[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48806-48819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22657]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 59
[AD-FRL-6149-5]
RIN 2060-AE35
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Automobile Refinish Coatings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national volatile organic compound
(VOC) emission standards for automobile refinish coatings pursuant to
section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act). This final rule is based on
the Administrator's determination that VOC emissions from the use of
automobile refinish coatings have the potential to cause or contribute
to ozone levels that violate the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for ozone. Ozone is a major component of smog which causes
negative health and environmental impacts when present in high
concentrations at ground level. The final rule is estimated to reduce
VOC emissions by 31,900 tons per year (tpy) by requiring manufacturers
and importers to limit the VOC content of automobile refinish coatings.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date is September 11, 1998. Incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 11,
1998.
ADDRESSES: Technical Support Documents. The regulation promulgated
today is supported by two background information documents (BIDs), one
specific to the automobile refinish coatings rule, and one that
addresses comments on the study and Report to Congress under section
183(e) that is a basis for this rule. The document, ``Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Automobile Refinishing--Background Information
for Promulgated Standards'' (EPA-453/R-96-011b), contains a summary of
the public comments made on the proposed automobile refinish coatings
rule and the Agency's responses to the comments. The document,
``Response to Comments on Section 183(e) Study and Report to Congress''
(EPA-453/R-98-007), contains a summary of all the public comments made
on the section 183(e) study and Report to Congress and the list and
schedule for regulation as well as the Agency's responses to the
comments.
These documents may be obtained from several sources: (1) the
docket for this rulemaking; (2) the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone (919) 541-2777; (3) National Technical Information Services,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151, telephone (703) 487-
4650; and (4) through the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/
ramain.html.
Docket. Docket No. A-95-18, containing supporting information used
in developing the promulgated standards, is available for public
inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and
[[Page 48807]]
Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, Ground Floor, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Morris at (919) 541-5416,
Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711 (morris.mark@epamail.epa.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action
are manufacturers and importers of automobile refinish coatings or
coating components. An automobile refinish coating component is a
portion of a coating, such as a reducer or thinner, hardener, additive,
etc., recommended (by its manufacturer or importer) to distributors or
end-users for automobile refinishing. Automobile refinishing is the
process of coating automobiles or their parts, including partial body
collision repairs, that is subsequent to the original coating applied
at an automobile original equipment manufacturing plant. Regulated
categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... Manufacturers or importers of
automobile refinish coatings or
coating components that are
manufactured for sale or
distribution in the U.S., including
all U.S. territories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your product is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 59.100 of the final rule. If
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
Judicial review. The EPA proposed this section 183(e) rule for
automobile refinish coatings on April 30, 1996 (61 FR 19005), and
issued a supplemental proposal on December 30, 1997 (62 FR 67784). This
notice promulgating a rule for automobile refinish coatings constitutes
final administrative action concerning the proposal. Under section
307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final rule is available
only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit by November 10, 1998. Under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, only an objection to this rule which was
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2)
of the Act, the requirements established by today's final action may
not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceeding
brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
Technology Transfer Network. The Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
is one of the EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control, including copies of this rule and supporting documents. The
TTN is free and is accessible through the Internet at ``http://
www.epa.gov/ttn.'' For more information on the TTN, call the HELP line
at (919) 541-5384.
Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in reading this
preamble to the final rule.
I. Purpose and Summary of the Standards
A. Purpose of Regulation
1. Ground-level ozone
2. Automobile Refinish Coatings Regulation
3. Background on section 183(e)
B. Summary of the Standards
II. Summary of Considerations in Developing the Rule
A. Technical Basis of Regulation
B. Stakeholder and Public Participation
III. Summary of Impacts
A. Volatile Organic Compound Reductions
B. Secondary Air, Water, and Solid Waste Impacts
C. Energy Impacts
D. Cost and Economic Impacts
IV. Significant Comments and Changes to the Proposed Rule
A. Applicability
B. Lacquer Topcoats
C. Specialty Coatings
D. Test Methods
E. Coatings with Multiple Uses
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Executive Order 12875
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
F. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Executive Order 13045
I. Purpose and Summary of the Standards
A. Purpose of Regulation
1. Ground-Level Ozone
Ground-level ozone, which is a major component of ``smog,'' is
formed in the atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) in the presence of sunlight. The formation of ground-
level ozone is a complex process that is affected by many variables.
Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of
human health effects, agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and
ecosystems. Acute health effects are induced by short-term exposures to
ozone (observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million
(ppm)), generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy
exertion, and by prolonged exposures to ozone (observed at
concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm), typically while individuals are
engaged in moderate exertion. Moderate exertion levels are more
frequently experienced by individuals than heavy exertion levels. The
acute health effects include pulmonary function responses, transient
respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise performance, increased
sensitivity of airways to irritants, increased susceptibility to
respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency room
visits, and pulmonary inflammation. Groups at increased risk of
experiencing such effects include active children, outdoor workers, and
others who regularly engage in outdoor activities and individuals with
preexisting respiratory disease. Available information also suggests
that long-term exposures to ozone may cause chronic health effects
(e.g., structural damage to lung tissue and accelerated decline in
baseline lung function).
2. Automobile Refinish Coatings Regulation
Before today's rule, VOC emissions from the use of automobile
refinish coatings were not regulated at the Federal level. However,
several States have developed automobile refinishing rules. Some
industry parties and States have urged the EPA to issue rules for
automobile refinish coatings to encourage consistency across the
country. Many States with ozone pollution problems are supportive of an
EPA rulemaking that will assist them in their efforts toward
achievement of ozone attainment. Although regulated entities in all
States will be required to comply with these national standards, some
States may wish to promulgate
[[Page 48808]]
VOC standards more stringent than the national rule to assist in
achieving attainment with the NAAQS for ozone.
3. Background on Section 183(e)
Section 183(e) of the Act mandates a new regulatory program for
controlling VOC emissions. Through this provision, Congress required
the EPA to conduct a study of emissions of VOC into the ambient air
from consumer and commercial products to determine their potential to
contribute to ozone nonattainment, to develop criteria based upon
statutory factors for regulation of such products, and to list for
regulation, based on the criteria, categories of products that account
for at least 80 percent of the emissions from such products in
nonattainment areas, on a reactivity adjusted basis.
In accordance with section 183(e) of the Act, the Administrator has
determined that VOC emissions from the use of automobile refinish
coatings have the potential to contribute to ozone levels that violate
the NAAQS for ozone. Under authority of section 183(e), the EPA
conducted a study of the VOC emissions from consumer and commercial
products to determine their potential to contribute to ozone levels
which violate the NAAQS for ozone. Based on the results of the study,
and by application of the criteria, the EPA determined that the
emissions from automobile refinish coatings should be regulated under
section 183(e). Consequently, the EPA and many States consider the
regulation of automobile refinish coatings to be an important component
of the overall approach to reducing those emissions that contribute to
ozone nonattainment. The EPA's determination that VOC emissions from
the use of automobile refinish coatings have the potential to
contribute to nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS and the decision to
regulate automobile refinish coatings are discussed in the preamble to
the proposed rule (61 FR 19005), in the ``Consumer and Commercial
Products Report to Congress'' (EPA-453/R-94-066-A), in the Federal
Register notice announcing the schedule for regulation (60 FR 15264),
and in a separate Federal Register notice published today that
constitutes final action on the agency's listing of automobile refinish
coatings for regulation.
