[Federal Register: July 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 135)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38951-38991]
[DOCID:fr16jy07-24]

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

Part IV

 Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 51 and 59

 National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol
Coatings; Proposed Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 59

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971; FRL-8336-5]
RIN 2060-AN69

National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol
Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes a national reactivity-based volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions regulation for the aerosol coatings
(aerosol spray paints) category under section 183(e) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). The proposed standards implement section 183(e) of the CAA,
as amended in 1990, which requires the Administrator to control VOC
emissions from certain categories of consumer and commercial products
for purposes of minimizing VOC emissions contributing to ozone
formation and causing non-attainment. This regulation will establish a
nationwide reactivity-based standard for aerosol coatings. States have
promulgated rules for the aerosol coatings category based upon
reductions of VOC by mass; however, the Agency believes that a national
rule based upon the relative reactivity approach may achieve more
reduction in ozone formation than can be achieved by a mass-based
approach for this specific product category. EPA believes that this
rule will better control a product's contribution to ozone formation by
encouraging the use of less reactive VOC ingredients, rather than
treating all VOC in a product alike through the traditional mass-based
approach. We are also proposing to revise EPA's regulatory definition
of VOC exempt compounds for purposes of this regulation in order to
account for all the reactive compounds in aerosol coatings that
contribute to ozone formation. Therefore, compounds that would not be
VOC under the otherwise applicable definition will count towards a
product's reactivity limits under this proposed regulation. The initial
listing of product categories and schedule for regulation was published
on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15264). This proposed action announces EPA's
final decision to list aerosol coatings for regulation under group III
of the consumer and commercial product category for which regulations
are mandated under section 183 (e) of the Act.

DATES: Comments. Written comments on the proposed regulation must be
received by EPA by August 15, 2007, unless a public hearing is
requested by July 26, 2007. If a hearing is requested, written comments
must be received by August 30, 2007.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing concerning the proposed regulation by July 26, 2007, we
will hold a public hearing on July 31, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of two copies. We request that a separate
copy also be sent to the contact person identified below (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC
20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
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 the applicable docket. 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.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10
a.m. on July 31, 2007 at Building C on the EPA campus in Research
Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate site nearby. Persons interested
in presenting oral testimony must contact Ms. Dorothy Apple, U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919)
541-4487, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than July 26, 2007 in the Federal

Register. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also
call Ms. Apple to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing.
If no one contacts Ms. Apple by July 26, 2007 in the Federal Register
with a request to present oral testimony at the hearing, we will cancel
the hearing.
    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, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Public

Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the aerosol
coatings rule, contact Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector

Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group
(E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information concerning the CAA section

183(e) consumer and commercial products program, contact Mr. Bruce
Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector
Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group
(E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Entities Potentially Affected by this
Action. The entities potentially regulated by the proposed regulation
encompass aerosol coatings operations. This includes manufacturers,
processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of aerosol coatings
for sale or distribution in the United States, or manufacturers,
processors, wholesale distributors, or importers that supply the
entities listed with aerosol coatings for sale or distribution in
interstate commerce in the United States. The entities potentially
affected by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
             Category               NAICS code \a\   regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paint and coating manufacturing...           32551  Manufacturing of
                                                     lacquers,
                                                     varnishes, enamels,
                                                     epoxy coatings, oil
                                                     and alkyd vehicle,
                                                     plastisols,
                                                     polyurethane,
                                                     primers, shellacs,
                                                     stains, water
                                                     repellant coatings.
All other miscellaneous chemical            325998  Aerosol can filling,
 production and preparation                          aerosol packaging
 manufacturing.                                      services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether you would be affected by this action, you
should examine the applicable industry description in section I.E of
this notice. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate EPA contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
    Preparation of Comments. Do not submit information containing CBI
to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver

information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr.
Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, Attention: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971.
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.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on
the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated
rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN

provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
    Organization of This Document. The information presented in this
notice is organized as follows:

I. Background
    A. The Ozone Problem
    B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
    C. What is Photochemical Reactivity?
    D. Role of Reactivity in VOC/Ozone Regulations
    E. The Aerosol Coating Industry
II. Summary of Proposed Standards
    A. Applicability of the Standards and Regulated Entities
    B. Regulated Pollutant
    C. Regulatory Limits
    D. Compliance Requirements
    E. Labeling Requirements
    F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    G. Variance
    H. Test Methods
III. Summary of Impacts
    A. Environmental Impacts
    B. Energy Impacts
    C. Cost and Economic Impacts
IV. Rationale
    A. Applicability
    B. Regulated Pollutant
    C. Regulatory Approach
    D. VOC Regulatory Limits
    E. Compliance Demonstration Requirements
    F. Labeling Requirements
    G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    H. Variance Criteria
    I. Test Methods
V. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Background

A. The Ozone Problem

    Ground-level ozone, a major component of smog, is formed in the
atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen 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, as well as agricultural crop loss, and damage to
forests and ecosystems. Controlled human exposure studies show that
acute health effects are induced by short-term (1 to 2 hour) exposures
(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 (6 to 8 hour) exposures to ozone (observed at
concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm and possibly lower), typically while
individuals are engaged

in moderate exertion. Transient effects from acute exposures include
pulmonary inflammation, respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise
performance, and increased airway responsiveness. Epidemiological
studies have shown associations between ambient ozone levels and
increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased hospital
admissions and emergency room visits. Groups at increased risk of
experiencing elevated exposures include active children, outdoor
workers, and others who regularly engage in outdoor activities. Those
most susceptible to the effects of ozone include those with preexisting
respiratory disease, children, and older adults. The literature
suggests the possibility 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).

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    Under section 183(e) of the CAA, EPA conducted a study of VOC
emissions from the use of consumer and commercial products to assess
their potential to contribute to levels of ozone that violate the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and to
establish criteria for regulating VOC emissions from these products.
Section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to list for regulation those
categories of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC
emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial
products in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone
nonattainment areas), and to divide the list of categories to be
regulated into four groups.
    EPA published the initial list in the Federal Register on March 23,
1995 (60 FR 15264). In that notice, EPA stated that it may amend the
list of products for regulation, and the groups of product categories,
in order to achieve an effective regulatory program in accordance with
the Agency's discretion under CAA section 183(e). EPA has revised the
list several times. Most recently, in May 2006, EPA revised the list to
add one product category, portable fuel containers, and to remove one
product category, petroleum dry cleaning solvents. See 71 FR 28320 (May
16, 2006). The aerosol spray paints (aerosol coatings) category
currently is listed for regulation as part of Group III of the CAA
section 183(e) list.
    CAA section 183(e) directs EPA to regulate Consumer and Commercial
Products using ``best available controls'' (BAC). CAA section
183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC as ``the degree of emissions reduction that
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.'' CAA section
183(e) also provides EPA with authority to use any system or systems of
regulation that EPA determines is the most appropriate for the product
category. Under CAA section 183(e)(4), EPA can impose ``any system or
systems of regulation as the Administrator deems appropriate, including
requirements for registration and labeling, self-monitoring and
reporting, prohibitions, limitations, or economic incentives (including
marketable permits and auctions of emissions rights) concerning the
manufacture, processing, distribution, use, consumption or disposal of
the product.'' Under these provisions, EPA has previously issued
national regulations for architectural coatings, autobody refinishing
coatings, consumer products, and portable fuel
containers.1, 2, 3, 4, 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings'' 63 FR 48848, (September 11, 1998).
    \2\ ``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Automobile Refinish Coatings'' 63 FR 48806, (September 11, 1998).
    \3\ ``Consumer and Commercial Products: Schedule for
Regulation'' 63 FR 48792, (September 11, 1998).
    \4\ ``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Consumer Products'' 63 FR 48819, (September 11, 1998).
    \5\ ``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Portable Fuel Containers'' 72 FR 8428, (February 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For any category of consumer or commercial products, the
Administrator may issue control techniques guidelines (CTGs) in lieu of
national regulations if the Administrator determines that such guidance
will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing emissions
of volatile organic compounds which contribute to ozone levels in areas
which violate the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. In
many cases, CTGs can be effective regulatory approaches to reduce
emissions of VOC in nonattainment areas because of the nature of the
specific product and the uses of such product. A critical distinction
between a national rule and a CTG is that a CTG may include provisions
that affect the users of the products. For other product categories,
such as wood furniture coatings and shipbuilding coatings, EPA has
previously determined that, under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), a CTG would
be substantially as effective as a national rule and, therefore, issued
CTGs to provide guidance to States for development of appropriate State
regulations.
    For the category of aerosol coatings, EPA has determined that a
national rule applicable nationwide is the best system of regulation to
achieve necessary VOC emission reductions from this type of product.
Aerosol coatings are typically used in relatively small amounts by
consumers and others on an occasional basis and at varying times and
locations. Under such circumstances, reformulation of the VOC content
of the products is a more feasible way to achieve VOC emission
reductions, rather than through a CTG approach that would only affect a
smaller number of relatively large users. Aerosol coatings regulations
are already in place in three States (California, Oregon, and
Washington), and other States are considering developing regulations
for these products. For the companies that market aerosol coatings in
different States, trying to fulfill the differing requirements of State
rules may create administrative, technical, and marketing problems. A
Federal rule is expected to provide some degree of consistency,
predictability, and administrative ease for the industry. A national
rule also helps States reduce compliance problems associated with
noncompliant coatings being transported into nonattainment areas from
neighboring areas and neighboring States. A national rule will also
enable States to obtain needed VOC emission reductions from this sector
in the near term, without having to expend their limited resources to
develop similar rules in each State.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ALARM Caucus v. EPA, 215 F.3d 61,76 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert.
denied, 532 U.S. 1018 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What Is Photochemical Reactivity?

