TECHNICAL PAPERS

Low-Odor, Low-VOC Paint
Christopher Dixon; RA, CDT

Paint is a combination of three things; pigment, binder and carrier. Pigment is a white powdery substance that gives paint it's hiding power. Binders, or resins, hold the pigment together and create the protective film that remains once the paint has dried. Carriers keep the pigment and binder in liquid form so that paint can be applied to a surface.

Paint is generally about 35% pigment and 65% binder/carrier by volume. The pigment of any good quality paint will be composed of at least 45% titanium dioxide, the best pigment available. The remainder of the pigment will be lesser quality ingredients such as calcium carbonate or talc.

The two most common types of paint are alkyd ("oil-based") and latex. The words "alkyd" and "latex" describe the type of binder in the paint. Alkyd is a synthetic polymer which needs petroleum based carriers such as mineral spirits to be held in suspension. This is what gives alkyd paints their strong odor. Latex consists of two basic resin types: polyvinyl acetate (PVA), or vinyl, and acrylic. Water is the main carrier in latex paints but many also contain solvent-based coalescing agents to keep the binder in suspension. Mildewcides and fungicides are often added as well to prevent bacteria from feeding on the resin and give the paint a longer shelf life.

Most paint contains Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Only recently have some manufacturers started making and selling zero-VOC latex paint. VOC content in paint is usually not considered by designers and specifiers when making paint selections, but VOC content is fast becoming a very serious issue and one that cannot be overlooked any longer.
Volatile Organic Compounds and Smog

What's all the fuss about VOCs? Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are found in everything from paints and finishes to underarm deodorant and freshly baked bread. They are a major concern of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state air quality boards across the United States. VOCs have been found to be a major contributing factor to the production of ozone, a common air pollutant which has been proven to be a public health hazard.

Ozone has been a difficult pollutant to control because it is not emitted into the air, but actually formed in the atmosphere through a photochemical process. It is in this process that VOCs play a significant role. VOCs in the air react with oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight to form ozone.

Ozone in the stratosphere is part of what is commonly referred to as the "ozone layer." Ozone in the ozone layer is helpful because it helps to block the sun's ultraviolet radiation.

Unfortunately, most VOCs produce ozone which inhabits the troposphere. Tropospheric, or ground level, ozone is a harmful, photo chemical oxidant that significantly contributes to the formation of smog. Tropospheric ozone is regularly measured as an indicator of smog levels in the atmosphere.

On days when ozone are high, usually in the summer months, health officials recommend that even healthy people refrain from outdoor activity because of the dangerous effects that excess amounts of ozone can have upon a person's health.

A study done by researchers at Harvard University found that ozone levels of even .08 parts per million contibuted to lung disease and pulmonary function deterioration in children. According to EPA studies, ground level ozone "affects the normal function of the lung in many healthy humans." There is also evidence that prolonged exposure to ozone causes permanent damage to lung tissue and interferes with the functioning of the immune system.

Other problems resulting from excessive ozone levels can include damage to the ecosystem including the retardation of plant growth and crop yields.

Motor vehicles and industry are the two largest producers of volatile organic compounds. In industry, various sources may produce VOCs, including sewage treatment facilities, electronics manufacturers, chemical manufacturers, woodworking industries, paint spraying and baking facilities, dry cleaners, petroleum refineries, printers, and paint shops. The EPA has determined that architectural coatings account for about 9 percent of the VOC emissions from all consumer and commercial products.

The Puget Sound area, until recently, has enjoyed excellent air quality. Residents have not been overly concerned about smog levels or ozone concentration. This all changed in 1996. During the first hot spell in the summer of 1996, we came close to exceeding the standard, a one-hour average of 0.12 parts per million. The regional monitoring site with the highest reading registered a peak level of 0.118 parts per million July 14.
Paint's Contribution to Ground Level Ozone
Painting and other coating operations contribute a significant amount of the total VOCs to our atmosphere. State and federal regulations are slowly being implemented to reduce these emissions, but the requirements are relatively easy to meet and products are still produced and sold that have high VOC content. There are also many coating products available now with very low to zero VOC content, far exceeding current regulatory requirements.

If you cannot use a low or zero VOC product, a simple rule of thumb for determining the ozone-forming potential of chemicals in paint that does have VOC content follows:
  • Chemical names ending with ANE usually have low ozone generating activity (chemicals like methane, ethane and propane have a low ability to form ozone).
  • Chemical names that end with OL, ETHER, or ONE tend to have a low ozone generating activity. (Chemicals like methanol, ethanol, methyl ether and acetone have a low ability to form ozone)
  • Chemical names ending in YNE usually have a high ability to form ozone. (Chemicals like propyne and butyne are good candidates for substitution)
  • Chemical names ending with HYDE tend to have high ozone generating activity (chemicals like formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have a high ability to form ozone).
  • Chemical names ending with ENE have high ozone generating activity (chemicals like ethene, propene and butene have a high ability to form ozone).
Federal and State VOC Regulations

The EPA has been engaged in a regulatory negotiation process to develop a national VOC regulation that will be effective in all states.

On September 13, 1999, new federal standards will go into effect that will limit the VOC content of architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings manufactured or imported for sale in the United States. Under the EPA definition, AIM coatings include not onlyt paint but concrete sealers, roofing coatings, antenna coatings, wood preservatives, etc.

These standards are set forth in the new National AIM (Architectural and Industrial Maintenance) VOC Rule which was signed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in August 1998.  The Rule applies only to manufacturers of coatings and not to those who resell or apply the products.

The levels established in this national standard will result in reformulation of only 36% of all AIM coatings currently on the market. The remaining 64% meet or exceed the VOC levels established in the rule. The EPA estimates that compliance with the rule will result in a 20% reduction of the total architectural coatings VOC contribution to the atmosphere.

