated that EPA appeared to
suggest that the study by the Reactivity Research Working Group “fully
disposes of concerns regarding possible geographical/environmental
difference in VOC reactivity nation-wide.”  However, the commenter
concluded that “this justification appears far too qualified and
equivocal to form the basis of a nationwide regulatory program,”
citing a “similarly unconvincing” “two sentence justification”
in the proposal preamble.  The commenter was also concerned that the
decision for this national rule seemed to be based on the same studies
that were used to justify previous approval of a program for only
California.

	Because of the concerns discussed above, two commenters (AA, EE)
advocated for the use of a mass-based rule.  The commenters pointed to
the uncertainty of the use of a reactivity-based approach, including
concerns over the toxicity of pollutants that are used as substitutes,
the potential inter-relationship with PM2.5 issues, downwind ozone, and
enforceability concerns.  The commenters concluded that, given these
concerns, and the fact that a fully implemented rule only yields a
benefit equivalent to a 19 percent reduction of VOC, that EPA may be
“better served to establish a National rule based on the 1996 CARB
rule amended with 2002 mass-based limits known to be feasible.”  The
commenters stated that this is the approach used by two other states,
Oregon and Washington, who have aerosol coating rules.  One commenter
(AA) further stated that since these limits would be feasible for all
manufacturers, the small manufacturer exemption, the extended compliance
date, and the variance provisions would all be unnecessary.  Therefore,
the commenter concluded, this approach would achieve the most reductions
and would allow EPA time to conduct the required investigations to
address issues and not “rely on expectations that may not hold to be
true.”  One commenter (II) stated that “EPA appears to have
neglected to consider an approach that combines mass-based and
reactivity-based components.”  Another commenter (KK) stated that the
MIR values should be reviewed by a third party before their use in this
rule.

	Response:  Under Clean Air Act section 183(e), EPA is charged with
developing regulations that implement best available controls for the
purposes of decreasing ground-level ozone formation.  For aerosol
coatings, EPA believes that the proposed reactivity-based regulation is
best available control.  The reactivity-based limits are based on those
adopted in CARB’s reactivity-based rule and are designed to achieve
the same decrease in ozone formation that would have been achieved by
CARB’s 2002 mass-based limits, which are lower than CARB’s 1996
mass-based limits.  However, while some of CARB’s 2002 mass-based
limits are now considered unfeasible and are not in force, the
reactivity-based limits are now in effect and manufacturers are
producing and selling compliant products.  Oregon and Washington have
adopted CARB’s 1996 mass-based limits.  However, even if these limits
were lowered for some categories to the 2002 limits, where deemed
feasible, this hybrid approach proposed by the commenters would not
achieve the same level of ozone decrease that the reactivity-based
limits will.  Furthermore, it is not clear that manufacturers who are
not currently subject to the CARB reactivity-based limits would have any
more or less difficulty meeting the hybrid mass limits than they would
meeting the reactivity-based limits in the proposed rule.  In other
words, any mass-based rule would also likely include provisions for
small businesses and other variances.  

	The determination of best available control depends on EPA’s
determination that the proposed relative reactivity factors can be used
to reasonably predict the changes in the ozone formation that will occur
due to changes in the emissions from this source category.  After
thoughtful consideration of the available research, EPA believes that
this determination is justified.  As described by commenter (II), EPA
has followed and contributed to the development of the science
underlying reactivity-based regulations since such an approach was
proposed in the early 1990s.  EPA’s position on the acceptability of
reactivity scales has evolved along with the science.  The most recent
results of research performed under the Reactivity Research Working
Group, cited in the preamble, provide evidence that the relative
reactivity factors in the proposed rule are reasonably robust over a
wide variety of environmental conditions.  Concerns about the potential
for increased ozone downwind are addressed in a separate section below. 
Although the recent research suggests that other reactivity scales may
more accurately represent the behavior of ozone in current air quality
models, it is not clear that emission limits based on these scales would
be achievable or that the use of a different scale would lead to
significantly different ozone decreases from this source category. 
Furthermore, emission limits based on a different scale than that used
by CARB would lead to increased costs to comply.  Therefore, EPA
believes that use of the proposed relative reactivity factors is
reasonable and will lead to net decreases of ground-level ozone.  The
consideration of fine particle formation, toxics exposures, and
stratospheric ozone depletion are addressed below in a separate section,
as are concerns about the complexity of enforcement. 

	Comment:  One commenter (AA) disagreed with EPA’s statement in the
preamble that this regulation was needed because there are areas of the
country that need VOC substitution strategies to address nonattainment
issues.  The commenter (AA) argued that there are many opportunities to
reduce VOC mass by implementing readily available and proven programs,
“before embarking into VOC substitution.”  The commenter continued
that most nonattainment areas around the country have not taken
aggressive steps to limit VOCs; therefore, they contend that there are
significant reductions that can be obtained from programs, such as
implementing RACT or updating decades-old RACT programs, fuel strategies
, and other area source regulations like consumer products,
architectural coatings, and Stage I vapor recovery.

	Response:  Several of the commenters, including this commenter (AA),
inaccurately portray the choice between mass-based emission limits and
reactivity-based emission limits as a choice between emission reductions
and emission substitutions.  For aerosol coating products, any new
emission limitation, whether it is mass-based or reactivity-based, will
be achieved by reformulating the product, changing the composition of
the associated emissions.  With a reactivity-based limit, the
reformulation will be guided by relative reactivity factors that will
encourage manufacturers to use lower reactivity compounds and will limit
the overall ozone formation associated with the product.  All of the VOC
components are included in the calculation; no compounds are exempted. 
With a mass-based limit, manufacturers are encouraged to shift to more
powerful solvents, which are often higher in reactivity, and to use
VOC-exempt compounds, the use of which is not limited and which may have
non-negligible contributions to ozone formation if used in large enough
quantities.  There is no explicit limit on the ozone formation
associated with the product.  The precise impacts (on ozone, fine
particles, air toxics, or other environmental endpoint of concern) of
either a reactivity-based or mass-based set of emission limits are
difficult to predict given the reformulations that may be used to
achieve the limits.  However, reactivity-based limits derived using a
reasonable set of relative reactivity factors provides the appropriate
incentives to shift formulations to lower reactivity compounds and limit
the overall ozone contribution of the affected products.  

	The commenter’s (AA) assertion that reactivity-based regulations
should not be pursued until other mass-based VOC control measures,
including RACT, have been implemented or strengthened is irrelevant to
the decision of how EPA fulfills its obligations under Clean Air Act
section 183(e) to implement best available controls.  However, EPA does
believe that traditional mass-based VOC control measures continue to be
effective tools for addressing VOC contributions to ozone nonattainment
problems in many situations and that reactivity-based control measures
are most useful where mass-based controls have reached the limits of
technological feasibility.  In the case of aerosol coatings, EPA has
determined that it is possible to use reactivity-based limits go beyond
what is achievable with mass-based limits, and therefore, has found
reactivity-based limits to be best available control.  

Downwind Effects and Robustness of Relative Reactivity Scale 

Comment:  Five commenters (AA, DD, FF, GG, and II) commented on the
state of the science of reactivity and whether EPA’s statements about
the science of reactivity were correct.  Three commenters (AA, DD, and
GG) questioned EPA’s assertion that the expected realistic changes in
the formulation of aerosol products are unlikely to result in noticeable
increases in ozone downwind of the source.  One commenter (AA) stated
that EPA does not know this to be the case.  The commenter asserted that
this issue is important “for the simple fact that ozone non-attainment
areas in the Northeastern United States have the highest recorded ozone
values downwind of urban centers, and this effort has the potential to
increase ozone in the very place where ozone reductions are most needed,
confounding the ozone attainment plans that are being developed by the
states.”  The commenter also stated that increased ozone downwind from
urban centers could result in more impacts to agricultural and forested
areas of the country.  The second commenter (DD) reiterated these
positions.

One commenter (AA) further stated that the statements made in the
preamble related to future ozone levels seem to be based on expectations
rather than demonstrations based on modeling efforts.  He encouraged
EPA, given the potential for further tightening of the current ozone
NAAQS,  to perform studies demonstrating that there would be no increase
in downwind ozone “so that the implementation of this rule does not
worsen ozone nonattainment problems found in the Northeastern United
States.”