    There are thousands of individual species of VOC chemicals that can
participate in a series of reactions involving nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and the energy from sunlight, resulting in the
formation of ozone. The impact of a given species of VOC on formation
of ground-level ozone is sometimes referred to as its ``reactivity.''
It is generally understood that not all VOC are equal in their effects
on ground-level ozone formation. Some VOC react extremely slowly and
changes in their emissions have limited effects on ozone pollution
episodes. Some VOC form ozone more quickly than other VOCs, or they may
form more ozone than other

VOC. Other VOC not only form ozone themselves, but also act as
catalysts and enhance ozone formation from other VOC. By distinguishing
between more reactive and less reactive VOC, however, EPA believes that
it may be possible to develop regulations that will decrease ozone
concentrations further or more efficiently than by controlling all VOC
equally.
    Assigning a value to the reactivity of a specific VOC species is a
complex undertaking. Reactivity is not simply a property of the
compound itself; it is a property of both the compound and the
environment in which the compound is found. Therefore, the reactivity
of a specific VOC varies with VOC:NOX ratios, meteorological
conditions, the mix of other VOC in the atmosphere, and the time
interval of interest. Designing an effective regulation that takes
account of these interactions is difficult. Implementing and enforcing
such a regulation requires an extra burden for both industry and
regulators, as those impacted by the rule must characterize and track
the full chemical composition of VOC emissions rather than only having
to track total VOC content as is required by traditional mass-based
rules. EPA's September 13, 2005 final rule \7\ to approve a comparable
reactivity-based aerosol coating rule as part of the California State
Implementation Plan for ozone contains additional background
information on photochemical reactivity. Recently, EPA issued interim
guidance to States regarding the use of VOC reactivity information in
the development of ozone control measures.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan and
Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)-
Removal of VOC Exemptions for California's Aerosol Coating Products
Reactivity-based Regulation'' 70 FR 53930, (September 13, 2005).
    \8\ ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
in Ozone State Implementation Plans'') 70 FR 54046, (September 13,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. What Research Has Been Conducted in Reactivity?
    Much of the initial work on reactivity scales was funded by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), which was interested in
comparing the reactivity of emissions from different alternative fueled
vehicles. In the late 1980s, CARB provided funding to William P. L.
Carter at the University of California to develop a reactivity scale.
Carter investigated 18 different methods of ranking the reactivity of
individual VOC in the atmosphere using a single-cell trajectory model
with a state-of-the-art chemical reaction mechanism.\9\ Carter
suggested three scales for further consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Carter, W. P. L. (1994) ``Development of ozone reactivity
scales for organic gases,'' J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 44: 881-
899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) scale-an ozone yield scale
derived by adjusting the NOX emissions in a base case to
yield the highest incremental reactivity of the base reactive organic
gas mixture.
    ii. Maximum Ozone Incremental Reactivity (MOIR) scale-an ozone
yield scale derived by adjusting the NOX emission in a base
case to yield the highest peak ozone concentration.
    iii. Equal Benefit Incremental Reactivity (EBIR) scale-an ozone
yield scale derived by adjusting the NOX emissions in a base
case scenario so VOC and NOX reductions are equally
effective in reducing ozone.
    Carter concluded that, if only one scale is used for regulatory
purposes, the maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) scale is the most
appropriate.\10\ The MIR scale is defined in terms of environmental
conditions where ozone production is most sensitive to changes in
hydrocarbon emissions and, therefore, represents conditions where
hydrocarbon controls would be the most effective. CARB therefore used
the MIR scale to establish fuel-neutral VOC emissions limits in its
low-emitting vehicle and alternative fuels regulation.11, 12
Subsequently, Carter has updated the MIR scale several times as the
chemical mechanisms in the model used to derive the scale have evolved
with new scientific information. CARB incorporated a 1999 version of
the MIR scale in its own aerosol coatings rule. The latest revision to
the MIR scale was issued in 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Initial Statement of Reasons for the California Aerosol
Coatings Regulation, California Air Resources Board,'' 2000.
    \11\ California Air Resources Board ``Proposed Regulations for
Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels--Staff Report and Technical
Support Document,'' State of California, Air Resources Board, P.O.
Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812, August 13, 1990.
    \12\ California Air Resources Board ``Proposed Regulations for
Low-Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels--Final Statement of Reasons,''
State of California, Air Resources Board, July 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to Carter's work, there have been other attempts to
create reactivity scales. One such effort is the work of R.G. Derwent
and coworkers, who have published articles on a scale called the
photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) scale.13, 14
This scale was designed for the emissions and meteorological conditions
prevalent in Europe. The POCP scale is generally consistent with that
of Carter, although there are some differences because it uses a
different model, chemical mechanism, and emission and meteorological
scenarios. Despite these differences, there is a good correlation of
r\2\=0.9 between the results of the POCP and the MIR scales\12\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin, S.M. Saunders and M.J. Pilling
(2001) ``Characterization of the Reactivities of Volatile Organic
Compounds Using a Master Chemical Mechanism,'' J. Air Waste
Management Assoc., 51: 699-707.
    \14\ Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin, S.M. Saunders and M.J. Pilling
(1998) ``Photochemical Ozone Creation Potentials for Organic
Compounds in Northwest Europe Calculated with a Master Chemical
Mechanism,'' Atmos. Env., 32(14/15):2429-2441.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As CARB worked to develop reactivity-based regulations in
California, EPA began to explore the implications of applying
reactivity scales in other parts of the country. In developing its
regulations, CARB has maintained that the MIR scale is the most
appropriate metric for application in California, but cautions that its
research has focused on California atmospheric conditions and that the
suitability of the MIR scale for regulatory purposes in other areas has
not been demonstrated. In particular, specific concerns have been
raised about the suitability of using the MIR scale in relation to
multi-day stagnation or transport scenarios or over geographic regions
with very different VOC:NOX ratios than those of California.
    In 1998, EPA participated in the formation of the Reactivity
Research Working Group (RRWG), which was organized to help develop an
improved scientific basis for reactivity-related regulatory
policies.\15\ All interested parties were invited to participate. Since
that time, representatives from EPA, CARB, Environment Canada, States,
academia, and industry have met in public RRWG meetings to discuss and
coordinate research that would support this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See http://www.narsto.org/section.src?SID=10.

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

    The RRWG has organized a series of research efforts to explore:
    i. The sensitivity of ozone to VOC mass reductions and changes in
VOC composition under a variety of environmental conditions;
    ii. The derivation and evaluation of reactivity scales using
photochemical airshed models under a variety of environmental
conditions;
    iii. The development of emissions inventory processing tools for
exploring reactivity-based strategies; and
    iv. The fate of VOC emissions and their availability for
atmospheric reactions.
    This research has led to a number of findings that increase our
confidence in

the ability to develop regulatory approaches that differentiate between
specific VOC on the basis of relative reactivity. The first two
research objectives listed above were explored in a series of three
parallel modeling studies that resulted in four reports and one journal
article.16, 17, 18, 19, 20 EPA commissioned a review of
these reports to address a series of policy-relevant science
questions.\21\ In 2007, an additional peer review was commissioned by
EPA to assess the appropriateness of basing a national aerosol coatings
regulation on reactivity. Generally, the peer reviews support the
appropriateness of the use of the box-model based MIR metric nationwide
for the aerosol coatings category. The results are available in the
rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Carter, W.P.L., G. Tonnesen, and G. Yarwood (2003)
Investigation of VOC Reactivity Effects Using Existing Regional Air
Quality Models, Report to American Chemistry Council, Contract SC-
20.0-UCR-VOC-RRWG, April 17, 2003.
    \17\ Hakami, A., M.S. Bergin, and A.G. Russell (2003) Assessment
of the Ozone and Aerosol Formation Potentials (Reactivities) of
Organic Compounds over the Eastern United States, Final Report,
Prepared for California Air Resources Board, Contract No. 00-339,
January 2003.
    \18\ Hakami, A., M.S. Bergin, and A.G. Russell (2004a) Ozone
Formation Potential of Organic Compounds in the Eastern United
States: A Comparison of Episodes, Inventories, and Domains, Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 6748-6759.
    \19\ Hakami, A., M. Arhami, and A.G. Russell (2004b) Further
Analysis of VOC Reactivity Metrics and Scales, Final Report to the
U.S. EPA, Contract 4D-5751-NAEX, July 2004.
    \20\ Arunachalam S., R. Mathur, A. Holland, M.R. Lee, D. Olerud,
Jr., and H. Jeffries (2003) Investigation of VOC Reactivity
Assessment with Comprehensive Air Quality Modeling, Prepared for
U.S. EPA, GSA Contract  GS-35F-0067K, Task Order ID:
4TCG68022755, June 2003.
    \21\ Derwent, R.G. (2004) Evaluation and Characterization of
Reactivity Metrics, Final Draft, Report to the U.S. EPA, Order No.
4D-5844-NATX, November 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the RRWG-organized study and the subsequent reviews
suggest that there is good correlation between different relative
reactivity metrics calculated with photochemical airshed models,
regardless of the choice of model, model domain, scenario, or averaging
times. Moreover, the scales calculated with photochemical airshed
models correlate relatively well with the MIR metric derived with a
single cell, one-dimensional box model. Prior to the RRWG-organized
studies, little analysis of the robustness of the box-model derived MIR
metric and its applicability to environmental conditions outside
California had been conducted. Although these studies were not
specifically designed to test the robustness of the box-model derived
MIR metrics, the results suggest that the MIR metric is relatively
robust.

D. Role of Reactivity in VOC/Ozone Regulations

    Historically, EPA's general approach to regulation of VOC emissions
has been based upon control of total VOC by mass, without
distinguishing between individual species of VOC. EPA considered the
regulation of VOC by mass to be the most effective and practical
approach based upon the scientific and technical information available
when EPA developed its VOC control policy.
    EPA issued the first version of its VOC control policy in 1971, as
part of EPA's State Implementation Plan (SIP) preparation guidance.\22\
In that guidance, EPA emphasized the need to reduce the total mass of
VOC emissions, but also suggested that substitution of one compound for
another might be useful when it would result in a clearly evident
decrease in reactivity and thus tend to reduce photochemical oxidant
formation. This latter statement encouraged States to promulgate SIPs
with VOC emission substitution provisions similar to the Los Angeles
County Air Pollution Control District's (LACAPCD) Rule 66, which
allowed some VOC that were believed to have low to moderate reactivity
to be exempted from control. The exempt status of many of those VOC was
questioned a few years later, when research results indicated that,
although some of those compounds do not produce much ozone close to the
source, they may produce significant amounts of ozone after they are
transported downwind from urban areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ``Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of
Implementation Plans'', Appendix B, 36 FR 15495, (August 14, 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1977, further research led EPA to issue a revised VOC policy
under the title ``Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds,'' (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977), offering its own, more
limited list of exempt organic compounds. The 1977 policy identified
four compounds that have very low photochemical reactivity and
determined that their contribution to ozone formation and accumulation
could be considered negligible. The policy exempted these ``negligibly
reactive'' compounds from VOC emissions limitations in programs
designed to meet the ozone NAAQS. Since 1977, the EPA has added other
compounds to the list of negligibly reactive compounds based on new
information as it has been developed. In 1992, the EPA adopted a formal
regulatory definition of VOC for use in SIP, which explicitly excludes
compounds that have been identified as negligibly reactive (40 CFR
51.100(s)).
    To date, EPA has exempted 54 compounds or classes of compounds in
this manner. In effect, EPA's current VOC exemption policy has
generally resulted in a two bin system in which most compounds are
treated equally as VOC and are controlled and a separate smaller group
of compounds are treated as negligibly reactive and are exempt from VOC
control.\23\ This approach was intended to encourage the reduction of
emissions of all VOC that participate in ozone formation. From one
perspective, it appears that this approach has been relatively
successful. EPA estimates that, between 1970 and 2003, VOC emissions
from man-made sources nationwide declined by 54 percent. This decline
in VOC emissions has helped to decrease average ozone concentration by
29 percent (based on 1-hour averages) and 21 percent (based on 8-hour
averages) between 1980 and 2003. These reductions occurred even though,
between 1970 and 2003, population, vehicle miles traveled, and gross
domestic product rose 39 percent, 155 percent and 176 percent
respectively.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ For some analytical purposes, EPA has distinguished between
VOC and ``highly reactive'' VOC, such as in the Agency's initial
evaluation of consumer products for regulation. See, ``Final
Listing,'' 63 FR 48792, 48795-6 (Sept. 11, 1998) (explaining EPA's
approach); see also, ALARM Caucus v. EPA, 215 F. 3d 61, 69--73 (D.C.
Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1018 (2001) (approving EPA's
approach as meeting the requirements of CAA section 183(e)).
    \24\ ``Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 Status and
Trends,'' EPA 454/K-03-001, (August 2003); and ``The Ozone Report
Measuring Progress through 2003,'' EPA 454/K-04-001, (April 2004);
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, some have argued that a reactivity-based
approach for reducing VOC emissions would be more effective than the
current mass-based approach. One group of researchers conducted a
detailed modeling study of the Los Angeles area and concluded that,
compared to the current approach, a reactivity-based approach could
achieve the same reductions in ozone concentrations at significantly
less cost or, for a given cost, could achieve a significantly greater
reduction in ozone concentrations.\25\ Although the traditional
approach to VOC control focused on reducing the overall mass of
emissions may be adequate in some areas of the country, EPA's recent
guidance on control of VOC in ozone SIPs recognizes that approaches to
VOC control that differentiate between VOC