The state of California's South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has even more restrictive limits on VOC content for architectural and industrial coatings, with even greater restrictions planned for the near future. This is something that the National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) is none too happy about and has recently filed suit to challenge these regulations. Because it takes a temperature of about 90 degrees F for VOC's to react to make ozone and because places like Los Angeles have serious air pollution problems, it's easy to understand why California takes the subject of air quality a little more seriously than say, South Dakota.
Volatile Organic Compounds and Toxicity

Not all VOCs are toxic and not all toxins are VOCs. The EPA is only interested in regulating those VOCs that react with the atmosphere to form ground level ozone. There are many VOCs that do not react to form ozone and are therefore exempt from regulation. Some of these VOCs, such as acetone and methyl acetate, might be found in paint and do not need to be listed as harmful VOCs under the EPA definition. You may feel confident in using a paint product that is sold as "low-VOC," but still be polluting the immediate environment with toxic chemicals. An MSDS sheet will tell you what the toxic ingredients are, if any.

A recent study was conducted ("Acute and Chronic Neurological Symptoms among Paint Workers Exposed to Mixtures of Organic Solvents", Jung-Der Wang and Jong-Dar Chen, Center for Research of Environmental and Occupational Disease, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China, June 6, 1991) using several painting facilities workers employed for over one year as subjects. The research involved personal air testing for exposure duration of 4 hours minimum. The chemicals tested included xylene, toluene, acetone, benzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, methy ethyl ketone, ethyl acetate, and butyl acetate.

Occupational exposure resulted in acute symptoms such as chest tightness, headaches, chronic symptoms of dizziness, easy fatigability, depressed mood, and palpitations. Depending on exposure levels workers had difficulty reading magazines and books, difficulty concentrating, and experienced fatigue, depression, and headaches, among other problems.

The study concluded that workers exposed to paint solvents were 2.7 times more likely to develop two or more of the acute symptoms and 3.3 times more likely to develop 3 or more chronic symptoms of central nervous system injury.
How Much VOC Is Too Much?

To see how much VOC a product contains, check the product literature or ask the manufacturer for a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). Both are available on the internet for most major coatings manufacturers. Manufacturers will also fax or send an MSDS upon request.

Many MSDSs do not contain information about total VOC content, as is the case with the example MSDS to the left. If you cannot find the VOC content in the MSDS (look for it in Part II of the sheet) or the literature, a call to the manufacturer may be the only way to get the information.

Some manufacturer's like to list the VOC content in pounds per gallon instead of the more common grams per liter values that state and federal regulatory bodies use. If you get information that lists VOC in pounds per gallon, simply multiply this value by 120 to get grams per liter.

Most latex paint on the market is VOC compliant. VOC content for latex paint falls in the range of between 100 to about 250 grams per liter, within the national limit of 250 grams per liter for flat coatings and 380 grams per liter for all others. Although compliant with federal regulations, latex paint with around 200 grams per liter VOCs will contain some odorous (and probably toxic) chemicals that you would be well advised to check the toxicity of before specifying.

There are latex paints on the market that contain no or very small amounts of VOCs. These products have been specially formulated to remove VOC content and still perform as well or better that the average latex paint.

Zero/Low-VOC latex paint currently on the market contain no VOC for one color, white. Most manufacturer's have 6-8 stock colors that contain no VOCs because the colorant is integrally ground with the pigment before adding the binder and carrier. The choices are whites and off whites. Colorant is combined with a liquid carrier. It is the carrier that contributes to the VOC content of the paint.

When specifying zero-VOC paint, make sure that colors that are selected are available. Most deep, vibrant colors are not currently available in the Zero/Low-VOC product lines. ICI Dulux had been selling a true zero VOC paint including the colorant, but availability can be a problem (the author was told by an ICI product representative at a recent trade show that the product had been pulled from the shelves for re-formulation). Several manufacturers are working on a more expensive zero-VOC colorant system that should be on the market within the next year or so.

For the time being, designers that want to use zero/low-VOC products will have to stick with relatively light colors. The highest VOC content for these products is approximately 50 grams per liter.
Putting the Paint to the Test

In reformulating paint to remove much or all of the VOC content, painting manufacturer's discovered that many of the paint's performance characteristics actually improved. Below is a table from a technical bulletin published 9/94 by Benjamin Moore & Co. that shows generally how the performance of zero/low-VOC latex paint compares with conventional latex paint.

Zero/Low-VOC Latex vs. Regular Formula 
Characteristic
 Zero/Low-VOC
 Brushability Slightly Worse
Durability Better
Odor Better
Dry Time Slightly Better
Scrubability Better
Spatter Resistance Slightly Better
All other characteristics were unchanged over the regular formulation.

Several zero/low-VOC paints were recently compared and evaluated for a local school district interested in building a new addition to a high school as sustainably as possible.

A controlled blind Paint Challenge was conducted to allow representatives from the school district, the architect, and product representatives an opportunity to impartially judge the performance of each product tested.

Four low-VOC, low-odor latex paints were selected for the test: AFM Safecoat, Kelly Moore Enviro-Cote, Benjamin Moore Pristine (now labeled as Eco-Spec) and Sherwin Williams Health-Spec, all in a semi-gloss finish. The paint was applied to a pre-primed sheet of gypsum wall board with 1/4 inch nap roller covers and 2 inch nylon brushes. The following characteristics were rated:
  • Ease of Application
  • Splatter Resistance
  • Wet Hide
  • Dry Hide
  • Flow and Leveling
  • Foaming and Cratering
  • Touch Up
  • Hat Banding
  • Final Appearance
  • Odor
Each of the products performed well and passed all criteria with positive results. Based on the evaluations of each product, only two were selected for the school district's specification; Sherwin Williams HealthSpec and Kelly Moore Enviro-Cote.