	Response:  EPA recognizes commenter’s concerns about downwind ozone
formation but continues to believe that the VOC reformulations resulting
from this reactivity-based regulation will reduce overall ozone
formation and exposure.  First, any enhancements of downwind ozone
caused by upwind substitution of larger amounts of less reactive VOCs
are expected to be smaller than the concurrent reductions of upwind
ozone.  Carter et al. (2003), in modeling large-scale VOC substitution
scenarios, found larger local ozone reductions and smaller downwind
ozone increases.  Similarly, Arunachalam et al. (2003) found that
“high-versus-low reactivity substitution” is “an effective
strategy for reducing high levels of ozone,” especially in or downwind
of urban areas.  In a modeling exercise conducted to inform this
rulemaking, Luecken (2007; see docket) substituted lower reactivity VOCs
for higher reactivity VOCs in the Chicago area and found the resulting
downwind ozone disbenefits to be much smaller than the upwind ozone
benefits.  In general, upwind ozone reductions are expected to occur in
or near urban areas, where ozone levels are highest, thus reducing
overall population exposure.  Second, downwind areas, particularly
remote, rural, or suburban areas, are likely to be NOx-limited (Sillman,
1999; AQCD, 2006), thus restricting ozone formation from small
additional amounts of upwind anthropogenic VOCs.  The implementation of
other regulations such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule will likely
reduce NOx further in such areas.  Third, in downwind areas that may be
VOC-limited, the simultaneous VOC substitutions occurring in these areas
may counterbalance, to some extent, the introduction of VOCs from
upwind.  Fourth, the reductions in upwind reactivity and ozone formation
are likely to reduce the direct transport of ozone and ozone precursors
such as aldehydes downwind from urban areas.  Fifth, this
reactivity-based regulation eliminates the complete exemption for
certain low-reactivity VOCs, placing a limit on the amount of these
previously unrestricted compounds in any coating formulation and thus
limiting these compounds’ potential to form ozone downwind.

EPA agrees that modeling can be useful for demonstrating the impacts of
regulatory changes.  While EPA did not perform nationwide modeling
specific to this regulation, EPA believes the three studies cited above
support our contention that downwind ozone enhancements are likely to be
small, especially compared to upwind ozone reductions.  Thus while
additional modeling will continue to shed light on VOC reactivity, EPA
believes there is an adequate basis for proceeding with this
reactivity-based regulation.  As the science evolves, EPA will continue
to invest and participate in research into VOC chemistry and the use of
reactivity measures.

Comment:  One commenter (II) stated that, while reactivity-based
approaches may provide significant benefits “where the science is
sufficiently robust to ensure that the expected benefits are achieved in
practice, the commenter stated that, based on the proposal, “it is not
clear that EPA has adequately addressed all the relevant technical
issues or that this reactivity-based regulation is appropriate at this
time.”  The commenter notes that EPA must adequately (and accurately)
account for the differences in the various environmental conditions (and
resulting variations in VOC behavior) throughout the United States.  The
commenter stated that the complexity of the interactions of VOC in the
ambient air makes it extremely difficult to accurately predict the
actual VOC forming capacity of a chemical compound.  The commenter
stated that “assuming an essentially uniform “reactivity” for a
compound used in any coating product anywhere in the country presents
the potential for an inaccurate assessment of the actual VOC-related
effects of the product nationwide.” The commenter further stated that
“EPA’s half-hearted assertion in the proposed rule that its
scientific understanding of VOC reactivity has evolved sufficiently to
allow it to reliably and accurately predict the behavior of individual
species of VOC in a regulatory context is far from unequivocal.”  

Another commenter (FF) had a different position and asserted that: 

Controlling VOC emissions from coatings and consumer products based on
photochemical reactivity is a scientifically sound and appropriate means
of addressing ozone formation potential. There can be enormous
differences in the capacity of various VOCs to react in the atmosphere
to form tropospheric ozone. As reflected in EPA's proposal, scientific
research shows that photochemical reactivity has a more direct
correlation to the ozone-forming potential (i.e. potential air quality
impacts) of VOC emissions than does a simple mass-based measure of
emissions. The impact of mass-based VOC emissions reductions on ozone
formation potential is uncertain and can vary greatly depending on the
VOC substitution decisions made to meet specific mass limits. 
Reactivity-base VOC emissions limits, by considering the rate and
mechanism of photo oxidation in the troposphere, are reflective of the
actual processes that lead to ozone formation. Relative photochemical
reactivity thus provides a more rigorous scientific approach to
assessing an individual compound's potential contribution to ozone
accumulation than does consideration of its mass alone.

 

Accordingly, the commenter (FF) concluded that EPA's approach is
scientifically sound and represents a significant step forward in
aerosol coatings regulation.

Response:  EPA acknowledges the difficulty in assessing reactivity in
widely different environmental conditions.  As noted in the proposal, a
compound’s reactivity can depend on the VOC:NOx ratio, meteorological
conditions, and the mix of other VOCs.  Many different methods have been
suggested for measuring the reactivity of individual compounds.  EPA has
chosen the maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) scale, which is an ozone
yield scale derived by adjusting the NOx emissions in a base case
simulation to yield the highest incremental reactivity of the base
reactive organic gas mixture.  These are environmental conditions where
ozone production is most sensitive to changes in VOC emissions and,
therefore, where VOC controls would be most effective.  These tend to
reflect conditions in or near urban areas where VOC emissions are most
likely to produce ozone, and thus EPA believes the MIR scale is the most
appropriate for regulatory purposes (see also Carter, 1994).  Research
conducted under the auspices of the Reactivity Research Working Group
(RRWG) has shown good correlation between the MIR scale and other
reactivity scales, including those computed with photochemical airshed
models (refs).  Also, this research has supported the nationwide
applicability of reactivity scales, and the peer reviews of the RRWG
reports have specifically supported the use of the MIR scale for a
nationwide aerosol coatings regulation (see docket).  For more detail,
refer to the proposal (72 FR 38952).  As noted above, EPA will continue
to invest and participate in research into VOC chemistry and the use of
reactivity measures.  Thus EPA recognizes the concerns of the first
commenter but believes that the reactivity concept and the MIR scale
provide an adequate basis for this regulation.  EPA agrees with the
second commenter.

Particulate Matter, Stratospheric Ozone, and Toxic Impacts 

	Comment:   Three commenters (AA, DD, and GG) stated that EPA must
consider the potential for VOCs to increase the aerosol fraction of
measured ambient PM2.5.  One of the commenters (AA) also cited concerns
with stratospheric ozone depleters.  

	One commenter (AA) said that EPA should consider “negative
co-effects” of the rule on fine particulate matter, “especially
given the potential for increase in emissions of low reactive VOCs on a
mass-basis and the impact this may have on the primary organic aerosol
emissions and secondary organic aerosol formation.”  The commenter
(AA) stated that this would be even more important in the near future,
as the PM2.5 NAAQS is revised and given the fact that PM2.5
nonattainment of coincident with ozone nonattainment in many areas in
the country.  The commenter concluded that EPA must look at the impacts
of increasing low reactive VOCs on PM2.5 before establishing a
regulatory framework that encourages substitution.  The commenter
referenced a document to support his position, a June 2007 Columbia
Geosciences report to NARSTO, titled “The Reactivity Research Working
Group.”

	Another commenter (DD) stated that EPA:

needs to address the issue of organic aerosols (both primary organic
aerosols (POA) and secondary organic aerosols (SOA)) is much more
important, relevant, and timely compared to what was discussed in the
Reactivity Research Workgroup (RRWG) process (1998-2005), which forms
the scientific basis of the proposed EPA rule. The RRWG process only
emphasized the ozone-forming potential of VOCs. Any final rule therefore
must consider its impact on the organic aerosol fraction of measured
ambient PM2.5 (and the resulting policy issue of nonattainment of daily
and annual PM2.5 standards). For example, ambient measurements of PM2.5
in urban areas across the country, including the Northeast, indicate
that approximately 50 percent of PM2.5 mass on an annual basis is
organic aerosol that is either emitted as POA (directly emitted) or SOA
that is formed in the air through complex chemical reactions of VOCs.
Recent ground-breaking work of the research team at Carnegie Mellon
University [“Rethinking Organic Aerosols: Semivolatile Emissions and
Photochemical Aging,” Allen L Robinson, et al., Science, Vol 315, pp.
1259-1262 (March 2, 2007).], strongly implies that ozone-only
regulations may need to be revised to control SVOC (semivolatile VOC)
and IVOC (intermediate volatility VOC) emissions because of their
importance as SOA precursors. The paper goes on to state, “Ultimately
a relatively local urban emissions [of VOCs] problem is transformed into
a regional source of oxidized…… organic aerosol.” Just as some
VOCs have higher/lower potential to form ozone than other VOCs, some
VOCs are capable of producing higher/lower levels of organic aerosols
than others. Based on high and low ozone-forming potential of VOCs, as
well as high and low aerosol-forming potential of VOCs, the proposed
rule needs to categorize various VOCs in “high ozone-high aerosol,”
“low ozone-low aerosol,” “high ozone-low aerosol,” and “low
ozone-high aerosol” bins. Thus, the ozone reactivity factors included
in the proposed rule need to be supplemented with aerosol reactivity
factors, so as to jointly address the impact of this or similar rules on
ozone and fine PM. In the absence of such an effort, the proposed ozone
reactivity-based rule has the potential to increase the fine PM levels
for cases where the substituted VOCs have high aerosol-forming potential
even though they have low ozone-forming potential based on ozone-only
reactivity factors included in Table 2A of the Proposal. 