based on relative reactivity are likely to be more effective and
efficient under certain circumstances.\26\ In particular, reactivity-
based approaches are likely to be important in areas for which
aggressive VOC control is a key strategy for reducing ozone
concentrations. Such areas include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ A. Russell, J. Milford, M. S. Bergin, S. McBride, L.
McNair, Y. Yang, W. R. Stockwell, B. Croes, ``Urban Ozone Control
and Atmospheric Reactivity of Organic Gases,'' Science, 269: 491-
495, (1995).
    \26\ ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
in Ozone State Implementation Plans,'' 70 FR 54046, September 13,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Areas with persistent ozone nonattainment problems;
     Urbanized or other NOX-rich areas where ozone
formation is particularly sensitive to changes in VOC emissions;
     Areas that have already implemented VOC RACT measures and
need additional VOC emission reductions.
    In these areas, there are a variety of possible ways of addressing
VOC reactivity in the SIP development process, including:
     Developing accurate, speciated VOC emissions inventories.
     Prioritizing control measures using reactivity metrics.
     Targeting emissions of highly-reactive VOC compounds with
specific control measures.
     Encouraging VOC substitution and composition changes using
reactivity-weighted emission limits.
    The CARB aerosol coatings rule is an example of this last
application of the concept of reactivity. CARB's reactivity-based rule
encouraged the use of compounds that were less effective at producing
ozone. It contained limits for aerosol coatings expressed as grams of
ozone formed per gram of product instead of the more traditional limits
expressed as percent VOC. EPA approved CARB's aerosol coatings rule as
part of the California SIP for ozone. EPA's national aerosol coatings
rule builds largely upon CARB's efforts to regulate this product
category based upon relative reactivity.

E. The Aerosol Coating Industry

    Aerosol coatings include all coatings that are specially formulated
and packaged for use in pressurized cans. They are used by both
professional and by do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers. The DIY segment
accounts for approximately 80 percent of all sales. The remainder of
aerosol coatings is sold for industrial maintenance and original
equipment manufacturer use. Aerosol coatings are used for a number of
applications including small domestic coating jobs, field and
construction site marking, and touch-up of marks and scratches in
paintwork of automobiles, appliances and machinery.
    The aerosol coatings industry includes the formulators and
manufacturers of the concentrated product. These manufacturers may
package the product or they may use toll fillers (processors). These
toll fillers may work not only with the large manufacturers, but for
other coating manufacturers who do not have the specialized equipment
to fill aerosol containers. The fillers may then supply the product to
coating dealers, home supply stores, distributors, company-owned
stores, and industrial customers.
    An aerosol consists of a gas in which liquid or solid substances
may be dispensed. Aerosol coatings are pressurized coatings that, like
other coatings, consist of pigments and resins and solvents. However,
aerosol coatings also contain a propellant that dispenses the product
ingredients. A controlled amount of propellant in the product vaporizes
as it leaves the container, creating the aerosol spray. The combination
of product and propellant is finely tuned to produce the correct
concentration and spray pattern for an effective product.
    Aerosol coatings can be packaged in disposable cans for hand-held
applications or for use in specialized equipment in ground traffic/
marking applications. As with other coatings, aerosol coatings are
available in both solvent-based and water-based formulations.
    In developing the proposed national rule for aerosol coatings, EPA
is using the same coating categories, and the same definitions for
those categories, previously identified by CARB in its comparable
regulation for aerosol coatings. We believe these categories adequately
categorize the industry and encompass the range of products included in
our own analysis of this category that we conducted in preparing the
Report to Congress (EPA-453/R-94-066-A). Use of the same definitions
and categories has the added benefit of providing regulated entities
with consistency between the CARB and national rules. The categories we
propose include six general categories and 30 specialty categories.
Based on a survey of aerosol coating manufacturers conducted by CARB in
1997, VOC emissions from the six general categories together with the
specialty category of Ground Traffic/Marking Coatings account for
approximately 85 percent of the ozone formed as a result of the use of
aerosol coatings. These categories are defined in this proposed
regulation and are described in more detail in the docket to this
rulemaking.
    There are currently no national regulations addressing VOC
emissions from aerosol coatings. California, Oregon and Washington are
the only States that currently regulate aerosol coating products and
Oregon's and Washington's rules are identical to the Tier 1 VOC mass-
based limits developed by CARB that became effective in 1996. Unlike
other EPA or State regulations and previous CARB regulations for
aerosol coatings that regulate VOC ingredients by mass in the
traditional approach, the current California regulation for aerosol
coatings is designed to limit the ozone formed from VOC emissions from
aerosol coatings by establishing limits on the reactivity of the
cumulative VOC ingredients of such coatings. A more thorough discussion
of the reactivity approach and the proposed reactivity limits are
presented later in this preamble (section IV.D).

II. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability of the Standards and Regulated Entities

    The proposed Aerosol Coatings Reactivity Rule (ACRR) will apply to
manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of
aerosol coatings used by both the general population (i.e., the ``Do It
Yourself'' market) and industrial applications (e.g., at original
equipment manufacturers and other industrial sites). This regulation
will also apply to distributors if those distributors are responsible
for any of the labeling of the aerosol products. The proposed rule
includes an exemption from the limits in Table 1 of subpart E of the
rule for those manufacturers that manufacture very limited amounts of
aerosol coatings, i.e., products with a total VOC content by mass of no
more than 7,500 kilograms of VOC per year in the aggregate for all
products. EPA notes that an exemption under EPA's national rule for
aerosol coatings under section 183(e) does not alter any requirements
under any applicable State or local regulations.

B. Regulated Pollutant

    The regulated pollutants under this proposed regulation are VOC, as
that term is defined in 40 CFR 51.100(s). However, the listed exempt
compounds that are normally excluded from the definition of VOC in 40
CFR 51.100(s)(1) will be regulated as VOC for purposes of this
regulation. Because all of these compounds contribute to ozone
formation, we are proposing to amend the regulatory definition of VOC
for purposes of this rule. While the regulated pollutants will be VOCs,
the emission limits in the standard will be expressed in terms of
weight of ozone generated from the VOC ingredients per

weight of coating material, rather than the traditional weight of VOC
ingredients per weight or volume of product. We believe that this
approach will allow us to reduce the overall amount of ozone that
results from the VOCs emitted to the atmosphere from these products,
while providing manufacturers with the flexibility to select VOC
ingredients for their products. This approach provides incentives to
manufacturers to reformulate their products using VOC ingredients that
will likely result in less ozone production.

C. Regulatory Limits

    The proposed regulatory limits for the ACRR are a series of
reactivity limits for six general coating categories and 30
subcategories of specialty coatings. These reactivity limits are
expressed in terms of mass of ozone generation per gram of product. In
addition to compliance with the reactivity limits, a regulated entity
is also required to comply with labeling, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.

D. Compliance Requirements

    The proposed rule requires all regulated entities to comply by
January 1, 2009. The proposed rule includes a provision that allows
regulated entities that have not previously manufactured, imported, or
distributed for sale or distribution in California any product that
complies with applicable California regulations for aerosol coatings to
seek an extension of the compliance date until January 1, 2011.
    After the compliance date, the regulated entity under this proposed
rule will be required to conduct initial compliance demonstration
calculations for all coating formulations manufactured or filled at
each of their facilities. These calculations must be maintained on-site
for 5 years after the product is manufactured, processed, distributed,
or imported, and must be submitted to the Agency upon request. The
regulated entity may use formulation data to make the compliance
calculations; however, EPA is proposing to adopt California's Method
310 as the underlying test method (i.e., formulation data should be
verifiable with CARB 310, if requested). Facilities will also be
allowed to use EPA's Test Method 311.

E. Labeling Requirements

    The proposed rule also includes labeling requirements to facilitate
implementation and enforcement of the limits. Labels must clearly
identify the product category or the category code provided in Table 1
of the regulation, the limit for that category, and the product date
code. If the date code is not easily discernable, an explanation of the
code would need to be included in the initial notification discussed
below.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    The proposed rule includes a requirement for an initial
notification report from all regulated entities to EPA 90 days before
the compliance date. This report will provide basic information about
the regulated entity and will identify all manufacturers, processors,
wholesale distributors, or importers of aerosol coatings. In addition,
this report will need to explain the date code system used to label
products and it must include a statement certifying that all of the
company's products will be in compliance with the limits by the
compliance date.
    The regulated entity is required to maintain compliance
calculations for each of its aerosol coatings formulations. For each
batch of a particular formulation, the regulated entity must maintain
records of the date(s) the batch was manufactured, the volume of the
batch, and the VOC formula for the formulation. Records of these
calculations must be maintained 5 years after the product is
manufactured, processed, distributed for wholesale, or imported for
sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States.
    The proposed rule does not include any regular, ongoing reporting
requirements for most regulated entities. Reporting after the initial
compliance report is only required when a manufacturer adds a new
coating category. When this happens, a new notification is required.
However, the EPA also invites public comment on the feasibility and
need for additional reporting requirements.
    The proposed rule requires those small manufactures that qualify
for exemption from the limits of Table 1 of subpart E of the rule to
make an annual report to EPA providing necessary information and
documentation to establish that the products made by the entity should
be exempt.

G. Variance

    The proposed rule allows regulated entities to submit a written
application to the Agency requesting a temporary variance if, for
reasons beyond their reasonable control, they cannot comply with the
requirements of the rule. An approved variance order would specify a
final compliance date and a condition that imposes increments of
progress necessary to assure timely compliance. A variance would end
immediately if the regulated entity failed to comply with any term or
condition of the variance. The Administrator will provide special
consideration to variance requests from regulated entities,
particularly small businesses that have not marketed their products in
areas subject to State regulations for these products prior to this
rulemaking. EPA notes that a variance under EPA's national rule for
aerosol coatings under section 183(e) does not alter any requirements
under any applicable state or local regulations.

