           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                           PUBLIC HEARING

                      40 CFR PARTS 51 AND 59

                 NATIONAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND

              EMISSION STANDARDS FOR AEROSOL COATINGS

                           PROPOSED RULES

                        T R A N S C R I P T

                            O F___T H E

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

                      V O L U M E   1  O F  1

                       P A G E S   1  -  42

At Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007.

                                                 Vol. 1, p. 2

                        A P P E A R A N C E S

Name                    Affiliation          E-Mail Address

    Kaye Whitfield         EPA/OAQPS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Kim Teal               EPA/OAQPS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Bruce Moore            EPA/OAQPS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Bill Johnson           EPA<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Terry Keating          EPA/OAQPS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     (Via telephone)

    Geoff Wilcox           EPA/OAQPS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     (Via telephone)

    David Sanders          EPA/OAQPS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Bob Stallings          EPA/OAQPS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Kenyetta Johnson       EPA/OAQPS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Susan Miller           Innovar Env<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Robin Dunkins          EPA/OAQPS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Tim Benner             EPA/ORD<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Talitha Peay           EPA/RTF<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Tom Walton             EPA/OAQPS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Robert Sliwinski       New York DEC/OTC

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                   ___________________________________

                                                 Vol. 1, p. 3

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

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

      Proceedings             Name                       Page No.

    Colloquy/Introductions   Kim Teal                        4

                             Kaye Whitfield

    Presentation             Mr. Robert Sliwinski            7

    Questions/EPA                                           22

    Keyword Index                                           29

                                                 Vol. 1, p. 4

              The following Public Hearing in the matter of the

    Proposed Rule for National Volatile Organic Compound Emission

    Standards for Aerosol Coatings was held by Chairperson Kaye

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

    Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of

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

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

    beginning at 10:00 a.m.

              The following proceedings were had, to wit:

              ________________________________________

 1  Colloquy/Introductions                       Vol. 1, p. 5

 2

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

 4            National Resources and Commerce Group with Kaye.

 5                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  And I'm Kaye

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

 7            Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for

 8            Aerosol Coatings, and this is a Public Hearing for

 9            that particular proposed rule.

10                 And we have one speaker with us this morning,

11            Mr. Robert Sliwinski, of the New York State

12            Department of Environmental Conservation?

13                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  Correct.

14                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  And that will be our

15            only presenter today.

16                 On the phone we have Geoff Wilcox from the

17            Office of General Counsel, and Terry Keating from

18            EPA/OAR.

19                 MR. KEATING:  Office of Air and Radiation.

20                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Office of Air and

21            Radiation.

22                 Is there anyone else on the phone?

23                 (No response.)

24                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  And in the room, we

25            have Bill Johnson from the Office of Air Quality

 1  Colloquy/Introductions                       Vol. 1, p. 6

 2            Planning Standards; Kenyetta Johnson from the

 3            Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and

 4            Susan Miller from Innovar.

 5                 We also have the program leader for the

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

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

 8            Planning and Standards.

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

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

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

12            information exchange opportunity.  It's simply an

13            opportunity for you to present orally your comments

14            that you plan to submit.

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

16            those.

17                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  A hard copy, yes.

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

19            Court reporter --

20                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  (Interposing)  Absolutely.

21                 MS. TEAL:  -- After you complete your

22            testimony, we'd appreciate it.

23                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  Certainly.

24                 The panel which is going to consist of Bruce

25            and Kaye and then Geoff Wilcox on the phone.

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

 2                 MR. WILCOX:  And Terry.

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

 4            questions if they need to.  Okay?

 5                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  I understand.

 6                 MS. TEAL:  Great.

 7                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Okay.  Mr. Sliwinski.

 8            _________________________________________

 9

10  PRESENTATION BY MR. SLIWINSKI:

11

12                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  Thank you.

13                 Good morning, my name is Robert Sliwinski, the

14            Director of Air Quality for the Division of Air

15            Resources at New York State Department of

16            Environmental Conservation.

17                 I was a member of the Reactivity Research

18            Working Group established by the EPA representing

19            the State of New York and the Ozone Transport

20            Commission.

21                 The Reactivity Research Working Group was

22            established in '98 to improve the scientific basis

23            for reactivity-related policies and was proceeding

24            towards that end until mid-2005 when its activities

25            were transferred to the North American Research

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

 2            Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone, or NARSTO.

 3                 I am presenting testimony on behalf of the

 4            State of New York and the Ozone Transport

 5            Commission.  The Ozone Transport Commission is a

 6            consortium of twelve (12) northeastern states and

 7            the District of Columbia formed under Section 184

 8            of the Clean Air Act responsible for advising EPA

 9            on transport issues for the developing and

10            implementing regional solutions to the ground-level

11            ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic

12            regions.

13                 I'd like to thank EPA for scheduling this

14            hearing and allowing me to present these comments.

15                 I'm here today to provide comments on the

16            proposed regulation, National VOC Emission

17            Standards for Aerosol Coatings, to be codified

18            under 40 CFR Part 59, Subpart E.

19                 The intent of this rule is to achieve a

20            reduction in emissions of high reactive organic

21            compounds that promo- -- promote the formation of

22            high levels of ozone.