One commenter (AA) also noted that the table of reactivity factors also
includes compounds that have been banned under Title VI of the CAA
because they are considered stratospheric ozone depleters.

	Response:  With respect to the commenter’s concerns about HAP
emissions from aerosol coatings, EPA notes that section 183(e) only
provides the Agency with authority to regulate VOC emissions from
consumer and commercial products for purposes of reducing ozone
nonattainment.  Other provisions of the Act, such as section 112,
provide the statutory mechanism for reduction of HAP emissions.  Thus,
although EPA shares the concerns of the commenter about unnecessary
exposure to HAPs, the Agency does not have authority like that of the
State of California to restrict or ban the use of specific HAPs as
ingredients in aerosol coatings.  Nevertheless, EPA believes that
sufficiently stringent limits can have the beneficial effect of reducing
the use of certain HAPs such as toluene and benzene.  Because these
compounds are highly reactive, the limits of the final rule will serve
to restrict the use of these compounds as ingredients in aerosol
coatings as a practical matter.

In reference to the comment concerning compounds included in Table 2A
that are banned under Title VI, EPA is clarifying that the compounds
listed on Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C are not a list of compounds approved for
use in aerosols.  On the contrary, they are merely a list of compounds
for which we have relative reactivity factors.  Therefore, if a compound
has been banned ban Title VI, or banned for use for any other reason,
they cannot be used, regardless of whether or not they appear on any
tables within this rule.

	Comment:  Four commenters (AA, DD, GG, KK) stated that it appeared that
EPA did not consider the toxicity of the chemicals  in proposal and
mentioned several specific examples of chemicals that were on the list
of MIR values in the proposal that were of particular concern to the
commenters.   One commenter (AA) noted that proposed Table 2 listed the
compounds, without any mention of whether the compound is a HAP or other
toxic compound, even though the list contains known HAPs with good
toxicity information/databases and health-based exposure values for
those without toxicity values.   Three commenters (AA, DD, KKand KK)
listed specific examples of hazardous pollutants, including benzene
(with a reactivity factor of 0.81) and diisocyanates (with reactivity
factors ranging from 0 to 0.93).   One commenter (KK) pointed to the
example of benzene (with an RF of 0.81), toluene (with an RF of 3.97),
and m-xylene (with an RF of 10.6).  The latter commenter stated that,
based on the RF factors, manufacturers may “prefer” benzene for
their ingredient, even though toxicological studies have proven that
benzene is more toxic than other compounds. One commenter (AA) concluded
that EPA overlooked the fact that all VOCs are not equal when it comes
toxic potential.   One commenter (DD) suggested that EPA consider a
substitution protocol for VOCs that can include “low to high”
toxicity in addition to low to high potential for ozone formation.  

	Response:  EPA is aware that many VOCs are also HAPs.  Nevertheless,
EPA notes that section 183(e) only provide the Agency with authority to
regulate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products for
purposes of reducing ozone nonattainment.  Other provisions of the Act,
such as section 112, provide the statutory mechanism for reduction of
HAP emissions.  Thus, although EPA shares the concerns of the commenters
about unnecessary exposure to HAPs from consumer products, EPA does not
have authority like that of the State of California to ban the use of
specific HAPs as ingredients in aerosol coatings.  Nevertheless, EPA
believes that sufficiently stringent limits can have the beneficial
effect of reducing the use of certain HAPs such as toluene and benzene. 
Because these compounds are highly reactive relative to other VOCs, the
limits of the final rule will serve to restrict the use of these
compounds as ingredients in aerosol coatings as a practical matter. 

	Comment:  Three commenters (BB, CC, and HH) provided input on the
specific comment request concerning the role of HAP in the determination
of BAC, including the potential for a voluntary program.  One commenter
(BB) stated that they are opposed to direct consideration of HAP in a
VOC regulation.  However, they point out that HAP reduction has been an
indirect benefit of the reactivity-based regulation in California, since
most HAP have high reactivity.  Another commenter (CC) noted that many
of the primary industrial coatings that are packaged as aerosol coatings
are already subject to VOC and/or HAP content limits under other EPA,
state, and local regulations that are applicable to surface coatings and
surface coating operations.  In these cases, the coating manufacturers
and formulators have already reduced VOC and HAP content to required
levels, which often represent the lowest amounts practicable.  The
commenter believes that any additional approaches to address the HAP
emissions from aerosol coatings, including the use of a voluntary
program, would be redundant.

	One commenter (HH) stated that it would be “inappropriate and
unnecessary for EPA to adopt or implement measures (voluntary or
otherwise) to control the increased use of hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs) like the chlorinated solvents as alternatives to solvents with
higher maximum individual reactivity (MIR) values in aerosol
coatings.”  The commenter stated that EPA has no statutory authority
to implement a voluntary program intended to reduce the use of HAPs in
aerosol product formulation. 

	The commenter (HH) went on to discuss that there were several other
programs that appropriately addressed specific hazardous pollutants,
including:

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which “provides a comprehensive
framework for the regulation of HAPs.”

The Federal Hazardous Substances Act, which requires specific labeling
of products containing products that it classifies as “hazardous
substances.”  The commenter stated that products containing the
specific pollutant of concern listed by EPA in the preamble, methylene
chloride, were determined to be hazardous substances.  Therefore, these
products must contain specific warning labels.  Therefore, addition
labeling or other requirements (voluntary or mandatory) should not be
required.

Another potential solvent of concern, due to its low reactivity factor,
could be perchloroethylene.  However, the commenter stated that
perchloroethylene has “relative low volatility that may not be
advantageous in some aerosol coating formulations.”

Multiple solvents are also subject to labeling requirements under
California’s Proposition 65.  Since many coatings that are formulated
(and labeled) to meet California’s requirements are sold nationwide,
these products have additional labels in place.

The commenter (HH) concluded that no additional program is warranted.

	Response:  EPA concurs with the commenters and is not promulgating any
voluntary HAP reduction program at this time. Existing programs appear
to be sufficient to help ensure that the unwanted outcome of increased
toxicity of aerosol coating products is sufficiently mitigated. EPA
reserves the right to revisit the potential for such a program, for this
or another reactivity-based rulemaking, at a later date. 

Regulated entity and Small Business Exemption 

	Comment:  Two commenters (CC, JJ) requested changes to definitions to
ensure that the applicability of the aerosol coating rule was clear. 
One commenter (CC) stated that the definition of “manufacturer” in
§59.503 refers to manufacturers of consumer products.  However, other
parts of the proposed rule refer to manufacturers of aerosol coatings
not limited to consumer products.  The commenter requests that EPA
clarify the definition of “manufacturer” and use it consistently
throughout the document.  One commenter (JJ) was concerned that the
definition of aerosol coating products could be interpreted to include
products that are also subject to regulation under the national consumer
product rule.  The commenter noted that CARB is considering the same
overlap issues but has not yet reached a conclusion on the best way to
address the overlap.  The commenter stated that many aerosol consumer
products function by applying a coating on a surface and that of those
“coatings” many also could fit the undefined terms of “pigments or
resins.”  The commenter listed two categories that are most likely to
overlap with consumer products:

	Clear Coating means a coating which is colorless, containing resins but
no pigments except flatting agents, and is designed and labeled to form
a transparent or translucent solid film.

	Vinyl/Fabric/Leather/Polycarbonate Coating means a coating designed and
labeled exclusively to coat vinyl, fabric, leather, or polycarbonate
substrates or to coat flexible substrates including rubber or
thermoplastic substrates.