B. Summary of the Standards
Applicability
The provisions of the rule apply to automobile refinish coatings
and coating components that are manufactured on or after January 11,
1999 for sale or distribution in the United States, including the
District of Columbia and all U.S. territories. The entities regulated
by the rule include manufacturers and importers of automobile refinish
coatings or coating components.
The final rule does not apply to coatings or coating components
manufactured before the compliance date of the rule, for use by
original equipment manufacturers, or for sale outside the United
States. The final rule also does not apply to coatings supplied in
nonrefillable aerosol containers, lacquer topcoats or their components,
or touch-up coatings.
Regulated Entities
Regulated entities are generally defined under section 183(e) of
the Act to include potentially manufacturers, processors, wholesale
distributors, and importers. Under this final rule, regulated entities
include manufacturers and importers of automobile refinish coatings or
coating components which are manufactured for sale or distribution in
the United States. Since the distribution of coatings has no effect on
whether compliant coatings are used, distributors are not regulated
entities under this rule.
Standards
Coatings subject to this rule shall comply with the VOC content
standards listed in table 1. Combinations of automobile refinish
coating components recommended for use in the coating categories given
in table 1 shall comply with the appropriate VOC content standards.
Table 1.--VOC Content Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC
Content,a
Coating category grams/liter
(pounds/
gallon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretreatment Wash Primer................................... 780 (6.5)
Primer/Primer Surfacer..................................... 580 (4.8)
Primer Sealer.............................................. 550 (4.6)
Single/2-Stage Topcoats.................................... 600 (5.0)
Topcoats of 3 or more stages............................... 630 (5.2)
Multi-colored topcoats..................................... 680 (5.7)
Specialty Coatings b....................................... 840 (7.0)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a VOC content means the amount of VOC in a coating that has been
prepared for application according to the regulated entity's mixing
instructions, excluding water and exempt compounds. English units are
provided for information only. Regulation enforcement will be based on
the metric levels.
b Specialty coatings include adhesion promoters, low-gloss coatings,
bright metal trim repair coatings, cut-in (jambing) clearcoats,
elastomeric materials, impact-resistant coatings, underbody coatings,
uniform finish blenders, and weld-through primers.
Labeling Requirements
Each regulated entity must provide the following information on
each container: (1) the day, month, and year on which the product was
manufactured; or (2) a code indicating such a date.
Reporting
Regulated entities must file an initial report to the appropriate
EPA Regional Office no later than January 11, 1999 or within 180 days
after a regulated entity becomes subject to the rule, whichever is
later. Addresses for the EPA Regional Offices are provided in
Sec. 59.108. The initial report must include the following information:
(1) The name and mailing address of the regulated entity.
(2) In cases where codes are used to represent the date of
manufacture, the regulated entity shall submit an explanation of each
date code to the Administrator.
(3) The street address of each of the regulated entity's facilities
in the United States that is producing, packaging, or importing
automobile refinish coatings or coating components subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(4) A list of the categories from table 1 of this subpart for which
the regulated entity recommends the use of automobile refinish coatings
or coating components.
Each regulated entity must submit an explanation of any new date
codes used by the regulated entity no later than 30 days after products
bearing the new date code are first introduced into commerce.
Except for applications that may be submitted by regulated entities
requesting variances, there are no reporting requirements beyond those
described above.
Variance
The rule allows regulated entities to submit a written application
to the Administrator requesting a variance if, for technological or
economic reasons beyond their reasonable control, they cannot comply
with the requirements of the rule.
Upon receipt of a variance application, the Administrator will
determine whether, under what conditions, and to what extent, a
variance from the requirements of the rule is necessary and will be
permitted.
An approved variance will designate a final compliance date and a
condition
[[Page 48809]]
that specifies increments of progress necessary to assure timely
compliance. A variance shall end immediately upon the failure of the
party to whom the variance was granted to comply with any term or
condition of the variance.
Compliance Provisions
The rule specifies the procedures to determine the VOC content of
coatings subject to the rule. The VOC content of coatings will be
determined using the EPA's Method 24--``Determination of Volatile
Matter Content, Water Content, Density, Volume Solids, and Weight
Solids of Surface Coatings,'' found in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Method 24 is the EPA's standard method for determining the VOC content
of coatings.
For purposes of determining whether a primer qualifies as a
pretreatment wash primer, the acid weight percent of such primers shall
be determined using the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Test Method D 1613-96 (incorporated by reference) to determine
compliance with the definition of pretreatment wash primer as provided
in Sec. 59.101 of this subpart.
For purposes of determining whether a coating qualifies as a low-
gloss coating, the gloss reading of low-gloss coatings shall be
determined using ASTM Test Method D 523-89 (incorporated by reference)
to determine compliance with the definition of low-gloss coating as
provided in Sec. 59.101 of this subpart.
Although the EPA has chosen Method 24 as the reference method for
determining compliance with the VOC content requirements of this rule,
it is not the exclusive method for determining compliance. The
manufacturer or importer may also use a different analytical method
than Method 24 (if it approved by the Administrator on a case-by-case
basis), formulation data, or any other reasonable means to determine
the VOC content of coatings. However, the EPA may require a Method 24
analysis to be conducted, and if there are any inconsistencies between
the results of a Method 24 test and any other means for determining VOC
content, the Method 24 test results will govern. The EPA can use other
evidence as well to establish whether or not a manufacturer or importer
is in compliance with the provisions of this rule.
II. Summary of Considerations in Developing the Rule
A. Technical Basis of Regulation
Standards under Section 183(e) of the Act must reflect the Agency's
determination of best available controls (BAC) for the product
category. The Act defines BAC as:
The degree of emissions reduction the Administrator determines,
on the basis of technological and economic feasibility, health,
environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the
application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes,
methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation,
product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for
use, consumption, storage, or disposal.
The statute thus empowers the EPA to examine a variety of
considerations to use in determining the best means of obtaining VOC
emission reductions from a given consumer or commercial product
category. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR
19005, April 30, 1996), the primary factors the EPA considered in
determining BAC for automobile refinish coatings were technological and
economic feasibility, and environmental impacts.
The EPA has determined that BAC for automobile refinish coatings
consists of specific VOC content limits, expressed as mass of VOC per
volume of coating, for each type of coating as listed in Sec. 59.102.
Section 183(e) of the Act allows the EPA to consider a wide range of
strategies and technologies in determining BAC. The determination must
be based on technological and economic feasibility, as well as on
health, environmental, and energy impacts. The EPA has determined that,
in most cases, all or most of a coating's VOC content is emitted during
use. Therefore, the EPA concluded that limits on the VOC content would
be the most feasible and least disruptive control measure to obtain
appropriate VOC emission reductions. In working to comply with State
VOC rules over the past several years, automobile refinish coating
manufacturers have already developed low-VOC coatings. The standards
reflect the degree of emission reduction that the EPA has determined to
be BAC for different types of automobile refinish coatings. The EPA
selected the VOC limits based primarily on existing State and local VOC
emission standards, coating VOC content and sales information, analysis
of coating technologies, performance considerations, cost
considerations, market impacts, and stakeholder input.
As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the BAC
selection process involved the selection of coating categories and the
determination of VOC content limits for those categories. Primers and
topcoats are the general categories of automobile refinish coatings.
Decisions to divide these categories into more specific categories was
a direct consequence of the VOC content levels under consideration. For
example, the primer category is fairly broad and encompasses several
coating applications. The determination of the primer (and primer
surfacer) VOC limit was discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule.