H. Test Methods

    Although regulated entities may use formulation data to demonstrate
compliance with the reactivity limits, EPA believes it is also
necessary to have test methods in place that can be used to verify the
accuracy of the formulation data. Therefore, we have included two test
methods that can be used by regulated entities or the Administrator to
determine compliance with the reactivity limits. In those cases where
the formulation data and test data are not in agreement, data collected
using the approved test methods will prevail. Regulated entities or
regulatory agencies may use either CARB Method 310--Determination of
Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic
Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products or EPA Method 311--Analysis of
Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings to determine
the reactive organic compound content of an aerosol coating. CARB
Method 310 includes some test procedures that are not required to
determine the VOC content of aerosol coatings; for example, Method 310
incorporates EPA Method 24 for determining the VOC content of a
coating. We have identified those sections of Method 310 that are not
required for compliance demonstration purposes in the regulation. EPA
Method 311 was originally developed for liquid coatings; so, it does
not include provisions for the collection of the propellant portion of
an aerosol coating. Therefore, those choosing to use Method 311 must
separate the aerosol propellant from the coating using either ASTM
D3063-94 or ASTM D 3074-94.

III. Summary of Impacts

    This section presents a summary of the impacts expected as a result
of this proposed rule. To ensure that the impacts are not minimized, we
followed an approach that would provide conservative estimates for each
impact. For environmental impacts, we ensured that our estimated
positive impact (i.e.,

emission reduction) was not overstated (i.e., conservatively low). For
cost and economic impacts, we ensured that our estimated impacts were
not understated (i.e., conservatively high). This approach ensures that
conclusions drawn on the overall impact on facilities, including small
businesses, are based on conservative assumptions.

A. Environmental Impacts

    In accordance with section 183(e), EPA has evaluated what
regulatory approach would constitute ``best available controls'' for
this product category, taking into account the considerations noted in
the statute. EPA has evaluated the incremental increase or decrease in
air pollution, water pollution, and solid waste reduction that would
result from implementing the proposed standards.
1. Air Pollution Impacts
    The proposed rule will reduce both VOC emissions and the amount of
ozone generated from the use of aerosol coatings. Because most States
will use the VOC emission reductions resulting from this rule in their
ozone SIP planning, we have calculated the reductions associated with
the rule in terms of mass VOC emissions and we will refer to a
reduction in mass VOC emissions when discussing the impacts of the
proposed regulation. EPA believes this is appropriate because the
reactivity limits were designed to ensure that the ozone reductions
that would be achieved by the limits were equivalent to the mass VOC
reductions that would have been achieved by the CARB 2002 mass-based
VOC limits. However, because the limits actually reduce the amount of
ozone generated from the VOC used in aerosol coatings rather than VOC
content by mass, the VOC reductions that we refer to are more
accurately described as an ``equivalent reduction in VOC emissions.''
We will use the term ``reduction'' in subsequent discussions.
Additional information on the method used to calculate the air impacts
of the proposed rule are included in the impacts calculation memo
contained in the docket to this rulemaking.
    As proposed, EPA believes that this rule would reduce nationwide
emissions of VOC from the use of aerosol coatings by an estimated
15,570 Mg (17,130 tons) from the 1990 baseline. This represents a 19.4
percent reduction from the 1990 baseline of 80,270 Mg (88,300 tons) of
VOC emissions from the product category. While we believe that the
above numbers accurately assess the impacts of the proposed rule for
SIP credit purposes, we recognize that significant reductions have
already occurred as the result of the implementation of the CARB
aerosol coatings regulations. Because many manufacturers sell ``CARB
compliant'' coatings across the country, some of these VOC emission
reductions have already been achieved outside of California. We
estimate that approximately 18 percent of the total products sold are
not compliant with EPA's proposed limits. Therefore, we estimate that
this rule will result in additional VOC reductions equivalent to 3,100
tons per year (i.e., 18 percent of 17,130). We request comment on our
estimate of the products that are not compliant with these limits
specifically, and on our evaluation of the potential VOC emission
reductions generally.
    The 18 percent reduction in VOC emissions represents new
reductions. However, for ozone SIP purposes, we plan to give States
that do not currently have aerosol coating regulations in place full
credit for the 19.4 percent reduction from the 1990 baseline. This 19.4
percent reduction is equivalent to a 0.114 pound of VOC reduction per
capita.
    Although we have not quantified the anticipated impacts of this
rule on HAP emissions, EPA expects that the proposed rule would reduce
emissions of toluene and xylene, two highly reactive toxic compounds.
Toluene and xylene are hazardous air pollutants that manufacturers have
historically used extensively in some aerosol coating formulations.
However, both of these compounds are also highly reactive VOCs.
Therefore, it will be difficult for regulated entities to continue to
use these compounds in significant concentrations and still meet the
reactivity limits in the proposed rule. EPA believes that the proposed
rule based upon VOC reactivity, rather than VOC mass, will provide a
significant incentive for manufacturers to cease or reduce use of
toluene and xylene in their products.
    Due to the reduction in equivalent VOC emissions and ozone
formation and the anticipated reduction in hazardous air pollutant
emissions, we believe the rule will improve human health and the
environment.
2. Water and Solid Waste Impacts
    There are no adverse solid waste impacts anticipated from the
compliance with this rule. Because companies can continue to sell and
distribute coatings that do not meet the reactivity limits after the
compliance date as long as those coatings were manufactured before the
compliance date the industry does not have to dispose of aerosol cans
containing noncompliant product, which would result in an increase in
solid waste. It is possible that the proposed rule will actually result
in a reduction in solid waste as more concentrated higher solids
coatings may be used as an option for meeting the proposed limits. This
will result in fewer containers requiring disposal when the same volume
of solids is applied by product users.
    There are no anticipated adverse water impacts from this
rulemaking.

B. Energy Impacts

    There are no adverse energy impacts anticipated from compliance
with this proposed rule. EPA believes that regulated entities will
comply through product reformulation which will not significantly alter
energy impacts. The proposed rule does not include add-on controls or
other measures that would add to energy usage or other impacts.

C. Cost and Economic Impacts

    There are four types of facilities that will be impacted by the
proposed rule. These include the aerosol coating manufacturers, aerosol
coating processors, and aerosol coating wholesale distributors, and
importers of aerosol coatings. For some products, the manufacturer is
also the filler and distributor, while for other products the
manufacturing process, the filling process, and the distribution may be
done by three separate companies. The primary focus of our cost and
economic analysis is the aerosol coating manufacturers as we anticipate
that the costs to the fillers, distributors, or importers will be
minimal.
    For the aerosol coating manufacturer, we evaluated three components
in determining the total cost of the proposed rule. These three
components include the cost of the raw materials that the manufacturer
will use to formulate coatings that comply with the proposed rule, the
cost of research and development efforts that will be necessary to
develop compliant formulations, and the cost of the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements associated with the proposed rule. Because we
have limited information on aerosol coating sales for the aerosol
coating manufacturers that we have identified, we evaluated each of
these costs on a per can basis for each of the 36 coating categories. A
brief discussion of each of these cost components is presented below. A
more detailed discussion of the cost analysis is presented in the cost
analysis memorandum that is included in the docket.

    The proposed rule is based on reactivity limits established for six
general coating categories and 30 specialty coating categories. To meet
the limits, aerosol coating manufacturers may have to reformulate their
existing coatings with different solvents and propellants, or at least
different combinations of those compounds. The difference in the cost
of the solvents and propellants used for formulating the complying
coatings and those used for formulating the noncomplying coatings is
the basis for the raw material costs.
    To determine the raw material costs, we used data compiled by CARB
from its 1997 survey of the aerosol coatings industry. Using the data
from the survey, CARB developed a typical formulation for a complying
coating for each category and a typical formulation for a noncomplying
coating for each category. We then compared the cost of the materials
used in each formulation to determine the raw material costs per can
for each category. The raw material costs per can ranged from a cost
savings of $0.04/can, that is, the cost of the raw materials used in
the complying coating was less than the cost of the raw materials used
in the noncomplying coating, to a cost increase of $0.12/can.
    Aerosol coating manufacturers not only have to develop formulations
that meet the reactivity limits in the proposed rule, but they also
must ensure that the reformulated coatings have the same performance
characteristics and the coatings that they will replace. We anticipate
that this may require manufacturers to invest resources in research and
development efforts. For the purposes of this analysis, we assumed that
each aerosol coating manufacturer would have to hire one additional
chemist to assist in reformulation efforts.
    Using a list of aerosol coating manufacturers and the categories of
coatings they manufactured that was developed by CARB using its 1997
survey data, we assigned chemists to each coating category based on the
number of companies manufacturing coatings in that category. Because
most companies manufacture coatings in more than one category, we
assigned the chemists for each company based on the number of
categories they manufactured. For example, if a company manufactured
products in two categories, we assigned 0.5 chemists to that category.
We then totaled the number of chemists required for each category.
    Using data from the American Chemical Society on chemist salaries
and the number of chemists for each category, we then developed
annualized research and development costs for each category. The
annualized costs were based on a period of 10 years and an interest
rate of 7 percent. These annualized research and development costs for
each category were then divided by the number of aerosol cans
manufactured in each category to determine the total research and
development costs per can for each coating category. Research and
development costs ranged from $0.00/can to $0.109/can.
    Aerosol coating manufacturers will also have costs associated with
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the proposed rule.
These costs include the time required for such activities as reading
and understanding the reporting requirements of the rule, reviewing the
compliance calculations required under the rule and implementing an
approach for performing those calculations, and preparing the initial
compliance report. Because the reactivity approach is new to coating
manufacturers, we assumed that a supervisor would be performing each of
these tasks. We estimated the total cost for recordkeeping and
reporting for the industry at $670,140 per year which equates to
$0.002/can.
    The total cost per can for raw materials, research and development,
and recordkeeping and reporting requirements ranges from $0.002 to
$0.141. Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau on the volume of
aerosol paint concentrates produced for packaging in aerosol coatings
and information provided by the National Paint and Coatings Association
(NPCA) on the amount of concentrate in a can, we estimated that
329,536,000 10.5 ounce cans were produced in 2005. If all of these cans
required reformulation, the total nationwide cost of the proposed rule
would be $20,360,521. However, we know that significant progress has
already been made in reformulating aerosol coatings to meet the
proposed limits. Even before CARB's regulation became effective, its
survey data showed that for 10 coating categories, 100 percent of the
coatings were complying with the proposed limits in 1997. For the
remaining categories, all but two had complying market shares greater
than 20 percent in 1997. With CARB's regulation in place, we anticipate
that the number of coatings already meeting the proposed limits has
increased significantly.
    As discussed earlier, we do not think that fillers and distributors
will incur additional costs from the proposed rule. The filler would
incur additional costs only if the proposed rule would require them to
invest in new equipment and we do not anticipate that this will be the
case. The mix of propellants and solvents used by the manufacturer is
expected to change, but the changes will not be so significant that the
fillers will be unable to continue to use their existing equipment. The
only potential costs to the distributor are the labeling requirements
and any costs associated with not being able to sell noncompliant
coatings. However, the proposed rule does not require the information
to be included on the paper label and most manufacturers are meeting
the labeling requirements associated with CARB's regulation by using an
ink stamp on the bottom of the can. Therefore, the labeling
requirements are not expected to have a cost impact on the distributor.
The proposed rule also allows distributors to continue to sell products
that were manufactured before the compliance date as long as necessary
so they will have no lost revenue from the noncompliant coatings.

IV. Rationale

A. Applicability

    CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) of the CAA defines ``regulated entities''
as:

    (i) Manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or
importers of consumer or commercial products for sale or
distribution in interstate commerce in the United States; or
    (ii) manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or
importers that supply the entities listed under clause(i) with such
products for sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the
United States.