The commenter (JJ) noted that many regulated consumer products, such as
furniture polishes and automobile polishes, apply a clear coating and
could be interpreted to be subject to this regulation.  Similarly, a
broad range of products, including rubber and vinyl protectants,
footwear care products, and fabric protectors could be interpreted as
being subject to the aerosol coating regulation as a
vinyl/fabric/leather/polycarbonate coating.  The commenter asked that
EPA consider adding a statement to the definition of “aerosol coating
product” that clearly states that a product should not be subject to
both the consumer product and aerosol coating regulations.  The
commenter suggested the statement say,” Products defined as consumer
products and subject to VOC limits in the national consumer products
regulation are not considered aerosol coating products.”

	Response:  EPA has revised the definition of manufacturer, as well as
several other terms, to clarify the intent of this rulemaking. The words
“consumer products” in the definition of “manufacturer” has been
corrected to “aerosol coating products.”

	EPA agrees with the commenter that there is a potential overlap issue
with the consumer products rule.  Like CARB, we are continuing to
evaluate the potential overlap between the aerosol coatings rule and the
consumer products rule.  It is EPA’s intention that no product should
be subject to both rules.  EPA currently is developing proposed
amendments to the national consumer products rule at 40 CFR 59 subpart C
and intends to address this overlap issue when the regulation for
consumer products is proposed.

	Comment:  One commenter (BB) requested clarification on the
applicability of this rule to any aerosol coatings that are registered
under FIFRA.

	Response:  EPA is providing a one year extension to the January 1, 2009
compliance date for all coatings that must be registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C section
136-136y)(FIFRA).  This is identical to the extension provided to
FIFRA-registered compounds in another regulation under §183(e) of the
CAA, the national regulation for consumer products (63 FR 48819).  This
additional time is provided because to the time needed for registration
of products under FIFRA.  Therefore, the compliance date for aerosol
coating products that must be registered under FIFRA is January 1, 2010.

	Comment:  Two commenters (CC, KK) commented on the requirement to
report all VOC ingredients in a coating at or above 0.1 weight percent. 
One commenter (CC) noted that the proposed rulemaking includes numerous
references to “0.1 percent by weight,” which relate to the
definition of “weight fraction,” defined in §59.503 as the
“weight of an ingredient divided by the total weight of the product,
expressed to thousandths of a gram of ingredient per gram of product
(excluding container and packaging).”  While the commenter notes that
the metric and quantity thresholds are taken from the CARB Aerosol rule,
the commenter wanted to point out several potential difficulties,
including:

Product composition information required by other EPA regulations
(notably the NESHAPS MACT standards) use the thresholds in the OSHA
Hazard Communication Standard (i.e., 1.0 percent by weight for most
ingredients, and 0.1% by weight for substances identified as
carcinogens, or “1.0 / 0.1 percent by weight” thresholds). To
require companies to record and track the composition of ALL organic
compounds in aerosol coating formulations to 0.1% by weight represents a
potential major increase in time and effort.

The use of the proposed 0.1 percent by weight threshold for all organic
compounds is a major divergence from recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for product/material compositions in EPA’s existing air
program policies and rules. 

The definition of “Impurity” uses the “1.0 / 0.1 percent by
weight” thresholds cited above. Thus, it directly contradicts the
proposed 0.1 percent by weight threshold for all organic compounds.

Suppliers of raw materials to the coating industry have no regulatory
obligation to report the presence of ingredients below the composition
thresholds cited above. Thus, a manufacturer of aerosol coatings may be
unaware that a raw material contains ingredients below the “1.0 / 0.1
percent by weight” thresholds, whether those ingredients are organic
compounds, impurities, etc. 

Most aerosol coating formulations will include a relative handful of
organic compounds, that function as solvents and propellants, and that
will be present in amounts of single numbers to tens of percent by
weight. Using the individual Reactivity Factors of these major
constituents to calculate the Product Weighted Reactivity will outweigh
any calculated effects of the individual Reactivity Factors of the minor
constituents.

The commenter requested that the definition of “weight fraction” and
related references in the proposed rule be revised to reflect the
“1.0/0.1 percent by weight” thresholds from the OSHA Hazard
Communication Standard, and to be consistent with product composition
information in other EPA regulations.

	One commenter (KK) stated that EPA must further justify this
requirement since Trade Barrier Treaty requires that, “a Member
preparing, adopting or applying a technical regulation which may have a
significant effect on trade of other member shall, upon request of
another Member explain the justification for that technical regulation
in terms of the provisions of paragraph 2 to 4.”  They concluded that
a scientific basis should be provided “and avoid unnecessary technical
barriers to the trade of related products.”

	Response: EPA acknowledges that there are several regulations and
programs that differentiate between carcinogens and non-carcinogens in
establishing reporting levels.  However, for the purposes of this
regulation, EPA has concluded that reporting all volatile ingredients
that are present at or above 0.1 weight percent is the best approach to
ensuring that all volatile ingredients are accounted for in the
calculations.  When calculating the contribution to ozone, there is no
justification for differentiating between those compounds that are
carcinogens and those that are not.  Therefore, no changes were made the
reporting level in the final regulation.

	Commenter KK did not explain how the requirement to report all
ingredients present at concentrations greater than or equal to 0.1 would
create a trade barrier.  All products sold in the United States, whether
foreign or domestically manufactured, are subject to these same limits. 
Therefore, EPA disagrees that a barrier is created by this action.

	Comment:  Four commenters (AA, BB, CC, KKand KK) provided input on the
exemption for small quantity generators.  One commenter (CC) stated
that, while they cannot comment on the need at very small manufacturers,
they wanted to comment on specific situations that may exist at larger
companies.  The commenter stated:

However, we note that sometimes industrial end-use customers will
specify that, in addition to their primary order for a coating in liquid
form and in large containers (e.g., pails, drums, totes), that a small
number (typically fewer than a dozen) of aerosol containers of the same
product will also be provided. The aerosol containers of the primary
coating product are used by the customer to touch-up or repair minor
defects that occur in their production facilities after an article or
part has been painted with the primary coating. The amount of product
thus packaged, the number of aerosol containers, and the resultant
emissions, (whether described by VOC or PWR metrics) are insignificant
in comparison to the primary coating product. However, the recordkeeping
requirements for these few containers of aerosol coatings would be the
same as for the conventional aerosol coatings. This is unduly
burdensome.

The commenter (CC) requested that EPA provide an exemption from the rule
for very small fill-offs of aerosol coatings.  The commented stated that
such an exemption could be structured as a finite number, such as
“fewer than one dozen containers of a specific aerosol coating product
per year.” Two commenters (AA, BB) were concerned about the potential
economic advantage created by the small quantity exemptions.  One
commenter (AA) stated that the exemption for small generators at a
competitive advantage which they could “readily use” to expand
market share.  Another commenter (BB) stated that they were unable to
support a proposal that specifically exempts manufacturers of certain
products from regulatory requirements unless the exemption us available
to all manufacturers of that type of product.  The commenter (BB) is
concerned “with the anti-trust ramifications for any regulatory
exemptions that create a more beneficial regulatory climate for the
products of one manufacturer, but not another.

	One commenter (KK) questioned the “reasonability” of the 7500 kg
exemption for small quantity manufacturers and also questioned, based on
the definition of “manufacturers,” whether the exemption applied to
importers.

	Response: EPA considered, but rejected, extending this small quantity
manufacturer exemption.  The small quantity manufacturer was established
with the primary focus of small businesses that may make a small
quantity of aerosol coatings.  Since small businesses do not always do
business across the country, EPA concluded that it was possible that
some may not have previously been exposed to the reactivity-based
requirements in California.  While we have included the costs of
developing reformulated products in the cost assessment of this rule, we
also recognize that the average cost (i.e., on a “per can” basis)
would be higher for a company producing a smaller product line. 
Recognizing this, we established this size cutoff to exempt those most
likely to experience the highest per-can reformulation costs.  

EPA does not concur with the commenter concerns that the small quantity
manufacturer exemption creates a competitive advantage or antitrust
issues.  The total mass of VOC in the exemption (7500 kg) represents
less than 0.01 percent of the total VOC used in aerosol coatings (based
on the 1990 survey).  Even adjusting for emission reductions that have
occurred since 1990, the mass for this exemption would remain well below
one percent of the market.  We disagree that this small piece of the
total aerosol coating market could give anyone a competitive advantage.