The creation of a separate category for pretreatment wash primers was
necessary because the EPA had no information indicating this specific
primer type could achieve the lower VOC limit of the general primer
category. The limit selected for the pretreatment wash primer category
is essentially the VOC level of such primers in use today; therefore,
the EPA anticipates no emission reductions from this low-usage
category. The VOC content limit determined to be BAC for another
category, primer sealers, is lower than the primer limit, since coating
product information indicates that primer sealers can achieve a lower
limit.
Topcoats are also divided into several categories. BAC for single
and 2-stage topcoats was determined after considering the technical
feasibility and cost impacts of the use of topcoats at various VOC
content levels. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the
EPA has no information indicating that topcoats of 3 or more stages can
achieve the same limit as single and 2-stage topcoats; therefore, a
separate category was created for such topcoats. As a result of a
public comment, another topcoat category has been added in this final
rule for multi-colored topcoats. These low-usage coatings are durable
and wear resistant, and are used mainly for lining the cargo beds of
trucks. The EPA established the VOC limit for this category based on
State rules and public comments. The EPA has no information indicating
that a lower VOC limit can be achieved.
The specialty coating category contains several coatings designed
for very specific uses. These coatings do not exist with a wide variety
of VOC levels. Like pretreatment wash primers, the VOC limit for
specialty coatings is essentially the VOC level of such coatings
already in use. This category contains coatings that are used
infrequently, and the EPA does not anticipate VOC reductions from this
category.
B. Stakeholder and Public Participation
The EPA proposed the automobile refinish coatings rule and
published the preamble in the Federal Register on April 30, 1996 (61 FR
19005) and
[[Page 48810]]
December 30, 1997 (62 FR 67784). The EPA placed the proposed regulatory
text, BID, and Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) in a docket open to the
public at that time and made them available to interested parties. The
EPA solicited comments at the time of the proposal.
To provide interested persons the opportunity for oral presentation
of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed standards, a
public hearing was held in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina on
May 30, 1996. Seven people presented oral testimony at this hearing.
The public comment period was open from April 30, 1996, to July 1,
1996, and from December 30, 1997, to February 13, 1998. Twenty-six
comment letters were received. Commenters included industry
representatives, States, trade associations, and others. The comments
have been carefully considered, and changes have been made to the
proposed standards when determined by the Administrator to be
appropriate. A detailed discussion of these comments and responses can
be found in the Background Information Document, which is referenced in
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
A separate document in today's Federal Register contains a summary
of public comments and EPA responses regarding the section 183(e)
study, the Report to Congress, the list of consumer and commercial
product categories selected for regulation, and the schedule for
regulation.
III. Summary of Impacts
A. Volatile Organic Compound Reductions
The proposed standards would reduce nationwide emissions of VOC
from the use of automobile refinish coatings by an estimated 28,900 Mg
(31,900 tons). These reductions represent a 33% reduction from the 1995
baseline emissions estimates. Since many regulated VOC species are also
on the list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) in section 112 of the
Act, the proposed rule is expected to reduce some HAP emissions from
the use of automobile refinish coatings.
B. Health Effects
Because VOC are precursors to ozone formation, the VOC reductions
from automobile refinish coatings will contribute to a decrease in
adverse health effects that result from exposure to ground-level ozone.
These health effects result from short-term or prolonged exposure to
ground-level ozone and include transient respiratory symptoms, effects
on exercise performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased
susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions
and emergency room visits, and transient pulmonary inflammation.
Available information also suggests that long-term exposures to ozone
may cause chronic health effects (e.g., structural damage to lung
tissue and accelerated decline in baseline lung function).
C. Secondary Air, Water, and Solid Waste Impacts
No significant adverse secondary air, water, or solid waste impacts
are anticipated from compliance with these standards. Generally, the
use of low-VOC coatings, a pollution prevention technique, will be used
to comply with these standards. In cases where conversion from
solventborne to waterborne coatings is the method used to achieve
compliance, an increase in wastewater discharge may occur if waste from
the manufacture of waterborne coatings is discharged by manufacturers
to publicly owned treatment works.
The regulations do not impact existing product inventories.
Products manufactured before the compliance deadline are not affected.
Excluding existing product inventories from the regulations will
eliminate any incremental solid waste increase due to discarded unsold
products. The new products are not expected to require any more
packaging than existing products, and thus the volume of discarded
packaging should not increase.
D. Energy Impacts
The EPA anticipates no increase in energy usage as a result of this
rule. The standards do not require the use of control devices that
utilize energy to reduce the amount of VOC emitted to the air. The EPA
is also not aware of any incremental energy use increase expected from
the production of new formulations of automobile refinish coatings and
coating components.
E. Cost and Economic Impacts
The total cost of this rule includes coating manufacturer process
modification costs, and costs for training coating manufacturer
representatives, distributors, and body shop personnel. The annual cost
of this rule is 4.5 million dollars (1993 dollars), or about $160 per
megagram of VOC emissions reductions. This cost per megagram of VOC
emission reduction makes this rule an economically efficient means of
obtaining VOC emission reductions, when compared to the cost per
megagram of reduction potentially available through other control
measures. Economic impacts are predicted to be minimal with a maximum
price increase of two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) or less, and a 0.02%
increase in the cost of an average repair job. Small business impacts
are not expected to be significant.
IV. Significant Comments and Changes to the Proposed Standards
The EPA received a total of 26 comment letters on the proposed
rule. In addition, 7 speakers presented testimony at a public hearing
held in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, on May 30, 1996. The
more significant comments on the rule are discussed in this section of
the preamble. A complete summary of comments and the EPA's full
responses are presented in the BID for the promulgated rule, as
referenced in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
In response to public comments on the proposed standards, the EPA
has made several changes to the final rule. While most of the changes
are clarifications designed to make the Agency's intent clearer, the
EPA did make changes to the proposed rule based upon comments received.
The changes include:
Addition of definitions for ``automobile refinish coating
component,'' ``low-gloss coating,'' and ``multi-colored topcoat,''
Exemption of lacquer topcoats,
Clarification of the requirements for coatings with
multiple uses,
Addition of the multi-colored topcoat category, and
Reorganization of the rule for clarity.
The following sections of the preamble discuss the most significant
issues raised by commenters and the EPA's responses to them.
A. Applicability
Several commenters supported including manufacturers and importers
of automobile refinish coating components, such as thinners and
hardeners, as regulated entities. The commenters stated that excluding
coating component manufacturers and importers would likely result in
the use of coatings with VOC levels higher than the proposed standards,
since these components would not be required to be part of a compliant
coating system.
Regulated entities under the April 30, 1996, proposed rule included
only manufacturers and importers of complete automobile refinish
coatings. The VOC content of an automobile refinish coating depends,
however, on
[[Page 48811]]
the VOC content levels of all components that make up the coating.
Coating users sometimes combine components made by multiple
manufacturers when preparing a coating. Since components themselves are
not coatings, a manufacturer who produces only hardeners, for example,
would not have been subject to the April 1996 proposed rule. Such a
manufacturer could recommend that its hardener be combined with
components of other manufacturers, possibly resulting in a coating that
exceeds the VOC content standards of the rule. Such a situation could
essentially undermine the VOC emission reductions of the rule.