23                 The recommended approach is to establish a

24            scale called the reactivity factor for each

25            chemical compound that participates in the

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

 2            photochemical oxidant chemistry of ozone formation,

 3            thus providing a means for substitution or

 4            replacement of high reactive compounds currently in

 5            use for improving ozone air quality.

 6                 In the preamble for the proposed rule, EPA

 7            states the substitution of a less reactive VOC for

 8            more reactive VOC can be effective in controlling

 9            the ozone in episodes where NOx is at its highest

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

11                 EPA goes on to state that the downwind ozone

12            could increase due to upwind substitution of larger

13            amounts of lesser reactive VOCs.

14                 Contrary to EPA's assertion that realistic

15            changes in the formulation are unlikely to result

16            in noticeable increases in the ozone downwind, EPA

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

18            is important for the simple fact that ozone

19            nonattainment areas in the Northeastern United

20            States have the highest recorded ozone values

21            downwind of the urban centers, and this effort has

22            the potential to increase ozone in the very places

23            where ozone reductions are most needed, confounding

24            the ozone attainment plans that are being developed

25            by the States.

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

 2                 Also, increase in ozone in downwind areas of

 3            urban centers could result in more impacts to

 4            agricultural and forested areas of the country.

 5            EPA needs to consider the impact this proposed rule

 6            will have on agricultural and forest areas,

 7            especially in light of the recently proposed

 8            revisions to the secondary ozone NAAQS.

 9                 The statements in the preamble, made related

10            to future ozone levels, seem to be based on

11            expectations rather than demonstrations bass- --

12            based on reference modeling efforts.

13                 Given the potential for further tightening of

14            the current ozone NAAQS, it is critical that EPA

15            perform such studies demonstrating that there would

16            be no increases of downwind ozone, so that the

17            implementation of this rule does not worsen the

18            ozone nonattainment problem found in the

19            Northeastern United States.

20                 EPA states that this rule would produce both

21            VOC emissions and the amount of ozone generated

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

23            not necessarily a guaranteed result, as a

24            replacement of high reactive compounds with low

25            reactive ones could potentially result in an

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

 2            increase of mass from VOCs emitted into the

 3            atmosphere.

 4                 Given the unknowns in photo-chemical

 5            atmospheric chemistry, this increased mass is just

 6            as likely to result in more ozone formation as

 7            not.

 8                 This proposal could also have negative impacts

 9            on other air pollution concerns, namely, increased

10            emissions of hazardous air pollutants and increased

11            ambient levels of PM2.5.

12                 Table two in the proposed rule lists organic

13            compounds with their reactivity, but does not

14            include information developed by Carter's

15            classification of relatively certain, or category

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

17            category two, nor if the compound is a hazardous

18            air pollutant.  In fact, the list includes known

19            hazardous air pollutants with good toxicity

20            information databases and health-based exposure

21            values in chemicals that have minimal toxicity data

22            associated with them.

23                 The list also contains chemicals, carbon

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

25            reactivity factors that have been banned under

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

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

 3            because they are considered stratospheric ozone

 4            depletors.

 5                 It appears that the toxicity of the chemicals

 6            was not considered in this proposal.  For example,

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

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

 9            while other less toxic chemicals have high

10            reactivity factors.  So the possible end result

11            will be the reformulation of an aerosol coating

12            that contains more air toxics of concern.

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

14            for the diisocyanate compounds listed in the

15            proposal.  The reactivities for these highly tox-

16            -- toxic compounds range from zero to zero point

17            ninety-three (0.93).

18                 Simply stated, EPA will overlook the fact --

19            basic fact that all VOCs are not equal when it

20            comes down to their individual toxic potential.

21                 In addition, claims are made regarding

22            toxicity reductions from this proposed rule based

23            on reduced xylene and toluene use, without any

24            attempt to quantify them.

25                 Since this rule has been in place in

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

 2            California for some years, EPA needs to analyze the

 3            reformulation data from California to determine

 4            whether the rule has improved ozone levels and if

 5            it had any negative impact on product toxicity, and

 6            whether those results could be translated to the

 7            National market.

 8                 EPA has not considered any negative co-effects

 9            that may arise from the implementation of this rule

10            on fine particulate matter, especially given the

11            potential for increase in emissions of low reactive

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

13            on the primary organic aerosol emissions and

14            secondary organic aerosol formation.

15                 Given that PM2.5 nonattainment is coincident

16            with ozone nonattainment in many areas throughout

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

18            would be even more so in the near future.

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

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

21            before setting up a regulatory framework to

22            encourage the substitution.  This is supported by

23            the conclusions in the June, 2007 Columbia

24            Geosciences report to NARSTO, titled "The

25            Reactivity Research Working Group".

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

 2                 This rule is unlikely to realize the ozone

 3            benefits that EPA claims it will.  This is because

 4            the rule provides for exemptions for small

 5            manufacturers, companies that are not currently in

 6            the California market, and variances if a

 7            manufacturer cannot comply because of technological

 8            or economic reasons.

 9                 Small entities, manufacturers with capacities

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

11            kilograms of total VOCs, are exempted if they

12            provide an annual report to EPA that establishes

13            that these products are properly exempted on a mass

14            basis.