	EPA also does not agree that creation of the exemption for small
quantity manufacturers creates an antitrust issue.  Such issues
generally arise where members of an industry collude to create unfair
market advantage, as by agreeing not to compete on prices for their
respective products.  EPA, in its capacity as government regulator, can
promulgate regulations with features such as exemptions for certain
members of an industry without violation of the applicable statutes and
regulations pertaining to antitrust issues.  Moreover, EPA is obligated
to take the specific concerns of small entities into account in the
regulatory process and, where appropriate, to provide mechanisms such as
exemptions in order to mitigate disproportionate and unnecessary impacts
upon small businesses.  In the case of this regulation, EPA has
determined that it is appropriate to provide an exemption of this type
because it will permit the implementation of a rule that will achieve
significant VOC emission reductions across the industry as a whole and
the percentage of emissions reductions that will be foregone by virtue
of the exemption are anticipated to be de minimis.	

	The 7500 kg exemption for small quantity manufacturers is not available
to importers or distributors, because the burden of reformulation is not
placed on them.  The purpose of this exemption was to provide relief to
very small generators of aerosol coatings who might be adversely
affected by reformulation costs.  EPA has concluded that distributors
and importers would not have this cost, therefore do not qualify for the
exemption.  The definition of “manufacturer” has been modified to
clarify this intent.  Language has been provided in the rulemaking
package for foreign manufacturers of aerosol coating who may want to
pursue this exemption.  As discussed above, this exemption represents an
extremely small fraction of the total aerosol market.  EPA does not
agree that this could potentially cause a “significant effect on
trade.”

Compliance Demonstration Requirements and Enforcement 

	Comment:  One commenter (AA) stated that, if EPA includes the small
manufacturer exemption in the final rule, it should include language
that reflects that these small entities should provided the information
on a chemical basis, CAS number, in addition to mass-based information. 
The commenter believes that EPA should “understand the nature of the
products it exempts, as well as those it regulates.  

	Response:  EPA agrees with this commenter.  In order to be able to
implement the rule and to assess its impacts more effectively, EPA has
concluded that it is appropriate to require all regulated entities,
including those that are exempt from the PWR limits of the rule on the
basis that they are small quantity manufacturers, to provide EPA with
information about the formulation of their products and other
information needed by the Agency.  Accordingly, all regulated entities,
including those that qualify for the exemption provided in §59.501(e),
are required to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of §59.510
and to submit to EPA those reports required in §59.511.

Comment:  Two commenters (BB, CC) stated that the ongoing “notice of
change” reports, required within 30 days if any change in contact
information changes, is problematic.  Both commenters noted that items
that trigger reporting requirement, such as the name, title, address,
telephone number, and email address of the certifying official could
change rapidly.  The commenters further stated that, in some instances,
the person responsible for compliance with this regulation may not even
know that there has been a change in the street address of all
facilities or the telephone number of the person certifying compliance. 
One commenter (BB) concluded that the requirement to submit a follow-up
report is unreasonable and that many companies will not be able to
comply with this.  The commenter (BB) concluded that any change could be
noted by a facility during the data request period.  The commenter
requested that the “notice of change” requirement be eliminated.  
The other commenter (CC) noted that the 30 day timeframe for the report
was unreasonable and requested that, if the requirement for the
“notice of change” report is included in the final rule, the timing
be extended to 60 days.  

Response:   In order to enforce this rule, EPA must have correct contact
information for those individuals who are responsible for compliance. 
EPA does not agree that the information in the Initial Notification is
likely to change frequently.  However, if this information is subject to
rapid change, the commenter’s own words demonstrate why this “notice
of change” report is needed.  It is imperative that the person
responsible for compliance with this rule is immediately aware of
changes in addresses and products manufactured.  This “notice of
change” report will necessitate that communication.

We do not expect that a regulated entity will frequently change the
mailing address of a plant, the phone number for the plant, or even the
categories of coatings that they manufacture.   For example, the main
number to a facility would likely stay the same because the number would
be frequently used by customers. 

We do not agree that waiting until a data request (i.e., for detailed
formulation data) is received before updating the information is
appropriate.  This would only slow the process; if an address had
changed, EPA may be unable to get the address to the proper person,
needlessly delaying compliance efforts.  We maintain that a revised
notification of change within 30 days is necessary and not overly
burdensome.  Therefore, this requirement has not been changed in the
final rule.

	Comment:  One commenter (CC) questioned the value of including a
description of how a batch will be defined in the Initial Notification. 
The commenter stated that

. . . the manufacture of a coating is a batch manufacturing process; the
fill-off of part or all of a batch of coating into aerosol containers is
another batch process; some of these containers may receive different
labels, and each different group of labeled containers might be
considered a different batch. It will be very difficult to define or
describe “batch” in terms sufficiently general to cover any or all
of the possible stages in the overall process of manufacturing an
aerosol coating product. For purposes of demonstrating compliance with
an applicable limit, it is important to both the company and the Agency
for the company to have the ability to trace a given aerosol coating
container back to the formulation information of its primary coating and
the fill-off information of its propellant, for purposes of calculating
the Product Weighted Reactivity. This can be done without the necessity
of providing a description or definition of “batch” on the Initial
Notification Report.

	Response:  Enforcement of this rule is dependent on the ability to
match formulation data for a specific batch to the product being
evaluated.  The commenter’s own statement demonstrates the potential
for numerous definitions of batch and clearly demonstrates why it is
important that EPA know how the facility is defining batch for the
purposes of their compliance demonstration.  The commenter did not
provide a clear alternative for how this would happen without defining
batch.  The only alternative would be for EPA to develop one single
definition for batch that would be applicable to all regulated entities.
 Commenters own statements demonstrate how one definition would be
difficult.  We contend that, even if one definition were possible, it
would be needlessly restrictive.  EPA concluded that the flexibility to
define batch for each manufacturer is critical to ensuring the maximum
flexibility of this rule, while ensuring compliance can be verified. 
Therefore, there is no change to this requirement in final rule.

Comment:  Four commenters (AA, BB, CC, and II) questioned EPA’s
requirement to maintain records for five years.  One commenter (AA)
questioned how EPA determined the adequate length of time for retaining
records.  The commenter questioned whether EPA had determined how long a
product would remain on a shelf and questioned whether five years were
sufficient.  Two commenters (BB, CC) stated that the five year time
period was too long and would result in the warehousing of data.  These
commenters stated that many companies have internal recordkeeping
policies that require the maintenance of records for a certain period of
time, generally ranging from two to four years.  One commenter (CC)
stated that most aerosol coating products “will proceed through the
lifecycle of manufacture of coating, fill-off into aerosol containers,
distribution and sales, etc.”  The commenter further stated that
distributors and end-use customers try to minimize the time between
purchase and use of the coatings and will also be cognizant of
shelf-life recommendations made by the manufacturers of these products. 
The commenters requested that the time period be made more reasonable,
not to exceed three years.  One commenter (II) stated that EPA must
require that all records be maintained for a minimum of five years, the
statute of limitations applicable to enforcement claims under the Clean
Air Act.

Response:	We agree with the commenters who state that five years is the
minimum time that records should be maintained.  This does correlate to
the statute of limitations, as mentioned by the commenters, and also
matches the requirements under Title V of the CAA for major sources.  We
maintain that this time period is necessary and appropriate since EPA
may need to retrieve records of formulation over time when assessing
compliance.  While some commenters stated that various manufacturers
could have different internal policies for maintaining records, the
purpose of this rule is to specify requirements appropriate to this
rulemaking, not necessarily to conform to existing practices of all
regulated entities.  We also understand that the five year retention
time could lead to warehousing of information.  Warehousing of
information is acceptable as long as the facility can meet the
requirements that the “records must be in a form suitable and readily
available for inspection and review,” as required by the revised
regulatory language. 

	Comment:  Two commenters (BB, CC) requested that the time period for
data requests for specific data [in §59.511(c)(1)-(5)] be extended from
60 to 90 days.  While the commenters had no concerns over the type of
information that is requested (brand name of products, copies of labels,
owner of trademark or brand names, product category, and product
formulation data), the commenters were concerned that the 60 days was
not sufficient time.  The commenters requested that 90 days be provided,
which would be consistent with the CARB regulation.

	Response:  The ability to enforce this regulation in a timely manner is
critical.  In addition, the requirement to respond to public requests
for emissions data is also critical.  As discussed elsewhere in this
section, EPA has worked to balance the requirements for all record
keeping and reporting with the need to ensure compliance and respond to
the public. We considered, but rejected, requiring all formulation data
to be provided on an annual basis.  The commenters provided no clear
reasons as to why 60 days was inappropriate, other than the fact that
CARB provides 90 days for these submissions.  We did not find this
justification sufficient to change from 60 days and continue to believe
that 60 offers sufficient time and does not needlessly delay the
availability of the information to EPA or the public.  Therefore, this
requirement was not changed in the final rule. 