Manufacturers have tried, without much success, to develop low-VOC alkyd paints. Alkyd paint contains 30% to 50% VOCs by volume, the majority of which is solvent, translating anywhere from 400 to about 600 grams per liter VOC content. Their best efforts resulted in a coating that performed only slightly better for odor, high film build, and sag resistance. All other qualities were actually worse over regular alkyd formulations. Unlike latex formulations, there doesn't seem to be an economical way to reformulate alkyd paint to both reduce the VOC content and achieve a product that performs as well or better than the original.
Green Seal

One way to ensure purchase of coating products that are low in harmful VOCs and toxins is to buy only those products endorsed and labeled by Green Seal.

Green Seal is an independent, non-profit organization that labels products it considers to be more environmentally friendly than those products more commonly used. Green Seal's criteria include minimum performance values for things such as scrubability, hiding power and washability as well as restrictions on total VOC content and toxic chemicals such as halomethanes, aromatic solvents and ketones. For a complete list of the criteria and products carrying the Green Seal label, visit the web site by clicking the Green Seal logo.

A note of caution is that Green Seal requires a fee to list products. Some manufacturers are offended by this and refuse to pay to have products listed, even though they may indeed meet all of the criteria. If a particular product isn't listed, check with the manufacturer to find out how much of the criteria the product meets.
Conclusions and Recommendations

There are practical, sustainable choices that can be made when specifying paint. New formulations of latex paint meet or exceed performance levels of alkyd paint, even without being formulated as "low-VOC." Most Zero/low-VOC latex paints perform better than regular formulation latex paint and should be the product of choice when specifying high quality finishes.

Look for zero/low-VOC latex products that contain a minimum amount of titanium dioxide amounting to 45% of the pigment content and a high quality binder, 100% acrylic is best, PVA-acrylic mixes next in quality. Check the product's MSDS and satisfy yourself that the paint is not laden with toxic ingredients, remember that low-VOC does not necessarily mean non-toxic. Insist on obtaining a VOC calculation for each of the paint colors proposed. Paint manufacturer's cannot tell you the exact VOC content of the paint until they know what the colors is. Some low-VOC paints are no longer low-VOC in certain color ranges. Decide ahead of time what level of VOC you are willing to accept and work on specifying products that meet the criteria. The Author recommends specifying no product with a VOC content more than 50 grams per liter, including tinting, in all colors.

Zero/low-VOC latex paints cost slightly more than regular latex paint, but usually by only a dollar or so a gallon. In the author's experience, specifying zero/low-VOC latex paint does not create problems with the project budget or contractor's ability to provide and apply.

For any renovation work where the project premises may be occupied during the work, zero/low-VOC paint products allow the contractor to apply without worrying about complaints from occupants about odor, dizziness, nausea, etc. This makes building facilities managers very happy.

National AIM Rule

Federal Register Document

[Federal Register: September 11, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 176)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48848-48887]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11se98-25]
[[Page 48848]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 59
[AD-FRL-6149-7]
RIN 2060-AE55
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standards for architectural coatings pursuant to section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act). This final rule is based on the Administrator's determination that VOC emissions from the use of architectural coatings have the potential to cause or contribute to ozone levels that violate the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone. Ozone is a major component of smog which causes negative health and environmental impacts when present in high concentrations at ground level. The final rule is estimated to reduce VOC emissions by 103,000 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (113,500 tons per year [tpy]) by requiring manufacturers and importers to limit the VOC content of architectural coatings.

DATES: The effective date is September 11, 1998. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 11, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Technical Support Documents. The regulation promulgated today is supported by two background information documents (BID); one specific to the architectural coatings rule, and one that addresses comments on the study and Report to Congress under section 183(e). These documents are: the BID for the promulgated architectural coating standards, National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings--Background for Promulgated Standards (Architectural Coatings BID); and the BID containing the Administrator's response to comments on the section 183(e) study and Report to Congress, Response to Comments on Section 183(e) Study and Report to Congress (183-BID). The Architectural Coatings BID contains a summary of the changes made to the standards since proposal, a summary of all the public comments on the standards, and the Administrator's response to the comments and the 183-BID contains a summary of all the public comments made on the section 183(e) study and Report to Congress and the list and schedule for regulation as well as the Administrator's response to the comments. Both documents may be obtained from the docket for this rulemaking and are also accessible through the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ramain.html; or from the United States Environmental Protection Agency Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-2777. Please refer to ``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings--Background for Promulgated Standards,'' EPA- 453/R-98-006b, or ``Response to Comments on Section 183(e) Study and Report to Congress'' EPA-453/R-98-007.

Docket. Docket No. A-92-18, contains supporting information used in developing the promulgated standards. Docket No. A-94-65 contains information considered by the EPA in development of the consumer and commercial products study and the subsequent list and schedule for regulation. The dockets are available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
[[Page 48849]]
dockets are located at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7548 or fax (202) 260-4400. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ellen Ducey at (919) 541-5408, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD- 13), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 (ducey.ellen@epa.gov). Any correspondence related to compliance with this rule must be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office listed in Sec. 59.409 of the rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action are manufacturers and importers of architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are coatings that are recommended for field application to stationary structures and their appurtenances, to portable buildings, to pavements, or to curbs. Regulated categories and entities include:
Category Examples of regulated entities
Industry Manufacturers (which includes
packagers and repackagers) and
importers of architectural
coatings that are manufactured
for sale or distribution in
the United States, including
all United States territories.
State/local/tribal governments State Departments of
Transportation that
manufacture their own
coatings.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether your product is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 59.400 of the final rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

Judicial review. This section 183(e) rule for architectural coatings was proposed on June 25, 1996 (61 FR 32729). This notice promulgating a rule for architectural coatings constitutes final administrative action concerning that proposal. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by November 10, 1998. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, only an objection to this rule which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements established by today's final action may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceeding brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.

Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

  1. Background
    1. Purpose of Regulation
    2. Statutory and Regulatory Background
  2. Summary of Standards
    1. Applicability
    2. Volatile Organic Compound Content Limits
    3. Exceedance Fee
    4. Tonnage Exemption
    5. Labeling
    6. Recordkeeping
    7. Reporting
    8. Compliance Provisions
  3. Summary of Considerations in Developing Standards
    1. Basis of the Regulation
    2. Stakeholder and Public Participation
  4. Summary of Impacts
    1. Environmental Impacts
    2. Energy Impacts
    3. Cost and Economic Impacts
  5. Significant Comments and Changes to Proposed Standards
    1. National Rule versus Control Techniques Guidelines
    2. Applicability and Regulated Entities
    3. General Comments on Determination of Best Available Controls
    4. Changes in Proposed Coating Categories
    5. Addition of New Coating Categories
    6. Category Overlap
    7. Low Volume/Tonnage Exemption
    8. Compliance Variance Provisions
    9. Exceedance Fee Option
    10. Labeling, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    11. Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Content
    12. Compliance Date
    13. Cost/Economic Impacts
    14. Small Business Issues
    15. Cost-Effectiveness
    16. Future Study and Future Limits
    17. Administrative Provisions
  6. Administrative Requirements
    1. Docket
    2. Paperwork Reduction Act
    3. Executive Order 12866
    4. Executive Order 12875
    5. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
    6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    7. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
    8. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    9. Executive Order 13045
I. Background

A. Purpose of Regulation
Ground-level ozone, which is a major component of ``smog,'' is formed in the atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>) in the presence of sunlight. The formation of ground- level ozone is a complex process that is affected by many variables. Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of human health effects, agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and ecosystems. Acute health effects are induced by short-term exposures to ozone (observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million [ppm]), generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion, and by prolonged exposures to ozone (observed at concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm), typically while individuals are engaged in moderate exertion. Moderate exertion levels are more frequently experienced by individuals than heavy exertion levels. The acute health effects include respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and pulmonary inflammation. Groups at increased risk of experiencing such effects include active children, outdoor workers, and others who regularly engage in outdoor activities and individuals with preexisting respiratory disease. Available information also suggests that long-term exposures to ozone may cause chronic health effects (e.g., structural damage to lung tissue and accelerated decline in baseline lung function).

In accordance with section 183(e) of the Act, the Administrator has determined that VOC emissions from the use of architectural coatings have the potential to contribute to ozone levels that violate the NAAQS for ozone. Under authority of section 183(e), the EPA conducted a study of the VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products to determine their potential to contribute to ozone levels which violate the NAAQS for ozone. Based on the results of the study, the EPA determined that the architectural coatings category accounts for about 9 percent of the emissions from all consumer and commercial products. It is one of the largest emission sources among the consumer and commercial products categories and in many States represents one of the largest identifiable sources of unregulated VOC emissions. Consequently, the EPA and many States consider the regulation of architectural coatings to be an important component of the overall approach to reducing those emissions that contribute to ozone nonattainment. The EPA's determination that VOC emissions from the use of architectural coatings have the potential to contribute to nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS and the decision to regulate architectural coatings are discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR 32729), in the ``Consumer and Commercial Products Report to Congress'' (EPA-453/R-94-066-A), in the Federal Register notice announcing the schedule for regulation (60 FR 15264), and in a separate Federal Register document published today that constitutes final action on the EPA's listing of architectural
coatings for regulation.

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

1. Section 183(e)
In 1990, Congress enacted section 183(e) of the Act, establishing a new regulatory program for controlling VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products. Section 183(e) directs the Administrator to list, and schedule for regulation, categories of consumer and commercial products after completion of a study and report to Congress concerning the products and their potential to contribute to levels of ozone which violate the ozone NAAQS. A separate document in today's Federal Register contains a description of section 183(e) of the Act and contains a summary of significant public comments and the EPA responses regarding the section 183(e) study, the Report to Congress, and the list and schedule for regulation.

2. Regulatory Negotiation
In 1992, the EPA initiated a regulatory negotiation to address architectural coatings. The regulatory negotiation process is an alternative to the traditional approach to rulemaking. The members of the architectural coatings regulatory negotiation committee represented the affected industries, consumers, Federal agencies, State and local air pollution control agencies, environmental groups, and labor organizations. Regulatory negotiation meetings were held from October 1992 to February 1994. Despite negotiation efforts, the committee could not reach consensus on some key regulatory issues for developing the rule, and on September 23, 1994, the regulatory negotiation concluded without consensus. Therefore, the EPA initiated development of the architectural coatings rule through conventional rule development procedures. The EPA utilized data and information obtained from the regulatory negotiation to complement additional information gathered during the rule development. Specifically, the EPA took into consideration information on the volume, VOC content, and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) content of coatings produced in 1990 in the VOC Emissions Inventory Survey conducted by industry.

3. Relationship to State and Local Regulation of Architectural Coatings Emissions from the use of architectural coatings are not currently regulated at the Federal level. Although a few States have had architectural coatings regulations in place for a number of years, many State and local areas are still seeking to obtain VOC reductions from this source category either from a national rule or from additional regulation at the State or local level.

Differing requirements of State and local architectural coating regulations have created administrative, technical, and marketing problems for both large and small companies that market and distribute products in multiple States. Both large and small manufacturers have noted the additional burden associated with differences in State and local requirements. These industry representatives have noted that a Federal rule would provide some degree of consistency, predictability, and administrative ease for the industry.