    The proposed ACRR will regulate manufacturers, processors,
wholesale distributors, or importers of aerosol coatings. This includes
those regulated entities that make aerosol coatings for the DIY market
and for the industrial markets. Regulated entities include processors
commonly referred to as ``fillers'' that obtain the liquid and
propellant portions of the coating separately and fill the aerosol can.
In addition, the rule will regulate distributors of aerosol coatings if
those facilities have any responsibility for the labeling of the
coatings.
    We are proposing an exemption from the limits of the rule for those
entities that manufacture only a small amount of aerosol coatings. We
believe that this exemption will serve to mitigate the impacts of the
rule upon small manufacturers for whom compliance with the rule could
impose disproportionately high costs through reformulation of products
produced only in small volumes. Given this objective, and in order to
avoid unnecessary excess VOC emissions that

could be significant in the aggregate, we are proposing that this
exemption from the limits would be available only for those
manufacturers that have annual production of aerosol coatings products
with total VOC content not in excess of 7,500 kg of VOC in all aerosol
coating product categories. We emphasize that this to be determined by
total VOC content by mass, in all product categories manufactured by
the entity. We consider making this distinction based upon total VOC
mass, rather than some reactivity-adjusted calculation, necessary both
to minimize the analytical impacts upon the entity seeking the
exemption from the rule, and to provide for more effective
implementation and enforcement of this aspect of the rule.
    A manufacturer that qualifies for the exemption must notify EPA of
this in the initial notification report required in proposed section
59.511. As a condition for the exemption from the limits, the proposed
rule also requires the entity to file an annual report with EPA
providing the information necessary to evaluate and to establish that
the products manufactured by the entity are properly exempt from the
limits of rule. This information is necessary to assure that the entity
is in compliance, even if its products do not meet the limits of the
rule. EPA notes that an exemption under EPA's national rule for aerosol
coatings under section 183(e) does not alter any requirements under any
applicable state or local regulations.
    We specifically request comment on whether there is a need for an
exemption of this type for very small manufacturers. In addition, we
request comment on the features of the exemption as we have proposed
it. Finally, in order to get better information about the number of
manufactures that would potentially use such an exemption, we
specifically request that interested commenters indicate whether they
would elect to use the exemption from the limits.
    The proposed rule requires all regulated entities to comply by
January 1, 2009. EPA believes that compliance by this date is readily
achievable by most, if not all, regulated entities subject to this
rule. However, in the case of regulated entities that have not
previously met the limits already imposed by regulation in the State of
California, EPA believes that it may be appropriate to provide an
extension of the compliance date on a case by case basis. Therefore,
the proposed rule includes a provision that will allow regulated
entities that have not previously manufactured, imported, or
distributed for sale or distribution in California any product in any
category listed in Table 1 of this subpart that complies with
applicable California regulations for aerosol coatings to seek an
extension of the compliance date. Such extensions will be granted at
the discretion of the Administrator. The grant or denial of a
compliance date extension does not affect the right of the regulated
entity to seek a variance under this rule.

B. Regulated Pollutant

    Under CAA section 183(e), Congress has directed EPA to issue
regulations to reduce VOC emissions from consumer and commercial
products. Traditionally, we have regulated the mass of VOC ingredients
of the products to attain this end. This regulation will regulate VOC,
but will take a different approach. With this regulation, EPA is
proposing a rule intended to limit the amount of ozone that is
generated by the specific VOC ingredients of the aerosol coating
products rather than limit the VOC mass content of the product. This
approach will allow EPA to regulate different species of VOC
differently, depending on their relative contribution to ozone
formation once emitted into the atmosphere. We believe that this
approach will achieve reductions in the overall amount of ozone formed
by the VOC emitted to the atmosphere from these products, and provide
manufacturers with flexibility to formulate products using VOC
ingredients. We believe that this approach provides incentives to
manufacturers to use VOC ingredients with less reactivity and therefore
contribute to less ozone formation.
    Under 40 CFR 51.100(s), we have previously excluded compounds from
the definition of VOC in recognition of the fact that individual
organic compounds differ with respect to their incremental contribution
to ozone formation. EPA's approach to VOC exemptions separates organic
compounds into reactive and negligibly reactive compounds. The
reactivity based approach that EPA uses in the proposed rule, however,
recognizes that all such compounds contribute to the formation of
ozone. The differences in the amount of ozone that may be formed from a
particular VOC are reflected in the reactivity factors assigned to each
VOC in Table 2 of the rule. Compounds that EPA previously identified as
negligibly reactive have low reactivity factors, while those that are
more reactive have higher reactivity factors. The use of reactivity
factors makes the distinction between negligibly reactive and reactive
compounds unnecessary for the proposed aerosol coatings rule. These
previously exempted compounds will continue to be excluded from the
Federal definition of VOC for other purposes.

C. Regulatory Approach

    Section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to issue national regulations
to achieve VOC emission reductions from those categories of consumer
products that EPA has identified on the list of product categories. As
an alternative, EPA is also authorized to issue a CTG in lieu of such a
national regulation if the CTG would be substantially as effective as
the rule in achieving the necessary VOC emission reductions. We have
determined that a national rule is the best approach for this category.
    When developing a regulation under CAA section 183(e), EPA has
broad discretion to develop the most effective approach to achieve the
intended VOC emission reductions from a category of consumer products.
Specifically, CAA section 183(e)(4) states:

    (4) Systems of regulation.--The regulations under this
subsection may include any system or systems of regulation as the
Administrator may deem appropriate, including requirements for
registration and labeling, self-monitoring and reporting,
prohibitions, limitations, or economic incentives (including
marketable permits and auctions of emissions rights) concerning the
manufacture, processing, distribution, use, consumption, or disposal
of the product.

    This proposed regulation includes a combination of reactivity
limits, labeling requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and
reporting requirements. We have concluded that the only technologically
and economically feasible option for reducing the VOC emissions from
aerosol coatings and the ozone that is formed as a result of these
emissions is to set VOC content limits that will result in
reformulation. This conclusion is based on the fact that once a
manufacturer uses a VOC as an ingredient in an aerosol coating, it will
ultimately be emitted to the atmosphere (i.e., when the product is
used). For stationary industrial sources of VOC emissions, EPA has
evaluated add-on control devices as a potential option for reducing
emissions. Installing such devices to reduce the emissions from an
aerosol coating can is neither technologically nor economically
feasible. Although EPA could theoretically achieve VOC emission
reductions through requirements imposed on product users, CAA section
183(e) only allows the regulation of users through the mechanism of a
CTG. EPA has determined that a CTG is not the appropriate mechanism for
aerosol

coatings because of the nature of the product category and its users.
In developing this regulation, we have, therefore, focused on
reformulation options for reducing the amount of ozone formed from VOC
emissions from aerosol coating products.
    Most EPA and State coating standards include limits in terms of
weight of VOC per weight (or volume) of product. However, for reasons
discussed below in D.1, we are proposing to regulate this product
category based upon the relative reactivity of the VOC ingredients. In
addition to these coating limits, the standard includes other
regulatory requirements necessary to facilitate effective
implementation and enforcement of the coating limits.

D. VOC Regulatory Limits

1. Evolution of Reactivity-Based Requirements
    CAA section 183(e) requires EPA to regulate VOC emissions from
consumer products for the purpose of reducing ozone. Although EPA has
traditionally focused on reducing VOC ingredients by mass in developing
regulations under CAA section 183(e), EPA believes that is has
authority under that section to devise alternative approaches to reduce
VOC emissions from consumer products where appropriate. The statute
directs EPA to evaluate what would constitute ``best available
controls'' (BAC) for a product category, and we believe that provision
authorizes EPA to consider different approaches for different products.
    In determining what would be BAC for aerosol coatings, we are
proposing a new approach to achieve the goal of the CAA 183(e) program:
A reduction in the formation of ozone. As discussed in section I.C. of
this preamble, we believe that the scientific understanding of VOC
reactivity has progressed sufficiently to support a reactivity-based
regulation for the purposes of this product category. As discussed
previously, EPA has concluded that the only reasonable approach for
limiting ozone formation from aerosol coatings is to impose limits that
encourage reformulation to reduce ozone formation. A brief overview of
the various types of rulemakings available to use, and the selection of
reformulation levels is presented below. The labeling and other
requirements are addressed in future sections.
i. Traditional VOC Mass-Based Limits.
    In previous national rules developed under section 183(e), EPA has
established limits on the VOC content of coatings by mass. For the
consumer products rule and the automotive refinishing rule, these
limits were based on the weight percent of VOC in the coating. For the
architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings rule, the
limits were based on the weight of VOC per volume of coating. To meet
traditional VOC content limits, coating manufacturers have several
options. For example, increasing the solids content of the coating will
result in a lower VOC content per unit of volume or weight. Replacing
some of the organic solvent in a coating with water can also decrease
the VOC content of the coating. Over the years, EPA has also determined
that some compounds are negligibly reactive compared to other VOC; that
is, they produce less ozone or produce ozone less quickly than other
VOC. We have exempted these compounds from the generally applicable
regulatory definition of VOC. To achieve compliance with other CAA
section 183(e) regulations, manufacturers can use these exempt
compounds in place of other VOCs and thereby reduce the VOC content of
their coatings for regulatory purposes.
    The approach a manufacturer chooses to use to reduce the VOC
content of its coatings varies depending upon many factors including
the intended use of the product, the cost of the reformulated product,
the performance of the reformulated product, and other environmental
impacts of the reformulated product. For each coating in the aerosol
coating category, the approach for reducing the VOC content may be
different because each category, and even each product within the
category, has different performance requirements.
    Even though reducing the VOC content of aerosol coatings could have
a significant impact on the ozone resulting from emissions of VOC from
aerosol coatings, this approach does have limitations. With an aerosol
coating, manufacturers are more limited on how high the solids content
of the coating compared to coatings applied using spray techniques or
brushing. In addition, as the solids content increases, manufacturers
are often forced to use more of VOC such as toluene and xylene that are
more effective solvents but are also more reactive and hazardous air
pollutants. Increasing water content in aerosol coatings can be a
problem because water-based coatings take longer to dry, which is a
particular concern in humid environments. A coating that takes longer
to dry may impact production at an industrial facility where many
specialty aerosol coatings are used. Replacing some VOC ingredients
with others that are exempt from the regulatory definition of VOC can
also have some negative implications. For example, acetone is extremely
volatile and may dry too fast for some applications. We are also
concerned about the environmental impacts of increasing the use of such
solvents as methylene chloride, which although exempt from the
definition of VOC is listed as a hazardous air pollutant.
    Although potential limitations exist for establishing limits on the
VOC content of aerosol coatings, we believe that it is a
technologically feasible alternative for reducing the formation of
ozone from the use of aerosol coatings. It is an approach we have used
in many regulatory programs, including 183(e). Our evaluation of BAC
options for aerosol coatings includes two options for limiting the VOC
content of coatings.
ii. Reactivity-Based Limits.
    EPA recognizes that individual VOC can react differently in the
atmosphere and can vary in the amount of ozone generated. Organic
compounds can produce varying amounts of ozone because they react at
different rates and via different reaction mechanisms. One concern
expressed by industry is that if the VOC content limits are too low
manufacturers may be forced to use more reactive solvents to achieve
comparable product performance. For example, as discussed earlier,
manufacturers may have to increase the usage of toluene and xylene in
order to reformulate to a higher solids coating. Both toluene and
xylene are very reactive compounds and have the potential to form
significantly larger quantities of ozone than many other solvents. If
manufacturers use VOC with higher reactivities, it is possible that
decreasing the VOC content of the coating potentially increases the
actual ozone formation.
    This situation of a decrease in VOC emissions by mass but a
potential increase in ozone formation has already been seen to occur in
California. For example, Table 11-2 of California's 2005 Architectural
Coatings Survey, (draft report), indicates that between 2001 and 2005,
the sales volume for flat coatings increased by 7 percent (to 37.3
million gallons) while the total mass of VOC for this category for the
same period decreased by 11 percent. However, even though the total
emissions of VOC by mass decreased, the total ozone formed as a result
of those VOC is estimated to have increased 5.4 percent (1.88 tpd)
during the same period. This potential increase in ozone formation,
notwithstanding decreased VOC emissions by mass, is a result of
manufacturers using smaller