Comment:  Two commenters (BB, CC) were concerned that the proposed rule
needlessly required changes to existing product tracking systems.  One
commenter (BB) questioned the need for EPA-provided category codes
contained in Table 1.  They believe that the codes are problematic and
will lead to confusion and additional labeling concerns since, due to
the date-coding requirements in the CARB rule, manufacturers have
already created codes that have been in use since the mid-90s.  They
said that EPA-provided codes would require “changes in software
programs, labeling text, and other recordkeeping practices.”    The
commenter requested that these codes be removed and that the regulated
entity be required to provide the category code at the same time they
explain their date code system.  The commenter provided the CARB
language as an example:

For any aerosol coating products subject to section

94522(a), if the manufacturer or responsible party uses a code
indicating the date of manufacture or an abbreviation of the coating
category as defined in section 94521, an explanation of the code or
abbreviation must be filed with the Executive Officer prior to the use
of the code or abbreviation.

Another commenter (CC) noted that each company has its own internal
procedures and tools for maintaining information relating to product
formulation, manufacturing of coatings, fill-off into aerosol
containers, distribution and sales, etc. The commenter noted that the
various date coding systems are just one example of the diversity of
individual approaches that have already been implemented by
manufacturers, importers, and distributors. The commenter stated that,
“insofar as these existing internal procedures and tools will enable
the company to provide required or requested information described in
the proposed rulemaking, that no changes or modifications to these
existing procedures and tools should be necessary or mandated.

	Response:  The inclusion of the category codes in Table 1 were meant to
simplify the compliance demonstration for regulated entities, not
complicate it.  We understand that regulated entities, particularly
those subject to the CARB regulation, would likely have category codes
already established for their products that may differ from the ones
listed in Table 1 of the regulation.  To require regulated entities to
switch to the ones listed in the proposal could create a burden with no
environmental benefit.  Therefore, the final rule language has been
changed to offer the category codes in Table 1 as “default codes,”
but to allow a regulated entity to use their own coding system, as long
as this system is explained in the Initial Notification.  

Comment:  Two commenters (BB, CC) requested clarification on the
definition of “regulated entities.” One commenter (BB) provided six
different scenarios of combinations of formulators, the name on the
label, manufacturer, and distributor and requested that it be made clear
who has the responsibility to maintain records and submit reports in
each case.  The commenters (BB, CC) stated that in some instances, the
person who may be responsible for maintaining some information may not
have access to some required information.  For example, a manufacturer
who uses a filler to fill the aerosol may not have access to the batch
information, even if the manufacturer owns the formula.  In addition, in
a private label situation, manufacturers may not know the date-code
information for its product.  The commenter (BB) requests that the
proposal be modified to make it clear that the “regulated entity” is
the company, firm, or establishment that is listed on the product’s
label.  The commenter further requested that, if the label names two
companies, firms, or establishments, the rule make it clear that the
entity responsible for maintaining the information is the entity that
the product was “manufactured for” or “distributed by”, as noted
on the label.

Response:  EPA has revised the language in the final rule to clearly
indicate which regulated entity is responsible for compliance with each
part of the final rule.  The manufacturer or importer is the regulated
entity for purposes of ensuring that the contents of the aerosol can are
at or below the product weighted reactivity limits in the rule.  This is
true regardless of whether or not their name appears on the can.  The
labeling, record keeping, and reporting requirements are the
responsibility of the distributor named on the can.  If no distributor
is named on the can, then the manufacturer or importer is the regulated
entity for all requirements, regardless of whether or not their name is
on the can.  

EPA is aware from comments on both this rule and the previously
promulgated Consumer Products rule that there is sometimes a concern
that the distributor named on the can might not have access to all of
the information required for demonstrating compliance with the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.  Therefore, we have added
provisions to the final regulation that allow a manufacturer or importer
to become a “certifying manufacturer.”  By submitting a letter to
the appropriate EPA Regional Office, a manufacturer or importer can
assume the responsibility for all or part of the requirements of the
rule that would otherwise be applicable to the distributor.  The letter
must clearly indicate which requirements the manufacturer will assume
responsibility for and which will remain the responsibility of the
distributor.  No requirements can be left out of this certification
letter.  Once the letter has been submitted, the manufacturer or
importer assumes the compliance liability of the distributor.  The
certifying manufacturer has the ability to revoke its responsibilities
at any time by submitting a letter to both the appropriate EPA Regional
Office, providing a 90 day notification period.  At the end of the 90
days, the distributor named on the can becomes the regulated entity for
all applicable requirements. 

	Comment:  One commenter (CC) questioned the value of including the
“signature of certifying company official” on the Initial
Notification.  The commenter stated that, if non-compliant products are
identified in the marketplace, the manufacturer would be “found in
non-compliance and dealt with accordingly.”  The commenter stated that
it is the responsibility of each manufacturer to know the law and comply
with it and the signature of certification and the certification
statement are an added administrative burden to both the Agency and the
company.  The commenter further questioned whether a new certification
statement would be needed if the name or title of the certifying
official changed.

	Response:  EPA maintains that the signature of the certifying official
is an important aspect of the Initial Notification and this requirement
remains in the final rule.  This signature ensures that responsibility
for compliance with the regulation is clearly assigned and also ensures
that the responsible official has read and approved the submittal to
EPA.  Under the promulgated rule (as under the proposed rule), a new
notification is required if any information in the Initial Notification
(such as contact information or addresses) has changed.  A new
notification is also required if the regulated entity begins producing
coatings in a new category under this rule.  Each notification is
subject to the requirement for a signature of the responsible official,
again to ensure that responsibility is assigned and that the responsible
official is aware of the revised submittal.

	Comment: One commenter (KK) expressed concern about the requirement in
proposed section §59.511(c)(5) that regulated entities must provide
formulation data to EPA upon request that includes the PWR and weight
fraction of all ingredients in an aerosol coatings product, including
water, solids, each VOC present in an amount greater than 0.1 percent,
and any compounds assigned a reactivity value of zero.   The commenter
asserted that such a requirement would be “unfavorable to the
protection of intellectual property rights and commercial secrets for
the manufacturers.”  They suggested that EPA only require information
about the VOC ingredients in the products, stating that that this
information would be sufficient for effective implementation of the
rule.

	Response:   EPA disagrees with this commenter.  EPA has determined that
the Agency should have the ability to request information about non-VOC
portion of the product formulations in order to facilitate effective
implementation of this rule.  Because the limits of the final rule are
based upon the weight of ozone produced per weight of product, the
non-VOC portion must be known to facilitate this calculation.   EPA
emphasizes, however, that the Agency is not requiring regulated entities
to provide speciated information about the individual ingredient in the
non-VOC portion of the product formulation, as all compounds with a
reactivity of “zero” are grouped in the compliance calculations of
§59.505.  EPA has clarified the language in §59.511(d)(5) of the rule
to state that “water, total solids, …and any other compounds
assigned a reactivity factor of zero…” (new words bolded).  

	EPA has made these clarifications to the final rule in order to
preserve a manufacturer’s confidential business information about the
specific ingredients in an aerosol coatings formulation to the extent
consistent with the requirements of the CAA.  Given the relative
reactivity basis for the final rule, detailed information about the
composition of coatings subject to the rule is “emissions data”
under section 114 of the CAA, and EPA’s regulatory definition of such
term in 40 CFR §2.301(a)(2)(i).  As such, this information is required
by law to be available to the public, regardless of whether EPA obtains
the emissions data by request or by a report required under this rule. 
Thus, §59.516(c) of the final rule provides that information in reports
required under the regulation are not eligible for treatment as
confidential business information under 40 CFR part 2.  EPA notes that
the reporting provisions of §59.511 do not preclude EPA from obtaining
more detailed information about the individual non-VOC ingredients in
products through other means, such as through inspections or requests
for information pursuant to section 114 of the CAA; provided, however,
that in such circumstances information that does not constitute
emissions data would be eligible for treatment as confidential business
information, in accordance with 40 CFR part 2 as appropriate. 
Therefore, section §59.511(d)(5) of the final rule maintains the
requirement contemplated in proposed section §59.511(c)(5) that
regulated entities provide detailed information about aerosol coatings
formulations upon request by EPA.  This provision is applicable to all
regulated entities under the rule.

	Comment:  One commenter (KK) stated that it was unreasonable that a VOC
not listed on Tables 2A, 2B, or 2C be assigned an RF factor of 22.04. 
They stated that this is

”evidently unfair for manufacturers who develop green new
components.”  The commenter suggested that the section be changed to
“improve preciseness and rationality of the rule.”