States with ozone pollution problems are supportive of the EPA rulemakings that will assist them in their efforts toward achievement of the ozone standard. The National Governors' Association and Environmental Council of States (a group composed of environmental commissioners from each State), the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control program Administrators, and the 37-State Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) all have urged the EPA to finalize national rules for architectural coatings. State representatives have long recommended that the EPA develop a national rule for this product category. In part, this is because a national rule will help reduce compliance problems associated with transportation of noncompliant coatings into nonattainment areas from neighboring areas and neighboring States.

Given the EPA's commitment to develop a national VOC rule for architectural coatings, 14 States currently are depending on anticipated reductions from the rule to meet a Clean Air Act requirement for State Implementation Plans (SIP) to achieve a 15- percent reduction in overall VOC emissions, which is required for areas with ozone pollution classed as moderate nonattainment or worse. Other States can use these emission reductions to meet Clean Air Act requirements for additional rate-of-progress plans required for 1999 and beyond. If the EPA failed to promulgate a Federal rule for architectural coatings, these States would need to make up the shortfall in emission reductions needed to achieve attainment through other regulations, which would likely target substantially more expensive reductions from local industries and businesses.

II. Summary of Standards

A. Applicability

The architectural coatings rule applies to manufacturers and importers of architectural coatings that are manufactured after September 13, 1999 for sale or distribution in the United States, including the District of Columbia and all United States territories. For architectural coatings registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. Section 136, et seq.,) (FIFRA), the applicable date is March 10, 2000.

The regulated entity under this rule is the manufacturer or importer of a regulated architectural coating. The regulated entities include any manufacturers or importers that produce, package, or repackage architectural coatings for sale or distribution in the United States, including the District of Columbia and all United States territories. A person that repackages architectural coatings as part of a paint exchange and does not produce, package, or repackage any other architectural coatings for sale or distribution in the United States, is not included in the definition of manufacturer. Similarly, a person that repackages an architectural coating by transferring it from one container to another is not included in the definitions of importer and manufacturer, provided the VOC content of the coating is not altered and the coating is not sold or distributed to another party.

An architectural coating is defined in the rule as: ``a coating recommended for field application to stationary structures and their appurtenances, to portable buildings, to pavements, or to curbs.'' The definition of architectural coating excludes: ``adhesives and coatings recommended by the manufacturer or importer solely for shop
applications or solely for application to non-stationary structures, such as airplanes, ships, boats, and railcars.''

Architectural coatings that are subject to the rule are divided into a number of coating categories, such as ``exterior flats'' or ``industrial maintenance coatings.'' These coating categories are defined in the rule for purposes of specifying the applicable emission limits. In determining if a coating is subject to this rule, a coating must first meet the general definition of an architectural coating.

The standards do not apply to the following:
(1) Coatings manufactured exclusively for sale or distribution outside the United States;
(2) Coatings manufactured prior to September 13, 1999;
(3) Coatings sold in nonrefillable aerosol containers;
(4) Coatings that are collected and redistributed at paint exchanges in accordance with this rule; and
(5) coatings sold in containers with a volume of 1 liter or less.

B. Volatile Organic Compound Content Limits

Manufacturers and importers must limit the VOC content of subject coatings to the VOC content levels presented in table 1 of this subpart, unless they utilize the exceedance fee or tonnage exemption provisions described below. These limits apply to the VOC content that would result after thinning a coating according to the manufacturer's maximum thinning recommendations. Each subject coating must be classified by the manufacturer or importer as belonging to at least one of the categories listed in table 1. Each category is defined in the rule's definitions section. If none of the specific category definitions applies to a coating, then the coating is included in either the flat or nonflat category, depending on its gloss level.

Table 1 of Subpart D.--Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content Limits for Architectural Coatings
[Unless otherwise specified, limits are expressed in grams of VOC per liter of coating thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation excluding the volume of any water, exempt compounds, or colorant added to tint bases.]
Coating category Grams per liter Pounds per gallon<SUP>a
Antenna coatings 530 4.4
Anti-fouling coatings 450 3.8
Anti-graffiti coatings 600 5.0
Bituminous coatings and mastics 500 4.2
Bond breakers 600 5.0
Calcimine recoater 475 4.0
Chalkboard resurfacers 450 3.8
Concrete curing compounds 350 2.9
Concrete curing and sealing compounds 700 5.8
Concrete protective coatings 400 3.3
Concrete surface retarders 780 6.5
Conversion varnish 725 6.0
Dry fog coatings 400 3.3
Extreme high durability coatings 800 6.7
Faux finishing/glazing 700 5.8
Fire-retardant/resistive coatings:    
Clear 850 7.1
Opaque 450 3.8
Flat coatings:    
Exterior 250 2.1
Interior 250 2.1
Floor coatings 400 3.3
Flow coatings 650 5.4
Form release compounds 450 3.8
Graphic arts coatings (sign paints) 500 4.2
Heat reactive coatings 420 3.5
High temperature coatings 650 5.4
Impacted immersion coatings 780 6.5
Industrial maintenance coatings 450 3.8
Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers) 680 5.7
Magnesite cement coatings 600 5.0
Mastic texture coatings 300 2.5
Metallic pigmented coatings 500 4.2
Multi-colored coatings 580 4.8
Nonferrous ornamental metal lacquers and surface protectants 870 7.3
Nonflat coatings:    
Exterior 380 3.2
Interior 380 3.2
Nuclear coatings 450 3.8
Pretreatment wash primers 780 6.5
Primers and undercoaters 350 2.9
Quick-dry coatings:    
Enamels 450 3.8
Primers, sealers, and undercoaters 450 3.8
Repair and maintenance thermoplastic coatings 650 5.4
Roof coatings 250 2.1
Rust preventative coatings 400 3.3
Sanding sealers (other than lacquer sanding sealers) 550 4.6
Sealers (including interior clear wood sealers) 400 3.3
Shellacs:    
Clear 730 6.1
Opaque 550 4.6
Stains:    
Clear and semitransparent 550 4.6
Opaque 350 2.9
Low solids 120 1.0
Stain controllers 720 6.0
Swimming pool coatings 600 5.0
Thermoplastic rubber coatings and mastics 550 4.6
Traffic marking coatings 150 1.3
Varnishes 450 3.8
Waterproofing sealers and treatments 600 5.0
Wood preservatives:    
Below ground wood preservatives 550 4.6
Clear and semitransparent 550 4.6
Opaque 350 2.9
Low solids 120 1.0
Zone marking coatings 450 3.8
a English units are provided for information only. Enforcement of the rule will be based on the metric units.

b Units are grams of VOC per liter (pounds of VOC per gallon) of coating, including water and exempt compounds, thinned to the maximum thinning recommended by the manufacturer.