15                 If EPA finalizes this aspect of the

16            regulation, it should include language that

17            reflects that these small entities should provide

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

19            in addition to the mass-based information.

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

21            it should understand the nature of the products it

22            exempts as well as those it regulates.

23                 New York's experience with small manufacturers

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

25            into this description will take advantage of this

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

 2            provision.  This exemption provision will have a

 3            substantial impact on rule penetration.

 4                 It could also put these manufacturers in a

 5            position of competitive advantage which they will

 6            readily use to expand market share.  EPA needs to

 7            monitor these entities closely to understand the

 8            impacts this provision will have on rule

 9            efficacy.

10                 The extension to January 1, 2011 for any

11            product not currently in the California market will

12            reduce the rule penetration and rule efficy (sic)

13            -- rule efficacy until much after the attainment

14            date for most areas around the country.

15                 The variance provisions make quantification of

16            the actual benefit of the proposed rule still more

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

18            of these manufacturers will be able to satisfy the

19            technology and economic hardship provisions of the

20            rules going well into the future.

21                 It is important for EPA to establish a

22            centralized review of the variance provisions to

23            assure the consistent Nationwide application of

24            these provisions.

25                 In the May 30, 2007 guidance memorandum,

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

 2            emission reduction credit for three Federal Rules

 3            for categories of consumer and commercial products

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

 5            states, "it is working so that fully creditable

 6            emission reductions will be achieved by January 1,

 7            2009".  The extensions virtually -- the exemptions

 8            virtually guarantee that the emissions reductions

 9            will not be achieved in that time frame.

10                 EPA needs to adjust the emission crediting

11            allowed for SIP purposes to account for this

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

13            -- small manufacturer exemption and variance

14            provisions.

15                 The recordkeeping and reporting requirements

16            of the proposed rule require manufacturers to

17            report basic information to EPA regional office --

18            offices and keep on-site all formulation data for

19            each batch of product for five years.  This brings

20            to light a series of concerns related to the

21            enforcement of these proposed regulations.

22                 The use of regional offices to collect

23            National product information is cumbersome and

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

25            requested information on variance and exceedence

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

 2            fee reports completed under the national AIM rule

 3            and sent to the regional offices, EPA could not

 4            produce all of the reports because they were not

 5            maintained.

 6                 Another concern is how EPA determined the

 7            adequate length of time for retaining records to

 8            determine compliance.  Has EPA determined how long

 9            the product would remain on the shelf?  Is

10            retaining the records of batch formulation for five

11            years adequate for compliance purposes of these

12            products?

13                 EPA suggests that the electronic reporting of

14            this data to a centralized database would ease the

15            enforcement of the rule.  We support that concept.

16            Without fully -- without full electronic reporting

17            of all formulation data and formal structure, the

18            burden on EPA's compliance and enforcement staff

19            would be too great to result in any effective

20            enforcement.  Even with all this data, EPA would

21            still need to get out into the field to determine

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

23                 This requires a tremendous staff workload

24            commitment, and the resources to perform the

25            necessary testing to determine product compliance.

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

 2            EPA needs to identify the resources it will use to

 3            assure the compliance.  To the best of my

 4            knowledge, EPA's track record on enforcement of

 5            section 183(e) consumer product regulations is

 6            nonexistent.

 7                 I know of no single investigation related to

 8            these regulations promulgated under section 183(e).

 9            Please correct me if I'm misinformed.

10                 These proposed regulations are not practically

11            enforceable.  Identifying the vis- -- individual

12            compounds that make up an aerosol coating product

13            makes the determination exponentially more

14            difficult than mass-based VOC limits.

15                 In order to determine compliance, EPA will

16            need to know the formulation of every single

17            aerosol coating product on the market. In addition,

18            it will need to be able to readily access this

19            information and be able to compare it to the

20            reactivity limits in the proposed rule.

21                 In order to avoid confusion and provide

22            regulatory certainty, it should make baseline

23            compliance determinations for each product

24            formulation prior to rule implementation and at the

25            time of each new reformulation.

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

 2                 Still, this does not assure that compliance as

 3            each batch of product manufactured could have

 4            somewhat different components than exist in the

 5            baseline formulation.  While not necessarily

 6            indicative of noncompliance, the company will need

 7            to understand the tolerances this formulation has

 8            respective to the reactivity limits in the proposed

 9            rule.  So for each batch, the compliance

10            determination needs to be made by the company to

11            assure that it meets the prescribed formulation

12            criteria.

13                 How does EPA determine whether product on the

14            shelf is in compliance?

15                 It will need to determine the constituents of

16            the product and whether those constituents meet the

17            baseline formulation for which compliance is

18            determined.  Since it is much more efficient to

19            determine what's in the product if the constituents

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

21            formulation data from the company before it begins

22            its analysis.

23                 Since each batch will differ slightly, or

24            somewhat more based on the manufacturing controls,

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

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

 2            reported as constituents matches the actual

 3            measured contents and if that actual formulation is

 4            compliant or not.

 5                 This does not even speak to the ability of

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

 7            confirmed.  This is a much more complicated

 8            scenario than what needs to be done to determine

 9            compliance with a mass-based VOC limit.