The EPA proposed in a supplemental notice (December 30, 1997, 62 FR
67784) to include as regulated entities all manufacturers and importers
of automobile refinish coatings or coating components. The EPA also
proposed a mechanism for determining compliance with the rule for
coatings consisting of components made or imported by multiple
entities. Under this approach, manufacturers and importers of coatings
or coating components must comply with the VOC content limits for
complete coatings by calculating the VOC content of coatings that
result from the use of their components in accordance with their
recommendations.
Determining compliance for coatings consisting of components made
or imported by one regulated entity is relatively easy. In general,
compliance would be determined by ``spot checking,'' where the EPA (or
the regulated entity, if requested by the EPA) would obtain coating
components, mix the components in the ratios recommended by the
regulated entity (on the containers or in any product literature), and
analyze the resulting coating using Method 24. The EPA considered
requiring regulated entities to perform VOC testing of their coatings
on a regular basis (e.g., every nth batch) to demonstrate compliance
with the rule, but believes that such a requirement would be
economically burdensome. The EPA believes that random spot checks will
be adequate to encourage regulated entities to assure that all of their
coating batches are compliant.
Determining the compliance of coatings that consist of components
made or imported by multiple regulated entities is more difficult. The
EPA considered several options for determining compliance in these
cases. The EPA considered requiring regulated entities (that recommend
the use of their components with those of other regulated entities) to
use Method 24 to test the coatings resulting from their
recommendations. Using this information, the entities could establish
the maximum allowable VOC content of their components, and the EPA
would spot check components to determine compliance. However, the EPA
has no standard method for determining the VOC content of individual
components. Also, the VOC content of a coating is not simply the sum of
the VOC contents its components, so component VOC content is not
necessarily an indicator of the VOC content of the overall coating.
Therefore, the EPA believes it is technically infeasible to determine
compliance using component VOC content information.
Because of the technical infeasibility of the approach described
above, the EPA has concluded that the responsibility for coatings
should be based on product recommendations. In other words, if an
entity recommends a combination of components (made or imported by one
or more regulated entities), then that entity is responsible for the
compliance of the resulting coating. There may be cases where a coating
resulting from an entity's recommendation is noncompliant because of
the components of other entities. Since this occurrence may be beyond
the control of the recommending entity, the Agency determined that it
would be appropriate to provide regulated entities with a means to
establish their compliance with the rule, and the Agency solicited
comments on such a mechanism. In this event, the final rule provides
regulated entities the opportunity to submit new or existing Method 24
test data demonstrating the compliance of the coating resulting from
their recommendation. This option is technically feasible, and is
appropriate since compliance is determined in essentially the same way
for all regulated entities.
It is important to note that regulated entities would be liable
only for the VOC content of the coatings that result from their
recommendations. For example, if a regulated entity recommends that
three of its coating components be combined and used in automobile
refinishing, it is responsible for the coating that results from that
combination. If a regulated entity recommends the substitution of one
of its components for that of another regulated entity, the former
entity is responsible for the resulting coating. A regulated entity is
not responsible for coatings resulting from the recommendations of
others, even if such recommendations involve the use of components of
that regulated entity.
B. Lacquer Topcoats
In the proposed rule, the EPA indicated that it was considering
exempting lacquer topcoats from the rule or including them in a
specialty coating category and limiting their production. Several
commenters supported the exemption of lacquer topcoats from the rule
because they account for only 5-10% of coating usage, and their use is
decreasing because automobile manufacturers use other coating types on
new automobiles. These commenters stated that lacquers are used mainly
by hobbyists who wish to restore vehicles to their original condition,
including the paint finish. One commenter stated the use of lacquers to
refinish modern vehicles is untenable because of inferior durability
and aesthetics.
Another commenter stated that the EPA should classify lacquer
topcoats as specialty coatings and consider limiting their production,
since an exemption for lacquers would create inconsistencies between
the national rule and State rules that do not exempt them. The
commenter stated that limiting lacquer production would aid in the
compliance with State rules.
The EPA has determined that it is appropriate to exempt lacquer
topcoats from the final rule. The EPA agrees lacquer topcoats are less
desirable than other coating types for refinishing modern automobiles,
and that their use is therefore not likely to increase since they are
not used on new automobiles. Lacquers are not as durable as other
coatings. Since they dry by solvent evaporation alone (rather than
through chemical crosslinking), they are not resistant to solvent
attack. Although other coatings generally can be used to refinish
antique and classic automobiles, the finish would not be the
``original'' finish desired by users in this niche of automobile
refinishing. The EPA exempted lacquer topcoats from the final rule
because their use is decreasing, their contribution to the total VOC
emissions is small, they fill a niche in the automobile refinish
industry, and they cannot be reformulated to meet the VOC content limit
for topcoats.
Including lacquer topcoats in a specialty coating category and
limiting their production, as suggested by one commenter, does not
appear to be a viable option. First, production limits set
significantly below current usage levels would cause shortages of
lacquer topcoats. Such shortages would restrict consumer access to the
product. Second,
[[Page 48812]]
production limits set at or near current usage levels would be
equivalent to an exemption, since lacquer topcoat usage is not likely
to increase. The additional recordkeeping necessary to make a
production limit enforceable would be burdensome on both regulated
entities and the EPA. For these reasons, the EPA decided against the
creation of a specialty category with limits on production for lacquer
topcoats.
Some commenters noted that an exemption would lead to an
inconsistency between State and federal rules for this coating type.
The EPA acknowledges that an exemption for lacquer topcoats under the
national rule may make the rule less stringent than some State rules,
but the EPA notes that States may still choose to be more stringent
than the national rule by the inclusion of such coatings in their own
rules.
C. Specialty Coatings
In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA requested comments on
methods to determine and enforce production limits for specialty
coatings. Production limits were considered by the EPA as a way to
prevent abuse of an open-ended definition of specialty coatings.
Several commenters on the proposed rule stated that an open-ended
definition of specialty coatings would allow refinish coating
manufacturers to produce coatings compatible with new substrates and
coatings used on new vehicles.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA discussed the
difficulties associated with specialty coating production limits. Since
some specialty coatings are just modifications of other coatings, it is
unclear what should be limited. Also, production limits would adversely
affect manufacturers and importers that produce primarily specialty
coatings. Several commenters reiterated these concerns, but no comments
were received suggesting production limits or how such limits could be
determined or enforced. Therefore, the final rule does not include
production limits for specialty coatings.
D. Test Methods
One commenter stated that the EPA had not designated a reliable
test method for determining the acid content of pretreatment wash
primers. The proposed method, ASTM Test Method D 1613-91, covers the
determination of total acidity in organic compound and hydrocarbon
mixtures used in paints and other substances. This method consists of a
titration using a color indicator to determine the endpoint of the
titration. The EPA agrees that since some pretreatment wash primers are
pigmented, tests using color indicators may not work. However, the
proposed method can be used to determine the acid content of the acid-
containing component of the primer, which does not contain the pigment.
Pretreatment wash primers typically consist of two components: a
``base'' coating and a catalyst. The base contains the pigment, and the
catalyst contains the acid. The catalyst is a mixture of organic
compounds that contains acid; therefore, it is in the scope of the
proposed method. To determine the overall weight percent of acid in the
primer, calculations must be performed that involve the acid content of
the catalyst and the mixing ratio of the base to the catalyst. The EPA
proposed this use of ASTM Test Method D 1613-91 in the December 30,
1997, supplemental proposal. Several commenters agreed with this use of
the method. One commenter on the supplemental proposal, however, stated
that coating manufacturers may develop a single component pretreatment
wash primer, and wondered what method would be used in such cases.