amounts total VOC, but an increased amount of more reactive VOC in
order to meet tighter VOC limits (See California's 2001 Architectural
Coatings Survey Final Reactivity Analysis--Table 2-6 (March 2005) and
2005 Architectural Coatings Survey DRAFT Reactivity Analysis--Table 2-2
(January 2007)). [For a complete copy of this report, please see http://www.arb.ca.gov/coatings/arch/survey/2005/Draft_2005_Survey_Rpt.pdf.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/coatings/arch/reactivity/Draft_Reactivity_Rpt.pdf http://www.arb.ca.gov/coatings/arch/reactivity/final_.

://http://www.arb.ca.gov/coatings/arch/reactivity/final_al_.
.

    EPA believes that the use of relative reactivity is appropriate for
aerosol coatings in particular, because there is a limit to the extent
that solids contents can be increased and still have a coating that can
be dispensed through an aerosol canister. This limitation precludes the
range of reformulation with higher solids content that can be achieved
for other types of coatings.
    In the past, EPA has expressed reservations about using the concept
of VOC relative reactivity in regulations for consumer products due to
limitations in scientific studies and practical concerns about
developing an effective regulation based on this concept. More
recently, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has worked to
develop an effective way to regulate based upon this concept. In
developing its own standards for aerosol coatings, CARB established
limits are intended to limit the amount of ozone that is formed by a
particular coating, rather than limit the VOC content of the coatings
by mass. To develop a reactivity-based rule, CARB first identified the
relative reactivity of each VOC ingredient used in aerosol coatings.
CARB evaluated this using the Maximum Incremental Reactivity scale
developed by Dr. William Carter.\27\ In developing this scale, Dr.
Carter identified and quantified each mechanism for ozone production
that would exist for specific VOC, including those used in aerosol
coatings. The final MIR value for each VOC is expressed in units of
weight of ozone production per weight of VOC.\28\ CARB used MIR values
and the uncertainty values assigned particular bins of chemicals with
product formulation data to derive, through an iterative process, a
limit for the overall mass of ozone production allowed per mass of
product. Because all organic compounds can contribute to the formation
of ozone, CARB's reactivity limits include ozone formed by all VOC
ingredients included in the coating, including compounds that EPA had
previously exempted from the regulatory definition of VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Carter, W. P. L. (1994) ``Development of ozone reactivity
scales for organic gases,'' J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc., 44: 881-
899.
    \28\ ``Initial Statement of Reasons for the California Aerosol
Coatings Regulation, California Air Resources Board,'' May 5, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After review of Dr. Carter's work, the CARB rule, and recent
studies organized under the RRWG (described earlier in the background
section), we believe that the reactivity approach is a viable option
for reducing the ozone that results from VOC emissions from the aerosol
coatings category. These previous studies have indicated that the use
of VOC reactivity can be effective for controlling ozone in episodes
where NOX is at its highest levels, such as in urban areas.
For these types of VOC-limited conditions, ozone formation is more
sensitive to VOC emissions. In such situations, limiting the reactivity
of the VOC emissions can be more effective than merely limiting the
overall mass of the VOC emissions.
    EPA notes that metrics other than the MIR scale for characterizing
reactivity have been studied, for example, the Maximum Ozone
Incremental Reactivity (MOIR) or the Regional Average Ozone metric, but
the box model MIR is the scale that has been most widely used and
analyzed. Recent studies of 9 different ways of defining VOC reactivity
have shown that all major methods are directionally consistent and
highly correlated.\29\ Derwent (2004) further concluded that ``the most
promising reactivity metrics are EKMA-MIR and Regional MIR or MIR-3D.''
Because the only metrics with detailed values available for all
chemical species of interest are the box model (EKMA) metrics, and the
box model MIR has been used extensively in formulations under the
California rule, we believe that the box model MIR is the most feasible
metric for VOC relative reactivity to use at the current time. One
important characteristic of the box model MIR is that it has the widest
range of all metrics, which provides the best incentive for the
substitution of higher reactive VOC with lower-reactive VOC. While this
might allow a larger mass of VOC to be emitted than other metrics,
tight limits will ensure that the increased mass will be restricted to
the least reactive VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Carter, et al., 2003, Derwent, R.G. (2004) ``Evaluation and
Characterization of Reactivity Metrics,'' Final Draft, Report to the
U.S. EPA, Order No. 4D-5844-NATX, November 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Previous studies of large-scale, equal-ozone substitutions of VOC
species have shown that downwind ozone could increase due to upwind
substitutions of larger amounts of lesser reactive VOCs, but any
increases tended to be much smaller than the magnitude of concurrent
ozone decreases. The substitutions had a larger effect on reducing the
higher ozone concentrations in the area upwind than they did on
increasing downwind concentrations. Even in the extreme substitution
scenarios that have been studied, the benefits for ozone (reduction in
ozone peak) were significant. We believe that realistic changes in
formulation using the MIR, especially if limited to aerosol coatings,
are unlikely to result in a noticeable increase in ozone downwind.
First, downwind areas are usually NOX-limited, so small
amounts of additional VOC will not influence ozone formation
significantly. Furthermore, in cases where downwind areas are VOC-
limited, potential downwind ozone increases will be counteracted to
some extent by ozone decreases resulting from VOC substitution
occurring simultaneously in the downwind area. Thus, we expect VOC
reformulations based on the MIR scale to lead to an overall net
decrease in ozone formation and exposure.
    In the past, there has been some concern over the applicability of
MIR values across the entire country, however studies \30\ now
demonstrate that the calculated MIR scales do not have significant
geographical or temporal variation. Based on this information, we
believe that using the MIR values to establish the relative reactivity
of VOC ingredients in a reactivity-based approach is a viable option
for consideration in a national rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Hakami, A., M.S. Bergin, and A.G. Russell (2004a) ``Ozone
Formation Potential of Organic Compounds in the Eastern United
States: A Comparison of Episodes, Inventories, and Domains,''
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 6748-6759.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the chemical mechanisms for ozone production for many
individual chemicals are somewhat to highly uncertain, this uncertainty
is smaller for the majority of the organic compounds used as
ingredients in aerosol coatings. Most of the VOC used in the products
covered by this rule have been characterized as category 1 or 2
uncertainty, which Carter classifies as relatively certain (category 1)
or uncertainty less than a factor of 2 (category 2).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Carter, W.P.L. (2003) ``The SAPRC-99 Chemical Mechanism and
Updated VOC Reactivity Scales,'' Report to the California Air
Resources Board, Contracts No. 92-329 and 95-308. http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/~carter/reactdat.htm
.

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

    Furthermore, uncertainty in the reactivity scales can be taken into
account in the selection of reactivity limits as CARB did in defining
the limits in its aerosol coatings regulation. CARB assigned each
compound in its table of MIR values to one of six bins based on expert
judgment about the level of uncertainty in the chemical mechanisms used
to calculate the MIR value. CARB assigned an uncertainty factor to each
of the six bins. CARB then adjusted the MIR values used in the
calculation of the reactivity limits by multiplying each MIR by its
assigned uncertainty factor. By applying this uncertainty factor, the
resulting reactivity limits are more stringent than they would be
calculated based on the MIR values alone, and provide some protection
against setting values too low based on incomplete understanding of the
chemistry of specific compounds.
    For some compounds used in aerosol coatings for which no MIR value
has been calculated, CARB assigned an upper limit MIR value based on
theoretical limits of the ozone that could be formed by the compound.
This approach is also conservative, providing some protection against
setting reactivity limits too low or allowing reformulations that would
increase ozone formation. We have set the reactivity factors in the
proposed rule equal to the MIR or upper limit MIR used by CARB. This
ensures that the limits in our proposed rule are equivalent to CARB's
current rule, but allows EPA flexibility in the future to change this
approach, if warranted.
    All of the VOC that we have identified as common VOC components of
aerosol coatings have been assigned reactivity factors. However, it is
possible that a novel compound could be used in a product affected by
this rule. In CARB's rule, if a VOC has not been assigned a MIR or
upper limit MIR value, it cannot be used in a product to comply with
that rule. In EPA's proposed rule, if a VOC is not assigned a
reactivity factor, then the compound is assigned the maximum reactivity
factor for any compound listed in the rule. Manufacturers and other
interested parties can petition the Administrator to add a reactivity
factor to the table in the rule for such a compound and are encouraged
to provide sufficient evidence to allow the Administrator to assign a
reactivity factor that is consistent with values assigned to the other
listed compounds. This approach ensures that the reformulations allowed
by the rule will not increase ozone formation.
    Based on the information that we have about VOC used in aerosol
coatings, we believe that the relative reactivity approach for this
particular consumer product category is appropriate. However, there may
be other source categories EPA considers for regulation where the
organic compounds and their relative reactivity have not been as well-
characterized. EPA has determined that it is appropriate to use the MIR
values as the reactivity factors for this particular regulation. If a
more suitable reactivity scale is developed in the future, EPA will
evaluate that scale for possible regulatory use.
    Therefore, our determination that the reactivity approach using the
MIR values as the reactivity factors is currently only applicable to
the aerosol coatings category. EPA has not concluded that it is
appropriate to use the MIR scale for all applications. In developing
future regulations, EPA may determine that a reactivity approach is not
appropriate for a particular context or that a reactivity approach
should be based upon reactivity factors other than the MIR values. EPA
will make such future determinations on a case-by-case basis.
    Based on EPA's determination that the reactivity approach can be
effective in reducing the amount of ozone formed from the use of
aerosol coatings, EPA has included the evaluation of limits based on
reactivity in selecting BAC for the aerosol coatings category. The
options EPA considered in developing BAC are presented in the following
section.
2. Assessment of Best Available Controls.
    CAA section 183(e) directs EPA to regulate Consumer and Commercial
Products using ``best available controls.'' The term ``best available
controls'' is defined in CAA section 183(e)(1)(A) as:

    The degree of emissions reduction that 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.