10                 Contrary to the statement in the preamble of

11            the proposed rule that this regulation was needed

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

13            substitution strategies to address nonattainment

14            issues, there are many opportunities to reduce VOC

15            mass by implementing readily available and proven

16            programs.

17                 Since most nonattainment areas around the

18            country have not taken aggressive steps to limit

19            VOCs, there are significant reductions that can be

20            obtained from proven programs such as implementing

21            RACT or updating decades-old RACT programs, fuel

22            strategies, or other area source regulations --

23            consumer products, architectural coatings, Stage I

24            vapor recovery.

25                 EPA should look to adopt National programs for

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

 2            these emission sources before embarking into VOC

 3            substitution with all the previously mentioned

 4            complications and unknowns.

 5                 Is there an effective way to implement a

 6            manageable National VOC aerosol coatings rule?  I

 7            believe so.

 8                 The 1996 CARB mass-based limits are

 9            technologically feasible and reduce VOC emissions

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

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

12            be both feasible and available for some categories

13            of aerosol coatings.

14                 With all the uncertainty, especially the

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

16            ozone, and enforceability concerns surrounding the

17            proposed reactivity approach, which when fully

18            implemented only yields an equivalent nineteen

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

20            to establish a National rule based on the 1996 CARB

21            rule amended with 2002 CARB mass-based limits known

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

23            States, Oregon and Washington, have adopted.

24                 Given that these limits are feasible for all

25            manufacturers, the small manufacturer exemption,

 1  Questions/EPA                                Vol. 1, p. 22

 2            the extended compliance date of January 1, 2011 for

 3            non-California products, and the variance

 4            provisions would all be unnecessary.

 5                 This approach would, therefore, achieve the

 6            most reductions of the proposed without imparting

 7            the serious concerns mentioned above.  EPA can then

 8            undertake the necessary studies to address the

 9            above concerns and not rely on expectations that

10            may not hold to be true.

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

12            provide a comment on this important National rule

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

14            the Ozone Transport Commission.

15                 We will be filing more complete comments by

16            the August 30th deadline.

17                 Thank you.

18            _________________________________________

19

20                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Thank you, Mr.

21            Sliwinski.  Does anyone have a clarifying question

22            or comment for Mr. Sliwinski?

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

24            ask.

25                 (No response.)

 1  Questions/EPA                                Vol. 1, p. 23

 2                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Which one is on the

 3            phone?

 4                 MR. KEATING:  This is Terry.

 5                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Terry and Geoff.

 6            Anyone else?

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

 8                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Okay.

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

10                 MR. MOORE:  Tim Benner.

11                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Tim Benner, Office of

12            Research and Development.

13                 Does anyone on the phone have a clarifying

14            question or comment for Mr. Sliwinski?

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

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

17            Columbia Geosciences report?

18                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  Yes, for NARSTO.

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

20            done through the Reactivity Research Working Group.

21                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  It was titled the "Reactivity

22            Research Working Group", but it was done through

23            NARSTO.

24                 MR. KEATING:  Okay.

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

 1  Questions/EPA                                Vol. 1, p. 24

 2            work.

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

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

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

 6            comments.  Some of the conclusions they talk about

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

 8            the process of the reactivity versus the research

 9            findings.

10                 MS. TEAL:  Will you be submitting those as

11            part of your comments?

12                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  I could, I could.

13                 MS. TEAL:  Attached with your comment?

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

15            available publicly, too.

16                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  I'm sorry.  Do you

17            have any -- anything else to add Terry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

24            document.

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

 1  Questions/EPA                                Vol. 1, p. 25

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

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

 4            activities.

 5                 MR. KEATING:  Okay.

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

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

 8            and commend you on the quality of the presentation

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

10            thank you.

11                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  You're welcome.

12                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Anyone else?

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

14            just said.  We appreciate the substantive input.

15                 MS. TEAL:  Geoff Wilcox.

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

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

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

19            downwind impact, and the need to assess impact on

20            agricultural impacts and other nonpublic health

21            impact.

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

23            particular study or, you know, modeling formulation

24            in mind when -- when you say that?

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

 1  Questions/EPA                                Vol. 1, p. 26

 2            in terms of a modeling declaration?

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

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

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

 6            fully -- fully developed comments along those lines

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

 8            comments.

 9                 MR. KEATING:  Okay.

10                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Anyone else?

11                 MR. KEATING:  Thank you very much for the

12            input.

13                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  You're welcome.

14                 CHAIRPERSON WHITFIELD:  Okay.  Well, that

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

16            much, Mr. Sliwinski, for attending.

17                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  Thank you.

18                 ______________________________

19                    (DISCUSSION OFF RECORD.)

20                 ______________________________

21  _____________________________________________________________

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

23  _____________________________________________________________

24

25

 1  Questions/EPA                                Vol. 1, p. 27

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

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

                                               Vol. 1, p.   28

                       C E R T I F I C A T E

                       _____________________

              I, Manie P. Currin, Court Reporter and Notary

         Public in and for the State of North Carolina, duly

         commissioned, qualified and authorized to take and

         certify hearings, do hereby certify that on Tuesday,

         July 31, 2007, I stenographically reported the foregoing

         hearing at the time and place aforesaid, and that same

         was reduced to typewritten form under my direct

         supervision; that the transcript contained herein, pages

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

         said proceedings to the best of my ability and

         understanding; that I am not related to any of the

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

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

              IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand,

          this the 3rd day of August, 2007.