Since no such coatings currently exist, the EPA has not proposed a test
method for them; however, the final rule does contain a provision which
allows the use of alternative methods when warranted.
E. Coatings With Multiple Uses
Several commenters recommended clarification of a proposed rule
provision dealing with coatings having multiple uses. One commenter
stated that a topcoat modified for a specific purpose, thus making it a
specialty coating, can be interpreted to be noncompliant under the
proposed rule if it does not meet the topcoat limit, which is the
lowest applicable VOC content standard.
To avoid confusion, the EPA has removed the provision mentioned by
the commenters. The EPA's intent in the proposed provision was to
clarify that if the same combination (and mixing ratio) of coating
components were recommended for use in more than one coating category,
then the lowest VOC content standard would apply. Different
combinations and/or mixing ratios of coating components are considered
different coatings. The modified topcoat described by a commenter is
not considered a topcoat if it meets the definition of a specialty
coating; therefore, it would not be required to meet the topcoat VOC
content standard. A provision has been added to the final rule
(Sec. 59.102(b)) for clarification.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket
is a dynamic file, since material is added throughout the rulemaking
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the statement of basis and purpose of the proposed and
promulgated standards and the EPA responses to significant comments,
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in case of judicial
review [see 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(A)].
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0353.
The information collections required under this rule are needed as
part of the overall compliance and enforcement program. The information
will be used by the EPA to identify the regulated entities subject to
the rule and to ensure their compliance with the rule. The reporting
and labeling requirements are mandatory and are being established under
sections 114 and 183(e) of the Act. All information submitted to the
EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded
according to the EPA policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2,
Subpart B--Confidentiality of Information (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
The only information collection requirements of the rule are for
labeling and reporting. To determine whether a coating or coating
component is manufactured before or after the compliance date of the
rule, the date of manufacture, or code representing the date, must
appear on the container. Manufacturers currently include this
information on containers. The rule requires all coating or coating
component manufacturers and importers to submit an initial report
containing their name and mailing address, an explanation of coating or
coating component date codes, if codes are used to represent the date
of
[[Page 48813]]
manufacture or import, and a list of facilities where coatings or
coating components are manufactured or imported. Reporting beyond the
initial report is required only for the explanation of any new date
codes used by manufacturers or importers, and for requests for
variances. The information to be reported is not of a sensitive nature.
The EPA estimated the cost and hour burden of the information
collection requirements of the rule. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes
of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
The initial report must be submitted by all coating or coating
component manufacturers and importers. Averaged over a 3 year period,
the EPA estimates that the initial report will require 8 hours to
complete, and will be submitted by 10 respondents annually. Beyond the
initial report, the EPA estimates that 3 respondents per year will
spend 2 hours each reporting the explanations of any new date codes
used. The total annual cost of the reporting requirements of the
proposed rule is $3,200.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
The EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved
information collection request control numbers issued by OMB for
various regulations to list the information requirements contained in
this final rule.
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
EPA must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of this Executive
Order to prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the executive
order.
Pursuant to the terms of the executive order, the EPA has
determined that this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' within the meaning of the executive order.
D. Executive Order 12875
To reduce the burden of federal regulations on States and small
governments, the President issued Executive Order 12875 on October 26,
1993, entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. In
particular, this executive order is designed to require agencies to
assess the effects of regulations that are not required by statute and
that create mandates upon State, local, or tribal governments. This
regulation does not create mandates upon State, local, or tribal
governments.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), requires the EPA to give special consideration to the
effect of Federal regulations on small entities and to consider
regulatory options that might mitigate any such impacts. The EPA is
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis, including
consideration of regulatory options for reducing any significant
impacts, unless the Agency determines that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
The EPA performed an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
to determine the extent of any impacts under the proposed rule. This
IRFA was included in the docket for the proposed rule. In the
supplemental proposal, the EPA proposed to expand the class of
regulated entities to include all automobile refinish coating component
manufacturers and importers.
The EPA estimates there are about 20-25 companies producing
automobile refinish coatings and coating components. At least 10 of
these are large companies that have the majority of the industry market
share. The EPA believes that the remaining 10-15 companies have fewer
than 500 employees and are therefore small entities in accordance with
Small Business Administration regulations applicable to this rule.
Several of the small companies produce only thinners and reducers. The
thinners/reducers used in low-VOC coatings are not significantly
different from those used in conventional coatings; therefore, the rule
will not have a significant impact on manufacturers of thinners/
reducers because little, if any, reformulation of these components will
be necessary under the rule. Some of the remaining small companies
already produce low-VOC coatings and coating components because they
operate in areas that already have State or local automobile refinish
rules in effect. Most State and local rules are at least as stringent
as the national rule. The EPA concludes, therefore, that the rule will
not have a significant impact on these companies.
The remaining small companies will be impacted by the rule, but the
EPA believes that the impact will not be significant. The impacts of
the rule are from process modifications, training, and reporting
requirements, as discussed in the IRFA. Process modifications are those
changes that may be necessary for the production of low-VOC (high-
solids) coatings, including the use of different mixing and pumping
equipment. Some manufacturers affected by State and local rules have
already complied with those rules by changing the recommended mixing
ratios of components and have not changed the components themselves in
a significant way; therefore, few process modifications have likely
been necessary in these cases. Where process modifications are
necessary, their impact will not be significant; when such impacts are
examined assuming that they will be passed on to the user (as was done
in the IFRA), the impacts do not significantly affect the cost of
coatings or refinish jobs.
The EPA believes that the impacts from training and reporting
[[Page 48814]]
requirements of the final rule will be minimal. Many States have
developed automobile refinish rules since the time the impacts analysis
for the proposed national rule was performed, and the regulated
entities have already taken steps to comply with such regulations. It
is likely that most, if not all, regulated entities are already
familiar with low-VOC coatings; therefore, the need for training (and,
thus, training costs) are likely overstated in the analysis for the
proposed rule. Training was estimated to cost less than $500 per
individual for the proposed rule. For small entities with few employees
needing training, this cost would not be significant. Reporting
requirements of the proposed rule consisted of an initial report that
provides the EPA with basic information about regulated entities (name,
location, etc.), and periodic reports (if necessary) to explain any new
date codes that regulated entities may use to indicate the manufacture
date of components. The EPA has retained the same labeling and
reporting requirements in the final rule. Given the limited nature of
the reporting requirements, the EPA believes that the impact of the
reporting requirements of the final rule will not be significant.
The EPA does not have data sufficient to quantify precisely the
impact of the rule by measures such as percentage of sales, but the
nature of the impacts are such that the impacts will be small. The EPA
bases this conclusion upon the information that was reasonably
available to the Agency.
There are several aspects of the final rule which the EPA has
included to minimize any impacts to small entities. First, the EPA has
not required regulated entities to perform initial VOC testing of
coatings or coating components or any of the coatings that might result
from the combination of the entity's components with those of other
regulated entities. The EPA believes that such an approach would have
required regulated entities to perform numerous tests which, in the
aggregate, could have imposed significant costs upon regulated
entities. The EPA believes that such a requirement could have a
disproportionate impact upon small entities. Instead, the EPA has
linked responsibility for a coating's compliance with the regulated
entity's recommendations for use. The EPA will assure compliance by
``spot-checking'' the VOC content of the coatings that result from such
recommendations.