    EPA believes that CAA section 183(e) thus authorizes EPA to
evaluate what approach would be ``best'' for this product category in
light of various relevant factors.
    In order to evaluate what would constitute BAC for this source
category, EPA examined the approaches already attempted in other
regulations by States. As discussed above, the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) has a history of regulating VOC emissions from the aerosol
coatings category. While several other States have regulations under
consideration, only Oregon and Washington have existing standards and
both of those States' regulations are based on CARB's 1996 Tier 1 VOC
mass-based limits. Based on the experiences of CARB, EPA has considered
both mass-based and reactivity-based limits for this product category.
We considered three possible options for BAC for this category based
upon past CARB regulations:
    i. CARB 1996 VOC mass-based limits (Tier 1);
    ii. CARB 2002 VOC mass-based limits (Tier 2); and,
    iii. CARB 2002 reactivity-based limits.
    In 1996, CARB implemented its first aerosol coatings regulation.
The 1996 regulation contained two tiers of mass-based VOC limits. The
first tier took effect in 1996 and the second tier, which contained
more stringent mass-based VOC limits, was scheduled to take effect in
1999. CARB was required to conduct a public hearing on or before
December 31, 1998, on the technological and commercial feasibility of
achieving the 1999 limits and could grant an extension of time not to
exceed 5 years if their Board determined that the second tier of limits
was not technologically or commercially feasible by December 31, 1999.
    On November 19, 1998, CARB adopted amendments to its aerosol
coatings regulation by modifying the December 31, 1999, mass-based VOC
limits and extended the effective date for those limits to 2002.
However, CARB's Board recognized that some of the second tier limits
would still be technologically challenging and directed CARB staff to
develop a compliance option based on VOC reactivity. On June 22, 2000,
CARB amended its regulation to replace the 2002 mass-based VOC limits
with reactivity-based VOC limits intended to achieve the same degree of
ozone reduction.
    EPA did not consider the 1999 mass-based limits in our BAC analysis
because CARB determined that those limits were not technologically
feasible and never implemented the limits. CARB replaced the 1999 mass-
based limits with more stringent limits in some categories and less
stringent limits in other categories. We did include these 2002 VOC
mass-based limits that

replaced the 1999 VOC mass-based limits in our BAC analysis.
    Each of the three options EPA considered is discussed below. See
the docket to this rulemaking for the tables of limits for each option.
i. CARB 1996 VOC Limits.
    In 1995, CARB proposed limits on the VOC content of aerosol
coatings. These limits were based on limits established by the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in Rule 8-49 in 1990. CARB's
regulation included limits on six general categories of aerosol coating
products and 29 specialty coating categories. The regulation
established limits on the maximum VOC content, based on percent by
weight, for each coating category. The standards were effective January
8, 1996; therefore they are referred to throughout this preamble as
``CARB 1996 VOC limits.''
    According to CARB's Initial Statement of Reasons, the support
document prepared by CARB for the new regulation, the 1996 limits were
expected to reduce VOC emissions from the use of aerosol coatings in
California by 12 percent. CARB determined that for most of the aerosol
coating product categories covered by the rule, there were already
products in the marketplace that met the 1996 limits. Comments made by
industry members on the regulation indicated that industry believed the
limits were feasible.
    We believe that the 1996 VOC mass-based limits established by CARB
for aerosol coatings are both technologically and economically
feasible. Industry has complied with the 1996 limits in California for
many years. CARB estimated that the 1996 limits would achieve a
reduction of approximately 12 percent in VOC emissions and we believe
that implementing these limits nationwide would result in a similar
reduction. In 1997, CARB conducted a survey of aerosol coating
manufacturers. For each of the major categories of aerosol coatings,
the sales-weighted average VOC content for the category met or was
lower than the 1996 limit. We know of no reason why these limits could
not be established on a nationwide basis for the aerosol coatings
category, providing a similar level of emission reduction.
ii. CARB 2002 VOC Mass-Based Limits.
    As discussed earlier, CARB's 1995 regulation established two tiers
of mass-based limits that took effect in 1996 and 1999. In 1997, CARB
conducted a survey of manufacturers supplying aerosol coatings in
California. The survey requested formulation and cost data for existing
products in each category and information on the manufacturer's
research and development efforts to reduce the VOC content of coatings.
    Using the results from the 1997 survey and input from
manufacturers, CARB revised the second tier aerosol coatings limits and
extended the compliance date from 1999 to January 1, 2002. These limits
are referred to as ``CARB 2002 VOC Limits'' in this preamble. The new
limits were more stringent than the 1996 limits for all of the coating
categories. CARB estimated that the 2002 limits would result in a VOC
reduction of 3.1 tons VOC/day (or 8.4 percent) from the 1997 emission
levels.
    Based on CARB's 1997 survey data and CARB's later conclusion that
the second tier mass-based VOC limits may not be feasible, EPA is
concerned about the technological feasibility and availability of
coatings to meet the 2002 VOC limits. Although the limits appear to be
both feasible and available for some categories of aerosol coatings,
the survey data indicate that this may not be true for all of the
categories. For example, for the category of flat coating products, the
survey showed that out of a total of 129 products, none met the 2002
VOC limits. For primers, only 5 of 162 products, less than 1 percent of
the market, met the 2002 VOC limits. The market share for non-flat
coatings meeting the limit was only 5 percent. These three categories,
flat coatings, non-flat coatings, and primers, represent three of the
four largest categories of aerosol coatings. While not dispositive, we
think the absence of products meeting the limits is indicative of
technological and feasibility constraints that would make the limits
difficult to achieve.
    Although the CARB survey was conducted in 1997 and it is possible
that the technology has advanced since that time in order to meet such
stringent mass based limits, we are concerned that this may not have
happened. Although CARB adopted the 2002 VOC limits, these mass-based
limits never took effect because CARB replaced the 2002 VOC limits when
CARB adopted new reactivity-based limits for aerosol coatings in June
2000. It is likely that coating manufacturers have adjusted their
research and development efforts towards reducing the reactivity of the
VOC content of their coatings rather than the VOC mass content of their
coatings. In some cases, a reduction in the reactivity may coincide
with a reduction in VOC content but as discussed earlier, this is not
necessarily the case. In fact, it may be possible to increase the VOC
content of a coating while reducing the overall reactivity of the VOC
ingredients. Because of this, we presume that industry may be no closer
to meeting the 2002 VOC mass limits than they were in 1997.
    In the March 2000 edition of the ``Issue Backgrounder,'' NPCA's
quarterly newsletter, NPCA states that the 2002 limits ``would be
technologically impossible for water-based coatings.'' CARB has also
indicated that some of the limits may be difficult to meet with water-
based technology. As water-based coatings are among the most
environmentally friendly coatings, we are reluctant to base a rule on
limits that could preclude the use of this technology.
    Although we believe the 2002 VOC limits would have a significant
environmental benefit, we have concerns about the technological
feasibility and availability of coatings that meet these limits and
therefore whether these limits represent BAC for the aerosol coatings
industry.
iii. CARB 2002 Reactivity Limits.
    As directed by its Board in 1998, CARB worked with industry to
evaluate a VOC reactivity-based approach for the aerosol coatings
category that would achieve a reduction in the formation of ozone
equivalent to the 2002 mass-based VOC limits. Although CARB initially
planned the reactivity-based approach as an alternative compliance
method to the 2002 VOC mass-based limits, it ultimately concluded that
having simultaneous mass-based and reactivity-based limits would cause
confusion and decided to have only reactivity-based limits. To ensure
the reactivity-based limits would achieve, at a minimum, an equivalent
reduction in the formation of ozone to the 2002 VOC mass-based limits,
CARB based its 2002 reactivity limits on the 2002 VOC limits. CARB
first determined the amount of ozone reduction that it anticipated
would be achieved from the implementation of the 2002 mass-based VOC
limits. CARB then calculated, through an iterative process, an
equivalent reactivity-based limit, so that the reactivity-based limit
would result in the same ozone reduction as the mass-based limit. As
described earlier, the required amount of ozone reduction was adjusted
upwards to account for the possible uncertainty in reactivity
values.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ ``Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Amendments
to the Regulation for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Aerosol Coating Products--California Air Resources Board,''
Chapter IV, May 5, 2000.

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

    The data from the 1997 survey demonstrated that complying products
for the aerosol coatings reactivity limits were available in all but
two specialty categories even in 1997. CARB has only received one
variance request for the reactivity-based aerosol coating limits
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/variance/variance.htm). NPCA has

supported both the reactivity approach and the established limits.
Based on a review of the limits and the supporting data, we believe
that the reactivity limits established by CARB for the aerosol coatings
category are technologically feasible and available as contemplated in
section 183(e).
3. Determination of Best Available Controls (BAC)
    We believe that the 1996 VOC limits developed by CARB are
technologically feasible and, based on CARB's cost analysis, are also
economically feasible. Therefore, they are certainly ``available.''
However, these limits were based on technology that was available in
1995, when CARB first proposed the limits. During the last 10 years,
manufacturers of all types of paints and coatings have made significant
technological advances in coating technology in response to the
development of various state and national rules limiting both the VOC
and HAP content of coatings. The 12 percent reduction in VOC emissions
that could be achieved through the implementation of the 1996 limits is
significantly less than the estimated 20 percent reduction in VOC
emissions achieved by the implementation of the other national rules
established under CAA section 183(e). We believe that the CARB 1996 VOC
limits do not represent BAC for the aerosol coatings category if more
stringent levels are available.
    Although we believe the industry is capable of meeting limits more
stringent than the 1996 VOC limits, we are concerned about the
technological feasibility of the 2002 VOC mass-based limits. The 2002
VOC limits are more stringent than the 1996 limits. CARB's survey data
indicated that many manufacturers would have a difficult time achieving
the VOC content limits proposed for several of the major categories of
aerosol coatings (See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/conspro/aerosol/isor.pdf
). In addition, NPCA's concern that the limits may not be