                               _______________________________

                                       COURT REPORTER

    Manie P. Currin and Associates, LLC

    Court Reporters

    203 East Industry Drive - Suite C

    Oxford, North Carolina  27565

    Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

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

                           KEYWORD INDEX

                           _____________

     1.  aerosol                       21.  manufacturers

     2.  air                           22.  mass

     3.  batch                         23.  NAAQS

     4.  California                    24.  NARSTO

     5.  CARB                          25.  New York

     6.  chemicals                     26.  organic

     7.  Clean Air                     27.  ozone

     8.  compound                      28.  PM2.5

     9.  compounds                     29.  proposal

    10.  downwind                      30.  proposed

    11.  emission                      31.  provisions

    12.  emissions                     32.  reactive

    13.  EPA                           33.  reactivity

    14.  exempted                      34.  regulation

    15.  exemption                     35.  reporting

    16.  exempts                       36.  research

    17.  formulation                   37.  rule

    18.  hazardous                     38.  source

    19.  impact                        39.  sources

    20.  manufacturer                  40.  standards

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

                      KEYWORD INDEX  (Cont'd.)

                      ________________________

    41.  toxic

    42.  urban

    43.  variance

    44.  VOC

    45.  VOCs

              _____________________________________________

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "aerosol"

    ____  _______          ___________________

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

    8     17  Standards for Aerosol Coatings, to be codified

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

    12    11  will be the reformulation of an aerosol coating

    13    13  on the primary organic aerosol emissions and

    13    14  secondary organic aerosol formation.

    18    12  compounds that make up an aerosol coating product

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

    21     6  manageable National VOC aerosol coatings rule?  I

    21    13  of aerosol coatings.

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "air"

    ____  _______          _______________

    5     25  have Bill Johnson from the Office of Air Quality

    6      3  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and

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

    7     14  Director of Air Quality for the Division of Air

    8      8  of the Clean Air Act responsible for advising EPA

    9      5  use for improving ozone air quality.

    11     9  on other air pollution concerns, namely, increased

    11    10  emissions of hazardous air pollutants and increased

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

    11    19  hazardous air pollutants with good toxicity

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

    12    12  that contains more air toxics of concern.

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "batch"

    ____  _______          _________________

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

    17    10  retaining the records of batch formulation for five

    19     3  each batch of product manufactured could have

    19     9  rule.  So for each batch, the compliance

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

    19    23                 Since each batch will differ

              slightly, or

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "California"

    ____  _______          ______________________

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

    13     3  reformulation data from California to determine

    14     6  the California market, and variances if a

    15    11  product not currently in the California market will

    22     3  non-California products, and the variance

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "CARB"

    ____  _______          ________________

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

    21     8                 The 1996 CARB mass-based limits are

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

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

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "chemicals"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    11    21  values in chemicals that have minimal toxicity data

    11    23                 The list also contains chemicals,

              carbon

    12     5                 It appears that the toxicity of the

              chemicals

    12     9  while other less toxic chemicals have high

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "Clean Air"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    8      8  of the Clean Air Act responsible for advising EPA

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

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "compound"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    5      7  Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for

    8     25  chemical compound that participates in the

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "compounds"

    ____  _______          _____________________

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

    9      4  replacement of high reactive compounds currently in

    10    24  replacement of high reactive compounds with low

    11    13  compounds with their reactivity, but does not

    12    14  for the diisocyanate compounds listed in the

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

    18    12  compounds that make up an aerosol coating product

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "downwind"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    9     11                 EPA goes on to state that the

              downwind ozone

    9     16  in noticeable increases in the ozone downwind, EPA

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

    10     2                 Also, increase in ozone in downwind

              areas of

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

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

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

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "emission"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    5      7  Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for

    8     16  proposed regulation, National VOC Emission

    16     2  emission reduction credit for three Federal Rules

    16     6  emission reductions will be achieved by January 1,

    16    10                 EPA needs to adjust the emission

              crediting

    21     2  these emission sources before embarking into VOC

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "emissions"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    8     20  reduction in emissions of high reactive organic

    10    21  VOC emissions and the amount of ozone generated

    11    10  emissions of hazardous air pollutants and increased

    13    11  potential for increase in emissions of low reactive

    13    13  on the primary organic aerosol emissions and

    16     8  virtually guarantee that the emissions reductions

    21     9  technologically feasible and reduce VOC emissions

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "EPA"

    ____  _______          _______________

    5     18  EPA/OAR.