	Response:  The maximum RF factor is used to ensure that the environment
is protected from ozone that may be produced by a new, previously
unstudied, compound.  However, the rule does allow anyone to petition
EPA for an RF value, if the petitioner provides sufficient data to
justify this value.  The provision is necessary for this rule and has
not been changed.

	Comment:  Three commenters (BB, CC, and II) responded to EPA’s
specific comment request concerning whether periodic reports are
necessary and what those reports should include, if required.  Two
commenters (BB, CC) believe that no periodic reporting is needed and
should not be required since EPA has the ability to request this
information at any time.

	One commenter (II) believed that more detailed records, including
formulation data, must be mandated by this rule, stating, “it is
manifestly unreasonable that EPA’s rule fails to require adequate data
reporting for meaningful oversight and enforcement of the proposed
standards.”  The commenter quoted EPA’s statement that “[b]ecause
this information is an integral part of determining compliance with the
product’s reactivity-based limit, the list of VOCs would be considered
“emissions data,” which must be generally available to the
public.” [70 FR 1640, 1651].  The commenter stated that “the
proposed rule does not even require submission of the core technical
information required to verify compliance for a reactivity-based aerosol
coatings rule (as EPA acknowledged in its approval of California’s
rule)- the VOC formulation of the aerosol coatings themselves.”  The
commenter stated that it “is astounding, given the admitted complexity
of reactivity-based regulatory programs, that the EPA would deny itself
and the public access to the key information needed to evaluate
compliance or non-compliance- the VOC formulation of products being
regulated.”  The commenter does not believe that the proposed approach
(i.e., the regulated entity responding to an EPA request for data) is
sufficient.  The commenter stated that this approach is “unacceptable
and [sic] impermissible on its face,” stating that “EPA may not, and
certainly as a policy matter should not promulgate a regulation that
does not require submission of the data sufficient to verify
compliance.”

	The commenter (II) was also concerned that EPA was relying on the
labeling requirements to “facilitate enforcement” since this
information is “effectively useless” without formulation data.  The
commenter (II) is concerned that the regulation “so as to hamstring
effective enforcement is outrageous and irresponsible, and clearly
reflects a spineless capitulation to industry pressure.”  The
commenter stated that EPA must include reporting requirements in the
rule that will ensure it can quickly and effectively verify compliance
and intervene appropriately where a violation occurs.  The commenter
concluded that EPA “may not publish a rule without requiring that
regulated report the core emissions data that is necessary to establish
compliance.  The commenter advocated for additional requirements-
specifically routine independent compliance verification testing, with
EPA independently evaluating random product samples to assess the
accuracy of industry reporting.

	Four commenters (AA, BB, CC, and DD) provided input on EPA’s specific
comment request concerning whether additional information (e.g., a
centralized formulation database or additional reporting) should be
gathered and whether this additional information would ease enforcement
actions.  One commenter (AA) stated that the rule is not “practically
enforceable” without this information.  Another commenter (BB) felt
the additional information was not justified.

	Two commenters (AA, DD) supported gathering additional information,
with one (AA) stating that they believe that without full electronic
reporting of all formulation data, the burden on EPA’s compliance and
enforcement staff would be too great and that any effective enforcement
would be impossible.  Even with this electronic information, one
commenter (AA) stated that EPA would need to go out into the field to
determine what is really happening.  The commenters (AA, DD) recommended
that EPA make baseline compliance demonstrations for each product
formulation prior to rule implementation and at the time of each new
reformulation.  The commenters stated that the recommended approach
still does not assure compliance since each batch of product could have
somewhat different components than exist in the baseline formulation. 
One commenter (DD) said that a compliance determination would be needed
for each new batch to ensure that it meets the prescribed formulation
criteria.  

	One commenter (AA) acknowledged that the recommended enforcement would
require a tremendous staff workload commitment, as well as resources to
perform the necessary testing to determine product compliance.  The
commenter stated that EPA needs to identify the resources it will use to
assure compliance with this rule.  Therefore, the company will need to
understand their formulations and assure that each batch meets the
prescribed formulation.  The commenter then questioned whether EPA has
ever completed an enforcement investigation for a regulation under
§183(e) of the CAA.

	Two commenters (BB, CC) believe that the proposed recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are sufficient, with some changes noted elsewhere
in this document.  The commenters believe that expanding these
requirements is unnecessary as EPA already has the ability to request
the information at any point in time.  

	One commenter (JJ) noted that the reactivity-based rule is
“arithmetically slightly more complex than simply adding up the
percent of each ingredient classified as a VOC, this slight increase in
complexity does not in any way deter enforceability determinations,
which are primarily based on the product formulation.

	Response:  EPA understands the concerns raised by all of the
commenters.  The vast range of opinions demonstrates that a balanced
approach must be taken to ensure that all concerns are considered.  When
EPA is establishing the record keeping and reporting requirements for a
rulemaking, we have the responsibility to balance the burden imposed by
the requirements with the need for a rule that is enforceable as a
practical matter.  We must ensure that the information needed to ensure
compliance with this rulemaking is available, while ensuring that we do
not require industry to gather and submit information that will never be
used.  This rulemaking, the first national VOC rule incorporating
reactivity-based limits, raises additional concerns about the types of
information that should be gathered.   The final decision on this issue
is discussed in the preamble for the final rule.

	Comment:  One commenter (AA) stated that the requirement for
manufacturers to report basic information to EPA regional offices brings
to light a concern that the use of regional offices to collect national
product information is cumbersome and unwise.  The commenter cited an
experience where the State of New York requested information on variance
and exceedance fee reports completed under the national AIM rule and
were unable to obtain these reports, reportedly because the reports were
not all maintained.

	Response:  EPA understands the commenters concerns.  As discussed in
the response to the previous comment, EPA has given thoughtful
consideration to the best way to gather data for this rule, considering
the dual objectives of ensuring compliance and efficacy of the rule and
eliminating unnecessary burden on the regulated entity.  We have
concluded that the approach discussed in the response to the previous
comment achieves those objectives.  

Emission Reduction / SIP Credit 	

	Comment:  Four commenters (AA, DD, FF, and JJ) provided comments on the
VOC/ozone emission reduction calculations.  Two commenters (AA, DD)
stated that EPA projects that the rule will reduce both VOC emissions
and the amount of ozone generated from the use of aerosol coatings.  The
commenters did not agree with EPA’s assertion, stating that the
replacement of high reactivity compounds with lower reactivity ones
could potentially result in an increase of mass of VOC being emitted to
the atmosphere.  One commenter (AA) went on to state, “given the
unknowns in photochemical atmospheric chemistry, this increased mass is
just as likely to result in more ozone formation as not.”  The other
commenter (DD) agreed with this statement, but cited the “complex
nature of photochemistry of urban and regional environments,” rather
than the “unknowns in photochemical atmospheric chemistry.”

	Two commenters (FF, JJ) disagreed that a reactivity based rule could
lead to more ozone emissions than a mass-based rule.  The commenters
asserted that mass-based limits are leading to the use of more reactive
VOCs.  One commenter (FF) stated:

As EPA has recognized in the preamble to the proposed rule, there is
evidence that mass-based VOC limits in some products are leading to the
increased use of more photochemically reactive VOCs and eliminating some
of the anticipated environmental benefit (ozone reduction) of these
regulations. The example in the preamble (70 FR 38962-38963) for flat
coatings emissions reported in California's surveys for 2001 and 2005
(2000 and 2004 data, respectively) indicates that, despite a decrease in
mass emissions of 11.5%, the total ozone formation potential from the
category increased by 5.4%. This analysis of recent product surveys in
California for architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings
show as mass-based limits have been reduced formulators have been forced
to replace less reactive solvents with more reactive solvents in the
process causing some product categories to actually increase in ozone
forming potential.

In fact, the data in the California survey shows that, of the 39 coating
categories for which sufficient data is available for analysis, 25
categories experienced an increase in the average ozone formation
potential per pound of VOC emitted. Those increases ranged from 1.6% for
the "Other Coatings" category to a staggering 88.5 % for the "Floor
Coatings" category. For all 39 categories in aggregate, the average
ozone formation potential per pound of VOC emitted rose by 7.8%. This
trend clearly shows that the selection of higher-reactivity VOC
materials in numerous categories is significantly offsetting the air
quality improvements anticipated by the current mass-based regulations.
[A table showing the California data analysis was included with the
comment.]