achievable through the use of water-based technology is of particular
concern to us. Water-based coatings are an environmentally friendly
technology that we do not want to be lost as an option to
manufacturers. So long as VOC emission reductions contemplated by CAA
section 183(e) are achieved, we believe that it is important that
manufacturers retain as much flexibility as possible in selecting a
reformulation technology to ensure they can manufacture coatings that
meet the performance specifications required. In addition, we remain
concerned that if water-based coatings are not an option to meet the
limits, higher-solids coatings will be the primary alternative.
Although we support the use of higher-solids coatings as an alternative
to high VOC content coatings, we are concerned that if the limits are
too stringent industry will be driven to increase its use of toluene,
xylene, and other aromatic compounds. These aromatic compounds are all
extremely effective solvents for use in higher-solids coatings, but
they are also highly reactive compounds that generate more ozone than
other solvents commonly used by the aerosols coating category.
    As discussed earlier, we believe the reactivity approach is
appropriate for the aerosol coatings category because the organic
compounds used by the industry are well-characterized. Because the 2002
reactivity limits developed by CARB are based on the VOC reduction
associated with the 2002 VOC limits, they ensure that the reactivity
limits will achieve an equivalent environmental benefit to the 2002 VOC
limits. The reactivity limits also offer industry significantly more
flexibility in achieving that environmental benefit. Industry can
substitute to lower reactivity solvents, use water-based technology,
use higher-solids technology (without the potential drawbacks
associated with the use of this technology in a mass-based VOC
standard), or any combination of these approaches to meet the limits.
    We have concluded that the reactivity limits established by CARB
are based on sound scientific principles and represent an equivalent
environmental benefit to even the most stringent 2002 VOC limits. It is
likely that if EPA were to use a mass-based VOC approach for the
aerosol coatings category, we would be required to set less stringent
limits, perhaps based on the 1996 limits. Such an approach would
achieve less environmental benefit.
    EPA then evaluated the cost and economic impacts of the reactivity-
based limits. The economic impact assessment focuses on changes in
market prices and output levels. A more detailed discussion of the
economic impacts is presented in the economic impact analysis
memorandum that is included in the docket.
    Both the magnitude of control costs needed to comply with the
proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected
facilities can have a role in determining how the market prices and
quantities will change in response to the proposed rule when finalized.
In this case, at the facility level, we have some uncertainty
concerning both the amount of individual products being produced and
whether the products currently comply with the proposed rule, or
whether additional costs associated with reformulating the products
will be required. Because California has a similar rule and products
sold in California have already complied with the California rule, the
costs imposed by the proposed EPA rule would entail only minor
additional recordkeeping and recording costs. We also know that
facilities are involved in production of other products not covered by
this rule. We have no quantitative information on the relative
contribution to revenue of products not covered by the rule in
comparison to products covered by the rule.
    Provided with the cost analysis is a cost per can estimate of going
from a non-complying formulation to a complying formulation, and a
sales price per can for each of the six general coating categories and
the thirty specialty coating categories. Also provided is an estimate
of the fraction of each coating category that complied before the
imposition of the CARB rule. Finally, with the cost analysis is a list
of facilities producing products covered by the CARB rule from a 1997
CARB survey and which categories are produced at each facility.
    The cost per can, as a percentage of prices per can for going from
non-complying to complying on a category basis, ranges from a cost
savings to cost of 2.71 percent for the exact match finish industrial
category. In order to provide a very rough measure of the impact on a
per facility basis, the cost per price measure for each category
produced by a particular facility was multiplied by the pre-CARB rule
non-complying percentage and averaged across categories using a
weighting of industry-wide market share from the pre-CARB rule survey.
    The highest cost-to-sales ratio is 1.42 percent. Since this does
not include revenues from other products, or the reduction in cost due
to the CARB rule, it is very unlikely that the cost-to-sales ratio for
any facility would exceed 1 percent. Thus a significant impact is not
expected for a substantial number of small entities.
    No significant market impact is expected because of the small cost
increase compared to the price. Neither full cost absorption nor full
cost pass-

through would result in significant impacts.
4. Consideration of Other Factors
    In evaluating options for BAC, EPA must evaluate not only the
positive environmental benefits of BAC but any potential negative
environmental or health benefit. While reducing the population's
exposure to ground-level ozone is important, exposing the population to
increased levels of potentially toxic VOC is also a concern. This could
occur since the use of relative reactivity encourages the use of
specific (i.e., low reactivity) compounds to reduce ozone, despite
other potential environmental and public health concerns. One compound
that we are concerned about is methylene chloride, which has an
extremely low MIR value and has also been listed as a HAP under section
112 of the Clean Air Act because of its potential toxic effects on
human health and the environment. We remain concerned about the
potential impact of an increase in the use of this compound. There are
some HAP that would be reduced as a result of a regulation with a
reactivity-based approach. For example, HAP such as toluene are highly
reactive and accordingly have high MIR values. Therefore, they are
unlikely to be used in large quantities in any aerosol coatings subject
to a relative reactivity based regulation. In fact, we expect their use
to be reduced. Thus, although CAA section 183(e) directs EPA to control
VOC emissions from consumer products only for purposes of achieving the
ozone NAAQS, we anticipate that choices made to regulate VOC can have
collateral benefits or disbenefits in ways not related to the ozone
NAAQS.
    We are seeking comment on possible approaches to address the HAP
emissions from aerosol coatings, including the use of a voluntary
program. A voluntary program would seek to provide incentives to
industry that voluntarily reduce the use of HAP in their product
formulations. We request comment and suggestions on how this program
could be identified, tracked, and recognized, including suggestions on
the following:
     Whether the program would recognize only those
formulations that reduced HAP content from a baseline before this rule
was promulgated or if it should recognize all ``low HAP'' coatings.
     What should constitute ``low HAP.'' This could potentially
be a set amount (percent or absolute) reduction or a maximum overall
HAP content.
     What type of documentation should be required to document
that the voluntary reduction has occurred. We are concerned that the
documentation not be so burdensome as to be prohibitive; however, we
want to ensure that facilities claiming ``low HAP'' coatings are
meeting these requirements.
     What type of acknowledgement can be provided. We believe
that some type of labeling of the product would be an option, but
welcome other suggestions.

E. Compliance Demonstration Requirements

    EPA is proposing compliance demonstration requirements necessary to
ensure compliance with the rule. Initial compliance demonstration with
this rule requires the regulated entity to complete initial compliance
calculations for all coatings and develop and submit the initial
notification. Ongoing compliance demonstration and reporting is only
required when a regulated entity becomes responsible for a coating
category that was not included in the original notification.
1. Determination of Coating Content
    The ACRR allows a facility to determine compliance using either VOC
formulation data or through the use of California's Test Method 310 or
EPA's Test Method 311 (see Selection of Test Method). If formulation
data are used, the regulated entity would need to identify and maintain
records of all VOC present in the coating and propellant portions of
the final aerosol product at a level equal to or greater than 0.1
percent. The same levels of recordkeeping would be required if CARB
Method 310 or EPA Method 311 were used. In the event of an
inconsistency between the results of Method 310 or 311 test data and a
calculation based upon formulation data, the Method 310/311 data will
govern the compliance calculation. These formulation data will then be
used to calculate the reactivity value for the coatings, which would be
compared to the limits presented in Table 1 of the rule.
    We are aware that a single regulated entity may have tens, or even
hundreds, of different product formulations, especially if different
colors of the same basic product have slightly different formulations.
It is not our intent to create unnecessary burden and we seek comment
on how to limit this burden and still ensure compliance.
2. Calculation of Reactivity of Coating
    Once the coating (including coating liquid and propellant)
formulation data are known (i.e., either through formulation
calculations or use of an approved test method), the calculation of the
reactivity value for the product is relatively simple. Tables 2A, 2B,
and 2C of the regulation contain reactivity factors that are currently
based on the MIR values, and in some cases the upper limit MIR values,
used by CARB in its regulation. These reactivity factors are used in
conjunction with the formulation data to demonstrate compliance with
the reactivity limits. First the compound Weighted Reactivity Factor
(WRF) is calculated by multiplying the weight fraction of the
individual ingredient (obtained from the formulation data) by the
reactivity factor (RF) for that ingredient obtained from Table 2 of the
regulation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JY07.004

Where:

WRFi = Weighted reactivity factor for component i, g
O3/g product
WFi = Weight fraction of component i
RFi = reactivity factor for component i, g O3/
compound i

    The WRFs for each component in the total coating are then summed to
obtain the Product Weighted Reactivity (PWR).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JY07.005

Where:

PWRp = Product weighted reactivity for product P, g
O3/g product
WRF1 = Weighted reactivity factor for component 1, g
O3/g component
WRF2 = Weighted reactivity factor for component 2, g
O3/g component
WRFn = Weighted reactivity factor for component n, g
O3/g component
    Both of these steps are incorporated into a single equation:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JY07.006

Where:

PWRp = Product weighted reactivity for product P, g
O3/g product
WFi = Weight fraction of component i

RFi = Reactivity factor for component i, g O3/
compound i
n = Number of components in product P

    The reactivity factor equals zero for non-solid components without
carbon. Solid components, including but not limited to resins,
pigments, fillers, plasticizers and extenders do not need to be
included in this equation since the reactivity factor for all solids is
zero. If a VOC component is not listed in Table 2, it is assigned a RF
equal to the maximum value listed in the table.
    The PWR for each product must then be compared to the limit for the
specific coating category, provided in Table 1 of the regulation, to
determine compliance.

F. Labeling Requirements

    Section 183(e) of the CAA explicitly authorizes the EPA to require
labeling and other requirements as part of a regulation. We are
proposing to include labeling requirements that are necessary to
implement the regulations effectively and to assure compliance. The
requirements we propose pertain to the date the aerosol can is filled,
the coating category of the product, and the applicable ACRR limit for
the product.
    The proposed regulation requires that containers for all subject
coatings display the date of manufacture (or a code indicating the
date). The date of manufacture on the label or can allows enforcement
personnel to determine whether the coating was manufactured prior to or
after the compliance date. The coating category and reactivity limit
allow enforcement personnel to select a can of aerosol coating, test it
using either CARB Method 310 or EPA Method 311, and compare the test
results to the reactivity limit on the can.

G. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    CAA section 183(e) also authorizes EPA to impose recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. We are proposing recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that are necessary to ensure compliance with the
regulation. We propose to require an initial notification report for
regulated entities. This report will provide basic information on the
regulated entity (e.g. name, location) and will identify all coating
categories that are manufactured at the facility. This will provide the
EPA Regional Offices with a listing of companies in their areas that
are manufacturing, processing, distributing, or importing aerosol
coatings so that the appropriate Regional Office can follow up with
those companies in the event a compliance issue arises. Furthermore,
this report will explain the date code system used to label products,
if the date code is not immediately obvious (e.g., month-day-year
format). This will assist EPA in identifying products that were
manufactured after the compliance date and are therefore subject to
this regulation. Finally, the affected entity is required to include an
explanation of how the term ``batch'' will be interpreted for each
formulation. This report is due 90 days before the compliance date for
the rule.
    Under the proposed rule, the regulated entity is required to
conduct compliance calculations for each coating formulation. These
calculations must be maintained onsite, for 5 years. However, we are
proposing that no reporting of these calculations or the results to EPA
is required unless a specific request for those results is made by the
Administrator (defined in the regulation to include EPA Regional
Offices). We are also proposing that the regulated entity must maintain
records of the date each batch of a particular formulation was
manufactured, the volume of each batch, the number of cans manufactured
in each batch and each formulation, and the recipe used for formulating
each batch.
    After the initial compliance report, we are proposing to require
additional reporting if a regulated entity adds a new coating category
or changes other information in the initial report (e.g., contact
information, file location). Specifically, when this happens, we are
proposing to require a new notification containing the updated
information.
    We are also requesting comment on whether the proposed
recordkeeping and reporting requirements included in this proposed rule
should be expanded to ensure that the Agency can verify a regulated
entity's compliance with the regulation. To verify compliance of an
individual product with the applicable limit, it is necessary to
analyze its VOC composition and calculate the product-weighted
reactivity of the mixture. Without prior information about product
composition, identifying the VOC composition of a product is difficult.
Therefore, we request comment on the feasibility and need for a
requirement for regulated entities to submit to the Agency their VOC
formulations for each product or product formulation in the initial
report and on a periodic basis thereafter. We anticipate that such a
report would consist of a simple listing of the following items: (1) A
manufacturer identifier, (2) a product identifier, (3) the applicable