Second, the EPA has not required regulated entities to perform
periodic VOC testing of coating or coating component batches. The EPA
considered requiring regulated entities periodically to test batches of
their coatings or coating components to ensure that the VOC content of
coatings resulting from the combination of such components would be
compliant. As discussed above, compliance with the rule will be
determined by the spot-checking of coatings. Regulated entities may
rely on formulation data only to assure themselves of their compliance,
or they may decide to perform some VOC testing for this purpose, but
the EPA is not requiring batch testing. The EPA believes that not
requiring batch testing will limit the impact upon regulated entities
and, in particular, will help to alleviate impacts upon small entities.
Finally, the EPA has not required recordkeeping by regulated
entities. The EPA considered requiring regulated entities to maintain
records containing information on coating and coating component batches
but determined that such records would not aid significantly in the
enforcement of the standard. As stated above, the only reporting
requirements are an initial report that allows the EPA to determine the
universe of regulated entities, and reports that explain date codes if
such codes are used to indicate the date of manufacture. The EPA
believes that minimization of recordkeeping and reporting requirements
will help to decrease impacts upon small entities.
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule.
Based on the results of the analysis at proposal (which was unaffected
by public comments), the EPA concluded that this rule does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
F. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Under
section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that
may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
Based upon the analysis presented in the EIA, the EPA has
determined that the action promulgated today does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, in any one year. Therefore, the requirements of
Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not apply
to this action. The EPA has likewise determined that the final rule
does not include regulatory requirements that would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's action is not subject
to the requirements of section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. Sec. 804(2). This rule will be effective September 11, 1998.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (the NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires the
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
Today's rule includes three test methods. To determine the VOC
content of coatings, this rule specifies the use of
[[Page 48815]]
the EPA's Method 24. This method describes how to determine VOC content
using several American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
methods. To determine the acid content of pretreatment wash primers,
and to determine the specular gloss of topcoats, this rule specifies
the use of other ASTM methods. The EPA proposed these voluntary
consensus standards and received no adverse comment on their use for
the stated purposes. In preparing the final rule, however, the EPA has
investigated to determine the availability of any other existing
voluntary consensus standards for use in lieu of the proposed methods.
The EPA has searched for additional voluntary consensus standards that
might be applicable. The search included use of the National Standards
System Network, an automated service provided by the American National
Standards Institute for identifying available national and
international standards. The EPA has not identified any voluntary
consensus standards that are not presently included in Method 24 and
that would result in equivalent results. The EPA did identify another
voluntary consensus method (ASTM D-3960) that provides instructions for
calculating VOC content in many different units. Because this other
method does not specify which units to use, it may result in
inconsistent applications of the procedure and could make the standard
more difficult to enforce. Consequently, the EPA determined that this
other voluntary consensus method would be impractical to adopt. In
addition, the EPA believes that it is appropriate to use Method 24 both
because it has proven reliable and practical to achieve the goals of
reducing VOC and because the EPA wishes to foster uniformity in testing
nationwide. Accordingly, the EPA has determined that Method 24
constitutes the appropriate method for determining product compliance
under this final rule. The EPA has located no alternative voluntary
consensus standards more appropriate than those included in today's
rule.
I. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that the EPA determines
(1) is economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) for which the environmental health or safety risk addressed by
the rule has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and
it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that would
have a disproportionate effect on children.
Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA
provides to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the
prior consultation and communications the agency has had with
representatives of tribal governments and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and
other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies
on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Information available to the Administrator does not indicate that this
action will have any effect on Indian tribal governments.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 59
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Automobile
refinishing, Consumer and commercial products, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Volatile organic compound.
Dated: August 14, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344,
1345(d), and (e), 1381; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975
Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-i,
300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-
7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding the new entries and a heading
to the table in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB
40 CFR citation control
No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Automobile Refinish Coatings:
59.105.................................................... 2060-0353
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Part 59 is added to read as follows:
PART 59--NATIONAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
Subpart A [Reserved]
Subpart B--National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards
for Automobile Refinish Coatings
Sec.
59.100 Applicability and designation of regulated entity.
59.101 Definitions.
59.102 Standards.
59.103 Container labeling requirements.
59.104 Compliance provisions.
59.105 Reporting requirements.
59.106 Variance.
59.107 Addresses of EPA Regional offices.
59.108 State Authority.
59.109 Circumvention.
59.110 Incorporations by reference.
59.111 Availability of information and confidentiality.
Table 1 to Subpart B--Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content Limits
for Automobile Refinish Coatings
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7511b(e).
[[Page 48816]]
Subpart A--[Reserved]
Subpart B--National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards
for Automobile Refinish Coatings
Sec. 59.100 Applicability and designation of regulated entity.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to automobile refinish
coatings and coating components manufactured on or after January 11,
1999 for sale or distribution in the United States.
(b) Regulated entities are manufacturers and importers of
automobile refinish coatings or coating components that sell or
distribute these coatings or coating components in the United States.
(c) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to automobile
refinish coatings or coating components meeting the criteria in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this section.
(1) Coatings or coating components that are manufactured (in or
outside the United States) exclusively for sale outside the United
States.
(2) Coatings or coating components that are manufactured (in or
outside the United States) before January 11, 1999.
(3) Coatings or coating components that are manufactured (in or
outside the United States) for use by original equipment manufacturers.
(4) Coatings that are sold in nonrefillable aerosol containers.
(5) Lacquer topcoats or their components.
(6) Touch-up coatings.
Sec. 59.101 Definitions.
Adhesion promoter means a coating designed to facilitate the
bonding of a primer or topcoat on surfaces such as trim moldings, door
locks, and door sills, where sanding is impracticable, and on plastic
parts and the edges of sanded areas.
Administrator means the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or an authorized
representative.
Automobile means passenger cars, vans, motorcycles, trucks, and all
other mobile equipment.
Automobile refinish coating component means any portion of a
coating, such as a reducer or thinner, hardener, additive, etc.,
recommended (by its manufacturer or importer) to distributors or end-
users for automobile refinishing. The raw materials used to produce the
components that are mixed by the end-user to prepare a coating for
application are not considered automobile refinish coating components.
Any reference to automobile refinishing made by a manufacturer or
importer on a container or in product literature constitutes a
recommendation for automobile refinishing.
Automobile refinish coating or coating component importer, or
importer, means any company, group, or individual that brings
automobile refinish coatings or coating components from a location
outside the United States into the United States for sale or
distribution in the United States.
Automobile refinish coating or coating component manufacturer, or
manufacturer, means any company, group, or individual that produces or
packages automobile refinish coatings or coating components for sale or
distribution in the United States, including an entity which produces
or packages such coatings or coating components under a private label
for another party.
Automobile refinishing means the process of coating automobiles or
their parts, including partial body collision repairs, that is
subsequent to the original coating applied at an automobile original
equipment manufacturing plant.
Container means the individual receptacle that holds a coating or
coating component for storage and distribution.
Cut-in, or jambing, clearcoat means a fast-drying, ready-to-spray
clearcoat applied to surfaces such as door jambs and trunk and hood
edges to allow for quick closure.
Elastomeric coating means a coating designed for application over
flexible parts, such as elastomeric bumpers.
Exempt compounds means specific organic compounds that are not
considered volatile organic compounds due to negligible photochemical
reactivity. The exempt compounds are specified in Sec. 51.100(s) of
this chapter.