    7     18  Working Group established by the EPA representing

    8      8  of the Clean Air Act responsible for advising EPA

    8     13                 I'd like to thank EPA for scheduling

              this

    9      6                 In the preamble for the proposed

              rule, EPA

    9     11                 EPA goes on to state that the

              downwind ozone

    9     14                 Contrary to EPA's assertion that

              realistic

    9     16  in noticeable increases in the ozone downwind, EPA

    10     5  EPA needs to consider the impact this proposed rule

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

    10    20                 EPA states that this rule would

              produce both

    12    18                 Simply stated, EPA will overlook the

              fact --

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

    13     8                 EPA has not considered any negative

              co-effects

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

              impacts of

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

    14    12  provide an annual report to EPA that establishes

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

    14    15                 If EPA finalizes this aspect of the

    14    20                 If EPA is to pursue a

              reactivity-based rule,

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

    15    21                 It is important for EPA to establish

              a

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

    16    10                 EPA needs to adjust the emission

              crediting

    16    17  report basic information to EPA regional office --

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

    17     6                 Another concern is how EPA

              determined the

    17     8  determine compliance.  Has EPA determined how long

    17    13                 EPA suggests that the electronic

              reporting of

    17    18  burden on EPA's compliance and enforcement staff

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

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

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

    18    15                 In order to determine compliance,

              EPA will

    19    13                 How does EPA determine whether

              product on the

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

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

    20    25                 EPA should look to adopt National

              programs for

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

    22     7  the serious concerns mentioned above.  EPA can then

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "exempted"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    14    11  kilograms of total VOCs, are exempted if they

    14    13  that these products are properly exempted on a mass

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "exemption"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    15     2  provision.  This exemption provision will have a

    16    13  -- small manufacturer exemption and variance

    21    25  manufacturers, the small manufacturer exemption,

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "exempts"

    ____  _______          ___________________

    14    22  exempts as well as those it regulates.

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "formulation"

    ____  _______          _______________________

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

    9     15  changes in the formulation are unlikely to result

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

    17    10  retaining the records of batch formulation for five

    17    17  of all formulation data and formal structure, the

    18    16  need to know the formulation of every single

    18    24  formulation prior to rule implementation and at the

    19     5  baseline formulation.  While not necessarily

    19     7  to understand the tolerances this formulation has

    19    11  assure that it meets the prescribed formulation

    19    17  baseline formulation for which compliance is

    19    21  formulation data from the company before it begins

    20     3  measured contents and if that actual formulation is

    25    23  particular study or, you know, modeling formulation

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "hazardous"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    11    10  emissions of hazardous air pollutants and increased

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

    11    19  hazardous air pollutants with good toxicity

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "impact"

    ____  _______          __________________

    10     5  EPA needs to consider the impact this proposed rule

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

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

    15     3  substantial impact on rule penetration.

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

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

    25    21  impact.

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "manufacturer"

    ____  _______          ________________________

    14     7  manufacturer cannot comply because of technological

    16    13  -- small manufacturer exemption and variance

    21    25  manufacturers, the small manufacturer exemption,

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "manufacturers"

    ____  _______          _________________________

    14     5  manufacturers, companies that are not currently in

    14     9                 Small entities, manufacturers with

              capacities

    14    23                 New York's experience with small

              manufacturers

    15     4                 It could also put these

              manufacturers in a

    15    18  of these manufacturers will be able to satisfy the

    16    16  of the proposed rule require manufacturers to

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

    21    25  manufacturers, the small manufacturer exemption,

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "mass"

    ____  _______          ________________

    11     2  increase of mass from VOCs emitted into the

    11     5  atmospheric chemistry, this increased mass is just

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

    14    13  that these products are properly exempted on a mass

    14    19  in addition to the mass-based information.

    18    14  difficult than mass-based VOC limits.

    20     9  compliance with a mass-based VOC limit.

    20    15  mass by implementing readily available and proven

    21     8                 The 1996 CARB mass-based limits are

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

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "NAAQS"

    ____  _______          _________________

    10     8  revisions to the secondary ozone NAAQS.

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

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "NARSTO"

    ____  _______          __________________

    8      2  Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone, or NARSTO.

    13    24  Geosciences report to NARSTO, titled "The

    23    18                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  Yes, for NARSTO.

    23    23  NARSTO.

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "New York"

    ____  _______          ____________________

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

    7     15  Resources at New York State Department of

    7     19  the State of New York and the Ozone Transport

    8      4  State of New York and the Ozone Transport

    14    23                 New York's experience with small

              manufacturers

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

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "organic"

    ____  _______          ___________________

    5      7  Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for

    8     20  reduction in emissions of high reactive organic

    11    12                 Table two in the proposed rule lists

              organic

    13    13  on the primary organic aerosol emissions and

    13    14  secondary organic aerosol formation.

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "ozone"

    ____  _______          _________________

    7     19  the State of New York and the Ozone Transport

    8      2  Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone, or NARSTO.

    8      4  State of New York and the Ozone Transport

    8      5  Commission.  The Ozone Transport Commission is a

    8     11  ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic

    8     22  high levels of ozone.

    9      2  photochemical oxidant chemistry of ozone formation,

    9      5  use for improving ozone air quality.

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

    9     11                 EPA goes on to state that the

              downwind ozone

    9     16  in noticeable increases in the ozone downwind, EPA

    9     18  is important for the simple fact that ozone

    9     20  States have the highest recorded ozone values

    9     22  the potential to increase ozone in the very places

    9     23  where ozone reductions are most needed, confounding

    9     24  the ozone attainment plans that are being developed

    10     2                 Also, increase in ozone in downwind

              areas of

    10     8  revisions to the secondary ozone NAAQS.