If a coating is marketed in more than one of the coating categories
listed in table 1 of this subpart, the manufacturer or importer must comply with the lowest applicable VOC content limit, unless an exception is specified in Sec. 59.402(c) of the rule. These exceptions were developed to clarify which VOC content limit applies in situations where inherent overlap exists between category definitions. For example, varnishes used on wood floors were not intended to be subject to the more stringent emission limit for floor coatings. Therefore, an exception paragraph is included in the rule stating that varnishes recommended for use on floors are subject to the VOC content limit for varnishes, and not the limit for floor coatings.

Manufacturers and importers of recycled coatings are given the compliance option of calculating an adjusted-VOC content. Manufacturers and importers of recycled architectural coatings are defined as those that collect, reprocess, and market coatings that contain a percentage of post-consumer coating. Such use is environmentally beneficial because it reduces the amount of waste from architectural coatings that would otherwise result from evaporation of VOC from unused coatings or of coatings sent to landfills or elsewhere. The adjusted-VOC content provides regulated entities some credit for the amount of post-consumer material contained in the coating. The EPA is providing this credit to encourage recycling of unused coatings. The adjusted-VOC content is determined by multiplying the percentage of post-consumer content of the coating by the VOC content of the recycled coating, which is then subtracted from the VOC content of the end product. An explicit equation for the calculation is given in the rule.

C. Exceedance Fee

The rule includes an exceedance fee compliance option. This is an economic incentive approach whereby manufacturers and importers may choose to comply with the rule by paying a fee in lieu of meeting the VOC content limits for their coating products. The fee is $0.0028 per gram ($2,500 per ton) of excess VOC. The fee is calculated using the amount of VOC in excess of the applicable VOC content limit. The exceedance fee is paid annually to the appropriate EPA Regional Office and is due no later than March 1 in the year following the calendar year in which the coating is manufactured or imported.

D. Tonnage Exemption

The final rule also includes a tonnage exemption that allows each manufacturer and importer to sell or distribute limited quantities of architectural coatings that do not comply with the VOC content limits and for which no exceedance fee is paid. The tonnage exemption can be used for multiple products, but the total mass of VOC contained in a single manufacturer's or importer's exempt coatings may not exceed the amounts in table 2. The total mass of VOC is calculated based on the volume of coatings manufactured or imported and the total VOC content of each of the coatings for which an exemption is claimed. To reiterate, the calculation is based on the total mass of VOC contained in all exempt coatings, not the difference between the VOC content of each coating and the applicable VOC content limit in the rule.

Table 2.--Tonnage Exemption
The total mass of VOC contained in all exempt coatings combined may not exceed During the time period of
23 megagrams (25 tons) VOC September 13, 1999 through
December 31, 2000.
18 megagrams (20 tons) VOC Calendar year 2001
9 megagrams (10 tons) VOC Calendar year 2002 and each year thereafter.
E. Labeling
For coatings complying with the VOC content limits in table 1 of this subpart, manufacturers and importers must provide the following information on the label or lid of each coating: (1) the date the coating was manufactured, or a code indicating this date (this information may alternatively be provided on the bottom of the can); (2) a statement of the manufacturer's recommendation regarding thinning of the coating (does not apply to thinning with water); and (3) either the VOC content of the coating in the container, or the VOC content limit from table 1 of the rule with which the coating must comply and with which it does comply. (Any coating for which the exceedance fee or tonnage exemption provision is being used must be labeled with its VOC content because it would not be in compliance with the VOC content limits in table 1 of this subpart.)

Industrial maintenance coatings must be labeled with one of several prescribed phrases indicating that the coating is not intended for general consumer use. For recycled coatings, manufacturers and importers must indicate the post-consumer coating content on the container label or lid.

F. Recordkeeping

There are no recordkeeping requirements for coatings complying with the VOC content limits in table 1 of this subpart. However, the rule does include recordkeeping requirements for compliance with the recycled coating, exceedance fee, and tonnage exemption provisions.

For recycled coatings, the manufacturer or importer must keep records of the volume of coatings received for recycling, the volume of coatings received that is unusable, the volume of virgin coatings used with recycled coatings, and the volume of final recycled coatings manufactured or imported. In addition, manufacturers and importers of recycled coatings must keep records of the calculation of adjusted-VOC contents.

For compliance with the exceedance fee provisions, manufacturers and importers must keep records on an annual basis for each coating of the VOC content, the VOC content in excess of the applicable limit, and the volume manufactured or imported. Manufacturers and importers must also keep records of the calculation of fees, the annual fee for each coating, and the total annual fee.

For the tonnage exemption, manufacturers and importers must keep records of the products claimed under the exemption, the VOC content and actual sales or distribution for each exempt product, and the total mass of VOC contained in all products claimed under the exemption. All required records must be retained for a period of 3 years in a form suitable for inspection.

