Results of Section 610 Review of Architectural Coatings Regulations

Background

	On September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48848), EPA promulgated a regulation to
control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from architectural
coatings.  These requirements, codified at 40 CFR Part 79, Subpart D,
were promulgated under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 
Section 183(e) requires EPA to list and regulate categories of consumer
and commercial products that account for at least 80 percent of all VOC
emissions from consumer and commercial products in ozone nonattainment
areas.  Architectural coatings are applied to stationary structures and
their appurtenances, to portable buildings, to pavements, or to curbs. 
The rule included flexibilities such as market-based approaches and
phased-in compliance, as well as traditional VOC limitations.  This rule
was based on the best possible understanding of the industry, and it
afforded the flexibility to achieve the necessary emission reductions in
the most sensible, cost-effective ways.  Pursuant to Section 610 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA has reviewed this rule to determine if
it should be continued without change, or should be rescinded or amended
to minimize adverse economic impacts on small entities.  As part of this
review, EPA considered, and solicited comments on, the following
factors: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of
complaints or comments received concerning the rule; (3) the complexity
of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or
conflicts with other Federal, State, or local government rules; and (5)
the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors
have changed in the area affected by the rule.  The results of EPA’s
review are summarized here.

Discussion of Five Factors

1.  Continued need for the rule

	The rule under review was promulgated as part of EPA’s efforts to
fulfill the requirements of CAA Section 183(e).  Because the rule
controls VOC emissions, which are precursors tropospheric ozone
formation, and because many areas of the United States have not met
ozone standards, EPA finds that there is a continued need for the rule. 
Architectural coatings remain as sources of VOC emissions and,
therefore, continue to contribute to the persistent ozone nonattainment
problem. 

2.  Nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule

	One comment letter was received.  The commenter asserted that the use
of relative reactivity should be incorporated into this rule.  In
addition, the commenter cited EPA’s 2005 Interim Guidance on Control
of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans, as
well as EPA’s 2008 National Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Aerosol Coatings, as evidence of the feasibility of
reactivity-based regulatory approaches for reduction of ozone formation
from VOC emissions.  

	We agree that not all VOC are equal in their effects on ground-level
ozone formation.  However, we believe that adoption of a
reactivity-based approach for the architectural coatings rule at this
time would not provide significant benefits to small coatings
manufacturers and, in some cases, could present small businesses with
the additional burden of research and development to carry out product
reformulation that could be required to comply with a new,
reactivity-based rule.

	Although we believe that the architectural coatings rule may not be a
suitable application for a reactivity-based approach at this time, we
are open to the idea of discussing future development of
reactivity-based approaches for VOC control that could be applied
broadly.  The commenter is encouraged to contact EPA's Bruce Moore
(919-541-5460) to initiate further dialogue on this concept. 

3.  Complexity of the rule

	This rule is fairly straightforward and easy to understand.  It limits
the VOC content of architectural coatings.  We also published a Small
Entity Compliance Guide in 1998 to assist small businesses in
understanding and fulfilling the requirements of the rule.  Accordingly,
and in light of the fact that we received no comments on rule
complexity, we do not believe that complexity of the rule is a barrier
to understanding and complying with the rule.  

4.  Extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with
other federal, State, or local government rules

	Several States have architectural coatings rules that are more
stringent and cover more categories than the 1998 federal architectural
coatings rule.  Consequently, many entities are marketing architectural
coatings that are lower in VOC content than required by the federal
rule.  However, the federal rule is the only rule in place in most
States in the country, and is therefore providing VOC reductions in
those States absent their own State rule.  We know of no instances where
the federal rule conflicts with existing State rules.

5.  The degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other
factors have changed in the area affected by the rule

	Many low-VOC and non-VOC architectural coatings have been developed
since promulgation of this rule in 1998.  Consequently, the VOC limits
in the existing federal rule pose no unreasonable burden on small or
large companies.  The issue of advances made in the science of relative
reactivity has been addressed above under “comments received.” 
Although we believe that changes in technology do not warrant revision
of the architectural coatings rule at this time, we are open to
initiating dialogue on the subject of broadly applied reactivity-based
approaches to VOC regulation.

Conclusion

	The current architectural coatings rule provides for needed VOC
reductions without undue burden on small entities, and does not warrant
revision at this time.  Broad application of reactivity-based approaches
to VOC control and reductions in ozone formation by targeting the higher
reactivity compounds has merit, although we do not believe application
of a reactivity-based approach for architectural coatings is warranted
at this time.  Such an approach for architectural coatings could
conceivably increase burden on small entities rather than reduce burden.