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

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

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

    10    18  ozone nonattainment problem found in the

    10    21  VOC emissions and the amount of ozone generated

    11     6  as likely to result in more ozone formation as

    12     3  because they are considered stratospheric ozone

    13     4  whether the rule has improved ozone levels and if

    13    16  with ozone nonattainment in many areas throughout

    14     2                 This rule is unlikely to realize the

              ozone

    21    16  ozone, and enforceability concerns surrounding the

    22    14  the Ozone Transport Commission.

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "PM2.5"

    ____  _______          _________________

    11    11  ambient levels of PM2.5.

    13    15                 Given that PM2.5 nonattainment is

              coincident

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

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

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "proposal"

    ____  _______          ____________________

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

    11     8                 This proposal could also have

              negative impacts

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

    12    15  proposal.  The reactivities for these highly tox-

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "proposed"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    5      9  that particular proposed rule.

    8     16  proposed regulation, National VOC Emission

    9      6                 In the preamble for the proposed

              rule, EPA

    10     5  EPA needs to consider the impact this proposed rule

    10     7  especially in light of the recently proposed

    11    12                 Table two in the proposed rule lists

              organic

    12    22  toxicity reductions from this proposed rule based

    15    16  the actual benefit of the proposed rule still more

    16    16  of the proposed rule require manufacturers to

    16    21  enforcement of these proposed regulations.

    18    10                 These proposed regulations are not

              practically

    18    20  reactivity limits in the proposed rule.

    19     8  respective to the reactivity limits in the proposed

    20    11  the proposed rule that this regulation was needed

    21    17  proposed reactivity approach, which when fully

    22     6  most reductions of the proposed without imparting

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "provisions"

    ____  _______          ______________________

    15    15                 The variance provisions make

              quantification of

    15    19  technology and economic hardship provisions of the

    15    22  centralized review of the variance provisions to

    15    24  these provisions.

    16    14  provisions.

    22     4  provisions would all be unnecessary.

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "reactive"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    8     20  reduction in emissions of high reactive organic

    9      4  replacement of high reactive compounds currently in

    9      7  states the substitution of a less reactive VOC for

    9      8  more reactive VOC can be effective in controlling

    9     13  amounts of lesser reactive VOCs.

    10    24  replacement of high reactive compounds with low

    10    25  reactive ones could potentially result in an

    13    11  potential for increase in emissions of low reactive

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

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "reactivity"

    ____  _______          ______________________

    7     17                 I was a member of the Reactivity

              Research

    7     21                 The Reactivity Research Working

              Group was

    7     23  for reactivity-related policies and was proceeding

    8     24  scale called the reactivity factor for each

    11    13  compounds with their reactivity, but does not

    11    25  reactivity factors that have been banned under

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

    12    10  reactivity factors.  So the possible end result

    13    25  Reactivity Research Working Group".

    14    20                 If EPA is to pursue a

              reactivity-based rule,

    18    20  reactivity limits in the proposed rule.

    19     8  respective to the reactivity limits in the proposed

    21    17  proposed reactivity approach, which when fully

    23    20  done through the Reactivity Research Working Group.

    23    21                 MR. SLIWINSKI:  It was titled the

              "Reactivity

    24     8  the process of the reactivity versus the research

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "regulation"

    ____  _______          ______________________

    8     16  proposed regulation, National VOC Emission

    14    16  regulation, it should include language that

    20    11  the proposed rule that this regulation was needed

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "reporting"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    16    15                 The recordkeeping and reporting

              requirements

    17    13                 EPA suggests that the electronic

              reporting of

    17    16  Without fully -- without full electronic reporting

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "research"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    7     17                 I was a member of the Reactivity

              Research

    7     21                 The Reactivity Research Working

              Group was

    7     25  were transferred to the North American Research

    13    25  Reactivity Research Working Group".

    23    12  Research and Development.

    23    20  done through the Reactivity Research Working Group.

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

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

    24     8  the process of the reactivity versus the research

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "rule"

    ____  _______          ________________

    5      9  that particular proposed rule.

    8     19                 The intent of this rule is to

              achieve a

    9      6                 In the preamble for the proposed

              rule, EPA

    10     5  EPA needs to consider the impact this proposed rule

    10    17  implementation of this rule does not worsen the

    10    20                 EPA states that this rule would

              produce both

    11    12                 Table two in the proposed rule lists

              organic

    12    22  toxicity reductions from this proposed rule based

    12    25                 Since this rule has been in place in

    13     4  whether the rule has improved ozone levels and if

    13     9  that may arise from the implementation of this rule

    14     2                 This rule is unlikely to realize the

              ozone

    14     4  the rule provides for exemptions for small

    14    20                 If EPA is to pursue a

              reactivity-based rule,

    15     3  substantial impact on rule penetration.

    15     8  impacts this provision will have on rule

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

    15    13  -- rule efficacy until much after the attainment

    15    16  the actual benefit of the proposed rule still more

    16    16  of the proposed rule require manufacturers to

    17     2  fee reports completed under the national AIM rule

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

    18    20  reactivity limits in the proposed rule.