Hardener means a coating component specifically designed to promote
a faster cure of an enamel finish.
Impact-resistant coating means a coating designed to resist
chipping caused by road debris.
Label means any written, printed, or graphic matter affixed to or
appearing upon any automobile refinish coating or coating component
container or package for purposes of identifying or giving information
on the product, use of the product, or contents of the container or
package.
Lacquer means a thermoplastic coating which dries primarily by
solvent evaporation, and which is resoluble in its original solvent.
Low-gloss coating means a coating which exhibits a gloss reading
less than or equal to 25 on a 60 deg. glossmeter.
Mixing instructions means the coating or coating component
manufacturer's or importer's specification of the quantities of coating
components for mixing a coating.
Mobile equipment means any equipment that is physically capable of
being driven or drawn upon a highway including, but not limited to, the
following types of equipment: construction vehicles (such as mobile
cranes, bulldozers, concrete mixers); farming equipment (wheel tractor,
plow, pesticide sprayer); hauling equipment (truck trailers, utility
bodies, camper shells); and miscellaneous equipment (street cleaners,
golf carts).
Multi-colored topcoat means a topcoat that exhibits more than one
color, is packaged in a single container, and camouflages surface
defects on areas of heavy use, such as cargo beds and other surfaces of
trucks and other utility vehicles.
Pretreatment wash primer means a primer that contains a minimum of
0.5 percent acid, by weight, that is applied directly to bare metal
surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and to promote adhesion of
subsequent coatings.
Primer means any coating applied prior to the application of a
topcoat for the purpose of corrosion resistance and/or adhesion.
Primer-sealer means any coating applied prior to the application of
a topcoat for the purpose of corrosion resistance, adhesion of the
topcoat, and/or color uniformity and to promote the ability of an
undercoat to resist penetration by the topcoat.
Primer-surfacer means any coating applied prior to the application
of a topcoat for the purpose of filling surface imperfections in the
substrate, corrosion resistance, and/or adhesion of the topcoat.
Reducer means any solvent used to thin enamels.
Underbody coating means a coating designed for protection and sound
deadening that is typically applied to the wheel wells and underbody of
an automobile.
Single-stage topcoat means a topcoat consisting of only one
coating.
Specialty coatings means adhesion promoters, low-gloss coatings,
bright metal trim repair coatings, jambing (cut-in) clearcoats,
elastomeric coatings, impact resistant coatings, underbody coatings,
uniform finish blenders, and weld-through primers.
Thinner means any solvent used to reduce the viscosity or solids
content of a coating.
[[Page 48817]]
Three-stage topcoat means a topcoat composed of a pigmented
basecoat, a midcoat, and a transparent clearcoat.
Topcoat means any coating or series of coatings applied over a
primer or an existing finish for the purpose of protection or
beautification.
Touch-up coating means a coating applied by brush, air-brush, or
nonrefillable aerosol can to cover minor surface damage.
Two-stage topcoat means a topcoat consisting of a pigmented
basecoat and a transparent clearcoat.
Uniform finish blender means a coating designed to blend a repaired
topcoat into an existing topcoat.
United States means the United States of America, including the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Volatile organic compounds or VOC means any compound of carbon,
other than those organic compounds that the Administrator has excluded
in 40 CFR part 51, Sec. 51.100 from this definition.
VOC content means the weight of VOC per volume of coating,
calculated according to the procedures in Sec. 59.104(a) of this
subpart.
Water hold-out coating means a coating applied to the interior
cavity areas of doors, quarter panels and rocker panels for the purpose
of corrosion resistance to prolonged water exposure.
Weld-through primer means a primer that is applied to an area
before welding is performed, and that provides corrosion resistance to
the surface after welding has been performed.
Sec. 59.102 Standards.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 59.106 of this subpart, any coating
resulting from the mixing instructions of a regulated entity must meet
the VOC content limit given in table 1 of this subpart. VOC content is
determined according to Sec. 59.104(a).
(b) Different combinations or mixing ratios of coating components
constitute different coatings. For example, coating components may be
mixed one way to make a primer, and mixed another way to make a primer
sealer. Each of these coatings must meet its corresponding VOC content
limit in table 1 of this subpart. If the same combination and mixing
ratio of coating components is recommended by a regulated entity for
use in more than one category in table 1 of this subpart, then the most
restrictive VOC content limit shall apply.
Sec. 59.103 Container labeling requirements.
Each regulated entity subject to this subpart must clearly display
on each automobile refinish coating or coating component container or
package, the day, month, and year on which the product was
manufactured, or a code indicating such date.
Sec. 59.104 Compliance provisions.
(a) For the purpose of determining compliance with the VOC content
limits in Sec. 59.102(a) of this subpart, each regulated entity shall
determine the VOC content of a coating using the procedures described
in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, as appropriate.
(1) Determine the VOC content in grams of VOC per liter of coating
prepared for application according to its mixing instructions,
excluding the volume of any water or exempt compounds. VOC content
shall be calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.000
Where:
VOC content = grams of VOC per liter of coating;
Wv = mass of total volatiles, in grams;
Ww = mass of water, in grams;
Wec = mass of exempt compounds, in grams;
V = volume of coating, in liters;
Vw = volume of water, in liters; and
Vec = volume of exempt compounds, in liters.
(2) The VOC content of a multi-stage topcoat shall be calculated
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.001
Where:
VOCmulti = VOC content of a multi-stage topcoat, in grams of
VOC per liter of coating;
VOCbc = VOC content of the basecoat, as determined in
paragraph (a)(1) or (f) of this section;
VOCmci = VOC content of midcoat i, as determined in
paragraph (a)(1) or (f) of this section;
VOCcc = VOC content of the clearcoat, as determined in
paragraph (a)(1) or (f) of this section; and
M = Number of midcoats.
(b) To determine the composition of a coating in order to perform
the calculations in paragraph (a) of this section, the reference method
for VOC content is Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, except as
provided in paragraph (f) of this section. To determine the VOC content
of a coating, the regulated entity may use Method 24 of appendix A of
40 CFR part 60, an alternative method as provided in paragraph (f) of
this section, or any other reasonable means for predicting that the
coating has been formulated as intended (e.g., quality assurance
checks, recordkeeping). However, if there are any inconsistencies
between the results of a Method 24 test and any other means for
determining VOC content, the Method 24 test results will govern. The
Administrator may require the regulated to conduct a Method 24
analysis.
(c) If a regulated entity recommends that its coating component(s)
be combined with coating components of another regulated entity, and if
the coating resulting from such a combination does not comply with the
VOC content limit in Sec. 59.102 (a) of this subpart, then the former
regulated entity is out of compliance, unless the entity submits Method
24 data to the Administrator demonstrating that its recommended
combination of coating components meets the VOC content limit in
Sec. 59.102(a). If the latter regulated entity does not make the
recommendation of such use of the coating components, then that entity
is not out of compliance for purposes of that resulting coating.
(d) Pretreatment wash primers: Except as provided in paragraph (f)
of this section, the acid weight percent of pretreatment wash primers
must be determined using the American Society for Testing and Materials
Test Method D 1613-96 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 59.110). If
the pigment in a pretreatment wash primer prevents the use of this test
method for determining the acid weight percent of the coating, then the
test method shall be used for the nonpigmented component of the
coating, and the acid weight percent shall be calculated based on the
acid content of the nonpigmented component and the mixing ratio of the
nonpigmented component to the remaining components recommended by the
regulated entity.