Although the retention of test data is not required by this rule, the EPA encourages facilities to keep any information resulting from either Method 24 or any other acceptable method to determine compliance. This information will help the EPA make a preliminary assessment of compliance for the coatings subject to this rule. In the absence of demonstrable indications of compliance, the EPA may require Method 24 testing by the facility in accordance with Sec. 59.406(b).

G. Reporting

All manufacturers and importers of subject coatings must file an initial notification report listing the coating categories from table 1 of this subpart that they manufacture or import and the locations of facilities that manufacture architectural coatings in the United States. The initial notification report must be submitted no later than September 13, 1999 or 180 days after the date that the manufacturer or importer first manufactures or imports a subject coating, whichever is later.

In addition, if a manufacturer or importer uses a date coding system, an explanation of the coding system must be submitted with the initial report. Explanations of new codes must be filed within 30 days after their first use.

There are no reporting requirements beyond the initial notification and date code explanation for manufacturers and importers who meet the VOC content limits in table 1. There are additional reporting requirements for manufacturers and importers who choose to take advantage of optional provisions, including: (1) the calculation of an adjusted-VOC content for recycled coatings (based on post-consumer coating content); (2) the payment of the exceedance fee; and (3) the tonnage exemption. An annual report is required for each of these provisions.

H. Compliance Provisions

The rule specifies the procedure to determine the VOC content of coatings subject to the rule. Although the EPA has chosen Method 24 as the reference method for determining compliance with the VOC content requirements of this rule, it is not the exclusive method for determining compliance. The manufacturer or importer may also use a different analytical method than Method 24 (if it is approved by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis), formulation data, or any other reasonable means to determine the VOC content of coatings. However, the EPA may require a Method 24 analysis to be conducted, and if there are any inconsistencies between the results of a Method 24 test and any other means for determining VOC content, the Method 24 test results will govern. The EPA can use other evidence as well to establish whether or not a manufacturer or importer is in compliance with the provisions of this rule.

III. Summary of Considerations in Developing Standards

A. Basis of the Regulation

Section 183(e) of the Act directs the EPA to regulate products using best available controls (BAC), and defines BAC as: the degree of emissions reduction the Administrator determines, on the basis of technological and economic feasibility, health, environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation, product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for use, consumption, storage, or disposal.

The statute thus empowers the EPA to examine a variety of considerations to use in determining the best means of obtaining VOC emission reductions from a given consumer or commercial product category. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR 32737, June 25, 1996), the primary factors the EPA considered in determining BAC for architectural coatings were technological and economic feasibility, and environmental impacts.

Non-air environmental impacts (solid waste and water) and energy impacts are expected to be minimal and, therefore, do not vary significantly among various VOC control levels. With regard to health impacts, the EPA has concluded that reductions in VOC emissions and concomitant reductions in ozone will reduce health impacts of exposure to ozone.

For architectural coatings, the EPA determined that BAC is the degree of emission reduction achievable through a system of regulation that encourages product reformulation to meet the VOC content limits in table 1 of this subpart, provides an economic incentive (the exceedance fee option) to lower VOC content of coatings, and allows for limited exemption of coatings (the VOC tonnage exemption). The EPA concluded that for this product category, pollution prevention is the most effective means of achieving VOC emission reductions. In working to comply with State VOC rules over the past several years, the architectural coatings industry has established product reformulation as the most technologically and economically feasible strategy for reducing VOC emissions. Reformulation can consist of minor adjustments in coating VOC contents or larger adjustments involving a change in resin technology. The EPA considered many factors in evaluating the economic and technological feasibility of different VOC content levels and different degrees of reformulation. These factors included existing State and local VOC emission standards, coating VOC content and sales information, analysis of coating technologies, performance considerations, cost considerations, market impacts, and stakeholder input. In addition, the EPA considered the relative contribution of different coating types to overall VOC emissions from architectural coatings.

At proposal, the EPA requested comment on alternatives to the proposed VOC content limits that would provide flexibility, if additional time were needed or it was not cost-effective to develop a low-VOC formulation. Based on comments received, the EPA included in the final rule an exceedance fee (discussed in sections II.C and V.I) and an exemption for a certain tonnage of VOC content (discussed in sections II.D and V.G).

The final VOC content limits in conjunction with the exceedance fee and tonnage exemption reflect the EPA's determination of BAC and are based primarily on the 1990 VOC Emissions Inventory Survey, analysis of existing State rules for architectural coatings, data obtained from participants in the regulatory negotiation, and information submitted by coating manufacturers and other interested parties during the course of the rule development and public comment period.

B. Stakeholder and Public Participation

The EPA proposed the architectural coatings rule and published the preamble in the Federal Register on June 25, 1996 (61 FR 32729). The EPA placed the proposed regulatory text, BID, and Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) in a docket open to the public at that time and made them available to interested parties. The EPA solicited comments at the time of the proposal. To provide easier access by the public, the EPA subsequently published the proposed regulatory text in the Federal Register on September 3, 1996 (61 FR 46410) and extended the comment period from August 30 to September 30, 1996. The EPA again extended the comment period to November 4, 1996 (notice published at 61 FR 52735, October 8, 1996).

To provide interested persons the opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed architectural coating rule, the EPA held a public hearing in Durham, North Carolina on July 30, 1996. Nineteen speakers presented oral testimony at this hearing. The EPA held another public meeting to discuss issues related to the impact of the proposed rule on small manufacturers in Rosemont, Illinois, on August 13, 1996. There were 77 persons who participated in the meeting, and 18 speakers presented oral testimony.

The EPA received over 200 comment letters on the proposed rule. Commenters included coating manufacturers and importers, State regulatory agencies, trade associations, environmental groups, the United States military, and others. The EPA has carefully considered the comments and has made changes to the proposed rule where determined by the Administrator to be appropriate. The most significant comments and responses are discussed in section V of this preamble. A detailed discussion of all significant comments and responses on the rule itself can be found in the architectural coatings BID, which is referenced in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

A separate document in today's Federal Register contains a summary of public comments and the EPA's responses regarding the section 183(e) study, the Report to Congress, the list of consumer and commercial product categories selected for regulation, and the schedule for regulation.