    18    24  formulation prior to rule implementation and at the

    19     9  rule.  So for each batch, the compliance

    20    11  the proposed rule that this regulation was needed

    21     6  manageable National VOC aerosol coatings rule?  I

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

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

    22    12  provide a comment on this important National rule

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "source"

    ____  _______          __________________

    20    22  strategies, or other area source regulations --

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "sources"

    ____  _______          ___________________

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

    21     2  these emission sources before embarking into VOC

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "standards"

    ____  _______          _____________________

    5      7  Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for

    6      2  Planning Standards; Kenyetta Johnson from the

    6      3  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and

    6      8  Planning and Standards.

    8     17  Standards for Aerosol Coatings, to be codified

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "toxic"

    ____  _______          _________________

    12     9  while other less toxic chemicals have high

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

    12    20  comes down to their individual toxic potential.

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "urban"

    ____  _______          _________________

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

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

    10     3  urban centers could result in more impacts to

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "variance"

    ____  _______          ____________________

    15    15                 The variance provisions make

              quantification of

    15    22  centralized review of the variance provisions to

    16    13  -- small manufacturer exemption and variance

    16    25  requested information on variance and exceedence

    22     3  non-California products, and the variance

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "VOC"

    ____  _______          _______________

    8     16  proposed regulation, National VOC Emission

    9      7  states the substitution of a less reactive VOC for

    9      8  more reactive VOC can be effective in controlling

    10    21  VOC emissions and the amount of ozone generated

    18    14  difficult than mass-based VOC limits.

    20     9  compliance with a mass-based VOC limit.

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

    20    14  issues, there are many opportunities to reduce VOC

    21     2  these emission sources before embarking into VOC

    21     6  manageable National VOC aerosol coatings rule?  I

    21     9  technologically feasible and reduce VOC emissions

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

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

    Page  Ref No.          Keyword = "VOCs"

    ____  _______          ________________

    9     13  amounts of lesser reactive VOCs.

    11     2  increase of mass from VOCs emitted into the

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

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

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

    14    11  kilograms of total VOCs, are exempted if they

    20    19  VOCs, there are significant reductions that can be

              _________________________________________


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23755-23757]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10340]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 50 and 58

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699; FRL-9300-4]
RIN 2060-AP38

Release of Draft Risk and Exposure Assessments and Final
Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On or about April 22, 2011, the EPA is making available for
public review the documents titled, ``Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure
Assessment,'' (REA Plan for the primary ozone NAAQS) and ``Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for
Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessment'' (REA Plan for the secondary
ozone NAAQS). These documents contain the plans for the risk and
exposure analyses that EPA is preparing to conduct in support of the
reviews of ozone NAAQS. EPA is also making available to the public the
final document ``Integrated Review Plan for the Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards'' (IRP). This document contains the plans for the
review of the air quality criteria and national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for ozone. The Ozone NAAQS provide for the protection
of public health and the environment from ozone in ambient air.

DATES: Comments should be submitted by June 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: These documents will be available via the Internet at the
following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html. Submit your comments on the REAs, identified by Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0669, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0699. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov (or e-mail). The http://www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you

provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: REA Plan for the primary ozone
standard: John Langstaff, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(Mail code C539-07), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
919-541-5315; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>REA Plan for the
secondary ozone standard: Travis Smith, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (Mail code C539-07), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-
2035; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Information Specific to This Document

    Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment
and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the
Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then to
issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator is
to list those air pollutants that in her ``judgment, cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare;'' ``the presence of which in the
ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary
sources;'' and ``for which * * * [the Administrator] plans to issue air
quality criteria * * *'' Air quality criteria are intended to
``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in
indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public
health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a]
pollutant in the ambient air * * *'' (42 U.S.C. 7408(b)). Under section
109 (42 U.S.C. 7409), EPA establishes primary (health-based) and
secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality
criteria are issued. Section 109(d) requires periodic review and, if
appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air
quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the
effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also
required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate,
based on the revised criteria. Section 109(d)(2) requires that an
independent scientific review committee ``shall complete a review of
the criteria * * * and the national primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards * * * and shall recommend to the Administrator any
new * * * standards and revisions of existing criteria and standards as
may be appropriate * * *.'' Since the early 1980s, this independent
review function has been performed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC).
    Presently, EPA is reviewing the NAAQS for ozone. Key components of
this review include a quantitative population exposure analysis and
health risk assessment and a quantitative ecosystem exposure and
welfare risk analysis. OAQPS has developed Risk and Assessment Plans
(REA Plans) for Ozone Health Risk and Exposure and Ozone Welfare Risk
and Exposure which include a discussion of the scope, approaches, and
methods that staff is planning to use in conducting the exposure
analysis and health and welfare risk assessment. The draft REA Plans
and final IRP document announced today have been developed as part of
the planning phase for the review. These documents will be available on
the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html in the
``Documents for Review Initiated in 2008'' section under ``Planning
Documents.''
    The REA Plans are being made available for consultation with CASAC
and for public comment. Comments

should be submitted to the docket, as described above, by June 27,
2011. The CASAC consultation on these planning documents is scheduled
for May 19-20, 2011. A separate Federal Register notice will provide
details about this meeting and the process for participation.

    Dated: April 25, 2011.
Mary Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011-10340 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P