(e) Low-gloss coatings: Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this
section, the gloss reading of low-gloss coatings must be determined
using the American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method D 523-
89 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 59.110).
(f) The Administrator may approve, on a case-by-case basis, a
regulated entity's use of an alternative method in lieu of Method 24
for determining the VOC content of coatings if the alternative method
is demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction to provide results
that are acceptable for purposes of determining compliance with this
subpart.
[[Page 48818]]
(g) The Administrator may determine a regulated entity's compliance
with the provisions of this subpart based on information required by
this subpart or any other information available to the Administrator.
Sec. 59.105 Reporting requirements.
(a) Each regulated entity must submit an initial report no later
than January 11, 1999 or within 180 days of the date that the regulated
entity first manufactures or imports automobile refinish coatings or
coating components, whichever is later. The initial report must include
the information in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.
(1) The name and mailing address of the regulated entity.
(2) An explanation of each date code, if such codes are used to
represent the date of manufacture, as provided in Sec. 59.103.
(3) The street address of each of the regulated entity's facilities
in the United States that is producing, packaging, or importing
automobile refinish coatings or coating components subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
(4) A list of the categories from table 1 of this subpart for which
the regulated entity recommends the use of automobile refinish coatings
or coating components.
(b) Each regulated entity must submit an explanation of any new
date codes used by the regulated entity no later than 30 days after
products bearing the new date code are first introduced into commerce.
Sec. 59.106 Variance.
(a) Any regulated entity that cannot comply with the requirements
of this subpart because of circumstances beyond its reasonable control
may apply in writing to the Administrator for a temporary variance. The
variance application must include the information specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3).
(1) The specific grounds upon which the variance is sought.
(2) The proposed date(s) by which the regulated entity will achieve
compliance with the provisions of this subpart. This date must be no
later than 5 years after the issuance of a variance.
(3) A compliance plan detailing the method(s) by which the
regulated entity will achieve compliance with the provisions of this
subpart.
(b) Upon receipt of a variance application containing the
information required in paragraph (a) of this section, the
Administrator will publish a notice of such application in the Federal
Register and, if requested by any party, will hold a public hearing to
determine whether, under what conditions, and to what extent, a
variance from the requirements of this subpart is necessary and will be
granted. If requested, a hearing will be held no later than 75 days
after receipt of a variance application. Notice of the time and place
of the hearing will be sent to the applicant by certified mail not less
than 30 days prior to the hearing. At least 30 days prior to the
hearing, the variance application will be made available to the public
for inspection. Information submitted to the Administrator by a
variance applicant may be claimed as confidential. The Administrator
may consider such confidential information in reaching a decision on a
variance application. Interested members of the public will be allowed
a reasonable opportunity to testify at the hearing.
(c) The Administrator will issue a variance if the criteria
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are met to the satisfaction
of the Administrator.
(1) If complying with the provisions of this subpart would not be
technologically or economically feasible, and
(2) The compliance plan proposed by the applicant can reasonably be
implemented and will achieve compliance as expeditiously as possible.
(d) Any variance will specify dates by which the regulated entity
will achieve increments of progress towards compliance, and will
specify a final compliance date by which the regulated entity will
achieve compliance with this subpart.
(e) A variance will cease to be effective upon failure of the party
to whom the variance was issued to comply with any term or condition of
the variance.
(f) Upon the application of any party, the Administrator may review
and, for good cause, modify or revoke a variance after holding a public
hearing in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section.
Sec. 59.107 Addresses of EPA Regional Offices.
All requests, reports, submittals, and other communications to the
Administrator pursuant to this regulation shall be submitted to the
Regional Office of the EPA which serves the State or territory in which
the corporate headquarters of the regulated entity resides. These areas
are indicated in the following list of EPA Regional Offices.
EPA Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont), Director, Office of Environmental
Stewardship, Mailcode: SAA, JFK Building, Boston, MA 02203.
EPA Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands), Director, Division of Enforcement and Compliance
Assistance, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866.
EPA Region III (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia), Air Protection Division,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
EPA Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee), Director, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics, Management Division, 345 Courtland Street,
NE., Atlanta, GA 30365.
EPA Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
Wisconsin), Director, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507.
EPA Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Texas), Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
EPA Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska), Director, Air
and Toxics Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101.
EPA Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, Wyoming), Director, Air and Toxics Division, 999 18th Street,
1 Denver Place, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2405.
EPA Region IX (American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam,
Hawaii, Nevada), Director, Air and Toxics Division, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
EPA Region X (Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Washington), Director, Air
and Toxics Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
Sec. 59.108 State Authority.
The provisions in this regulation shall not be construed in any
manner to preclude any State or political subdivision thereof from:
(a) Adopting and enforcing any emission standard or limitation
applicable to a manufacturer or importer of automobile refinish
coatings or components in addition to the requirements of this subpart.
(b) Requiring the manufacturer or importer of automobile refinish
coatings or components to obtain permits, licenses, or approvals prior
to initiating construction, modification, or operation of a facility
for manufacturing an automobile refinish coating component.
Sec. 59.109 Circumvention.
Each manufacturer and importer of any automobile refinish coating
or component subject to the provisions of this subpart must not alter,
destroy, or falsify any record or report, to conceal what would
otherwise be noncompliance with this subpart. Such concealment
includes, but is not limited to, refusing to provide the Administrator
access to all required records and date-
[[Page 48819]]
coding information, altering the VOC content of a coating or component
batch, or altering the results of any required tests to determine VOC
content.
Sec. 59.110 Incorporations by Reference.
(a) The following material is incorporated by reference in the
paragraphs noted in Sec. 59.104. These incorporations by reference were
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated as
they exist on the date of the approval, and notice of any changes in
these materials will be published in the Federal Register.
(1) ASTM D 1613-96, Standard Test Method for Acidity in Volatile
Solvents and Chemical Intermediates Used in Paint, Varnish, Lacquer,
and Related Products, IBR approved for Sec. 59.104(d).
(2) ASTM D 523-89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss, IBR
approved for Sec. 59.104(e).
(b) The materials are available for inspection at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington,
DC; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, 401
M Street, SW, Washington, DC; and at the EPA Library (MD-35), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The materials are available for
purchase from the following address: American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428,
telephone number (610) 832-9500.
Sec. 59.111 Availability of information and confidentiality.
(a) Availability of information. The availability to the public of
information provided to or otherwise obtained by the Administrator
under this part shall be governed by part 2 of this chapter.
(b) Confidentiality. All confidential business information entitled
to protection under section 114(c) of the Act that must be submitted or
maintained by each regulated entity pursuant to this section shall be
treated in accordance with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
Table 1 to Subpart B.--Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content Limits
for Automobile Refinish Coatings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grams VOC Pounds VOC
Coating category per liter per gallon
------------------------------------------------------------------a-----
Pretreatment wash primers..................... 780 6.5
Primers/primer surfacers...................... 580 4.8
Primer sealers................................ 550 4.6
Single/two-stage topcoats..................... 600 5.0
Topcoats of more than two stages.............. 630 5.2
Multi-colored topcoats........................ 680 5.7
Specialty coatings............................ 840 7.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a English units are provided for information only. Compliance will be
determined based on the VOC content limit, as expressed in metric
units.
[FR Doc. 98-22657 Filed 9-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-p