EPA recognized this potential for mass-based approaches to cases, drive
product formulators to use more reactive compounds albeit in smaller
quantities and that substitutions can negate some of the expected
benefits of the mass-based limits or, in some circumstances, even lead
to a net increase in ozone-forming potential of the formulated products.
 [70 FR 1648] These data demonstrate that this is indeed what is
occurring as mass-based VOC limits are driven lower. Such a circumstance
could not occur with reactivity-based VOC emissions standards as the
total ozone formation potential would be regulated, not simply the mass
of VOC emissions.

	

	Another commenter (JJ) stated that there are “significant scientific
studies providing data that confirm that reductions in the reactivity of
VOC emissions can be equally effective as reductions in the mass of VOC
in reducing ozone formation.”  The commenter stated that the studies,
including several that were funded by the RRWG “provide a clear
picture that both VOC mass and reactivity should be considered in ozone
control strategies.”  The commenter did note that the effectiveness of
any strategy to control ozone is limited in some areas since these areas
are “NOx limited.”

One commenter (DD) had the further concern that EPA’s proposal appears
to be encouraging the states to take credit for the adoption of the rule
before the rule is “on the books,” citing a statement in the
proposal preamble, “[W} e have calculated the reductions associated
with the rule in terms of mass VOC emissions and we will refer to a
reduction in mass of VOC emissions when discussing the impacts of the
proposed regulation.”

	Response:  Our aerosol coatings reactivity rule establishes
product-weighted reactivity limits on the ingredient content of aerosol
coatings, which will, in turn, limit the ozone formed by the products. 
Consequently, there may or may not be a reduction in the mass of VOC
emitted from the products, although ozone formation is reduced.   EPA
agrees that our statement in the proposed rule concerning mass
reductions may have been in error.

	Although we are confident that this rule will result in reduction in
ozone formation, reduction credits used by the States in rate of
progress demonstrations are expressed in terms of mass of VOC, not
ozone.  Consequently, we had to develop an approach to estimate
equivalent VOC mass reductions from this rule for credit purposes.  To
make this estimate, we calculated the VOC reductions that would have
been achieved by a mass-based rule equivalent in ozone formation
reduction to our reactivity-based rule.  We based this calculation on
work done by CARB.  CARB had previously developed a mass-based aerosol
coatings rule whose limits were later determined to be technologically
infeasible for certain product categories.  The California
reactivity-based rule was developed by CARB as an equivalent replacement
for the mass-based rule’s VOC limits.  We agree with CARB’s
determination that the ozone formation reduction achieved by their
reactivity-based rule is equivalent to ozone reductions that may have
been achieved from their earlier mass-based rule.  

	The compliance date for the rule is January 1, 2009.  Consequently, the
rule cannot assure creditable VOC reductions prior to that date. 
However, some States have areas that must achieve reductions prior to
2009.  We have determined that approximately 90 percent of nationwide
aerosol coating production is accounted for by manufacturers who market
in California and, therefore, are expected to be complying with the CARB
regulation.  Furthermore, from discussions with the industry, we are
aware that companies manufacturing for sale or distribution in
California generally manufacture the same formulation for nationwide
distribution.  As a result, we are confident that a large majority of
the reductions that will be assured by the Federal rule are already
being achieved.  

	Comment:  Two commenters (AA, DD) stated that EPA makes claims
regarding toxicity reductions based on reduced xylene and toluene use,
without attempting to qualify them.  The commenters suggest that EPA
look at reformulation data from California to determine whether the CARB
rule (with identical limits to EPA’s proposed rule) improved reduced
toxicity of the emissions.

	Response:  EPA was not attempting to quantify the amount of reductions
of xylene and toluene, but only providing qualitative examples of some
compounds, which are also HAP, that we expect to be reduced with this
rule.  In other places in the preamble, we mention that there are some
compounds (e.g., methylene chloride) that are toxic/HAP that could
potentially be increased due to the relative reactivity value.  We asked
for comments on whether or how we should seek to limit the use of these
compounds.  Based on consideration of the comments and EPA review, we
have concluded that no voluntary program is warranted at this time.

	Comment:  One commenter (AA) stated that the rule was unlikely to
realize the ozone benefits that EPA claims because of the exemptions for
small manufacturers; companies that are not currently in the California
market; and variances if the manufacturer cannot comply because of
technical reasons.  

	The commenter (AA) stated that they believed that the exemption
provision for small manufacturers (i.e., those that manufacture less
than 7,500 kilograms of total VOCs in aerosol coating products) would
have a “substantial impact on rule penetration” because he expected
that everyone who qualifies with the exemption would take advantage of
it.  T he commenter (AA) believes that EPA should closely monitor these
entities to understand the impacts that this provision has on the
efficacy of the rule.

	The commenter (AA) contends that the compliance extension to January 1,
2011 for any product not currently in the California market will reduce
the efficacy until the delayed compliance date for most areas around the
country.  This commenter believes that the variance provisions make
quantification of the actual benefit more uncertain.  The commenter
believes that it is not possible to predict how many of the
manufacturers will be able to satisfy the technology and economic
hardship provisions of the rule.  The commenter concluded that it will
be important for EPA to establish a centralized review of the variance
provisions to assure the consistent, nationwide application of these
provisions.

	The commenter (AA) concluded that the emission reduction stated in the
May 30, 2007 guidance to states on emission reduction are virtually
guaranteed not to be achieved due to these provisions in the rule.  The
commenter stated that EPA should adjust these credits to account for the
reduced efficacy.

	Response:  EPA disagrees with the commenter that any of the exemptions
or additional compliance time provided by the rule has a significant
impact on the SIP credit or estimated emission reduction.  While the
exact number of facilities that will both qualify for and exercise each
provision is unknown, EPA believes the number will be small.  In
California, only one variance request was submitted.  EPA has estimated,
and industry has concurred, that over 80 percent of the aerosol coating
products in the country were reformulated to meet the California limits.
 EPA does not believe that the majority of the regulated entities that
have not come into compliance will qualify for these provisions, which
are targeted at providing relief for only the smallest of operations. 
For example, each small quantity manufacturer exemption of 7,500 kg per
year exemption represents less than 0.01 percent of the estimated
emissions from this category (based on the 1990 emissions estimates). 
Even a worst case scenario where half of the estimated 40 small
businesses qualified for this exemption would only represent 0.2 percent
of the total of the uncontrolled emissions.  Therefore, all emissions
estimates and credit assessments remain unchanged.

Clarifications / Specific Rule Questions 

	Comment:  Two commenters (BB, CC) questioned whether 2A contained the
appropriate reactivity factors.  The commenters stated that this table
contains some inconsistencies with the Table of MIR Values that was
included in the California Aerosols Coating Regulation.  This table was
amended in 2003 to include updated MIR values for certain compounds. 
The 2003 amendments added 102 new compounds to the table and 14 MIR
values were updated or assigned a more accurate value.  The commenters
requested that the reactivity factors be updated for the following
compounds:

N-pentadecane

N-C18

4,8-dimethyl tetradecane

1-heptane

1-pentadecene

C-15 terminal alkenes

C7 terminal alkenes

2,4,4-trimethyl-2-pentene

Dipropylene glycol methyl ether isomer (2-[2methoxypropoxy]-1-propanol;

2-(2-butoxyethoxy)-ethanol;

ethylene oxide;

acetic acid;

propionic acid; and

2-ethyl hexanoic acid

	Response:  Although CARB updated the reactivity values for 14 existing
compounds in 2003, they indicated that these values would not
automatically go into effect, but would instead be used when CARB
develops new reactivity limits.  Since CARB has not adopted new limits,
only the original reactivity values that were adopted in CARB's 2000
rulemaking are the ones that apply to CARB's current reactivity limits.

EPA chose to mirror CARB's reactivity limits, adopted in June 2000, and
the reactivity values on which those limits were based to minimize
confusion to industry.  If EPA had incorporated the 14 updated
reactivity values from 2003 in this current rulemaking, then that action
would necessitate developing revised reactivity limits to take into
account the new values.  This action would likely result in EPA and CARB
having different reactivity limits for the same coating category.

No changes were made to the reactivity values in Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C. 
However, as explained in the final preamble, the number of compounds on
Table 2A has been reduced.

	Comment:  One commenter (CC) recommended that EPA include the Chemical
Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) for every specific compound
contained on Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C.  The commenter pointed out that EPA
and other agencies use these numbers in virtually every other regulatory
list.  This would ease identifying a specific organic compound,
especially larger molecules with more complex molecular structures and
different naming conventions.

	Response:  EPA concurs and has provided CAS numbers for all compounds
where a CAS number is available to assist in compliance demonstrations.

    

        

    

        

    

(( PAGE  28 

        