IV. Summary of Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

1. VOC Reductions
The standards will reduce nationwide emissions of VOC from architectural coating products by an estimated 103,000 Mg/yr (113,500 tpy). These reductions are compared to the 1990 baseline emissions estimate of 510,000 Mg/yr (561,000 tpy). This reduction equates to a 20-percent reduction, compared to the emissions that would have resulted in the absence of these standards.

2. Health Effects
Because VOC are precursors to ozone formation, the VOC reductions from architectural coatings will contribute to a decrease in adverse health effects that result from exposure to ground-level ozone. These health effects result from short-term or prolonged exposure to ground- level ozone and include respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and pulmonary inflammation. Available information also suggests that long-term exposures to ozone may cause chronic health effects (e.g., structural damage to lung tissue and accelerated decline in baseline lung function).

3. Secondary Air, Water, and Solid Waste Impacts No significant adverse secondary air, water, or solid waste impacts are anticipated from compliance with these standards. Generally, coating reformulation, a pollution prevention technique, will be used to comply with these standards. In cases where conversion from solventborne to waterborne coatings is the method used to achieve compliance, an increase in wastewater discharge may occur if waste from the manufacture of waterborne coatings is discharged by manufacturers to publicly owned treatment works. The provisions for recycling of coatings in the rule may potentially reduce the amount of coating discarded as solid waste.

The regulations do not impact existing product inventories. Products manufactured before the compliance deadline are not affected. Excluding existing product inventories from the regulations will eliminate any incremental solid waste increase due to discarded, unsold products. The new products are not expected to require any more packaging than existing products, and thus the volume of discarded packaging should not increase.

B. Energy Impacts

The EPA anticipates that there will be no increase in national annual energy usage as a result of this rule. The standards do not require the use of air pollution control devices, which can affect energy use.

C. Cost and Economic Impacts

Sixty-four percent of the products included in the 1990 industry survey meet the VOC content limits in this rule and, therefore, there will be no costs to reformulate these products. The manufacturer of an architectural coating that does not meet the VOC content limits in table 1 of this subpart, will be required to reformulate the product if it will continue to be marketed, unless the manufacturer chooses to use an alternative compliance mechanism such as the exceedance fee or tonnage exemption provisions. The EPA presumes that manufacturers will choose the option that is most advantageous to them, but each option imposes costs, some of which will be passed on to consumers in the form of moderately higher prices and some of which will be borne directly by the manufacturers.

The cost for reformulating noncompliant products depends on the level of effort required to develop a new product (e.g., research and development and market testing expenditures) and how these expenditures are incurred over time. Based on comments received at proposal and the original data presented at proposal, the EPA revised its estimate of the cost to reformulate a product from a lump-sum initial investment of $250,000 to $87,000 (in 1991 dollars), which is annualized to an upper bound value of $14,570 per reformulation (see Section V. M of this preamble for further discussion). Although variations are likely to exist, for purposes of this analysis, this reformulation cost estimate is assumed to be the same for all product types and variations, so the value is independent of VOC content and the annual sales volume of the product. Other costs and cost savings associated with reformulation are likely, but could not be quantified. These costs are discussed qualitatively in the EIA. Reformulation costs are direct costs imposed on manufacturers of noncompliant products. Based on public comments, the EPA found that in the traffic markings category, the user of the coating may have to modify technology or purchase new equipment to apply the coating. This additional cost is not considered a direct impact because it occurs as a result of restrictions on coating manufacturers, but the cost is borne by the user of the coating rather than the manufacturer. Nevertheless, the EPA examined the indirect impacts of this category because the changed equipment costs are so directly related to the change of formulation. The EPA estimates that changes in traffic marking equipment may cost up to $3 million annually (in 1991 dollars). For other regulated categories, it is not anticipated that new equipment or other indirect costs will be incurred to apply compliant coatings.

Based on the information above, implementation of this regulation is estimated to result in national annualized costs of approximately $25.6 million (in 1991 dollars). (For the benefit of readers, this value is equivalent to approximately $29 million in 1996 dollars.) This estimate includes $0.6 million in costs for manufacturers and importers that the EPA anticipates will take advantage of the alternative exceedance fee compliance provision. The rule does not impose monitoring requirements (and associated costs), but ensures compliance through recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling requirements. The annual cost for these requirements is expected to be approximately $2.5 million. Therefore, the EPA estimates the total cost associated with the rule to be $28 million per year (1991 dollars) (or $32 million in 1996 dollars). In comparison, the 1991 value of shipments for this industry was $6.3 billion. Thus, the estimated costs amount to roughly 0.4 percent of the baseline revenues for this industry.

The estimated cost-effectiveness of the rule is $270 per megagram ($250 per ton) of VOC emission reduction. This cost per megagram of VOC emission reduction makes the architectural coatings rule an economically efficient means of obtaining VOC emission reductions, when compared to the cost per megagram of reduction potentially available through other control measures. As a result of the costs discussed above, the EPA anticipates that the average change in market prices and output across all market segments are minimal, with an average estimated impact of less than one-tenth of 1 percent of baseline values.

The EPA believes the estimates of total cost and associated economic impacts are conservatively high. Since the best available data on VOC content of architectural coatings is from 1990, and the final rule has VOC content requirements similar to State rules which have been enforced since 1990, the EPA believes the estimated number of reformulations and/or their reformulation cost that result from this action may be overstated in that the compliant products developed by manufacturers to comply with various State rules can be used to meet the requirements of the Federal rule. The EIA also takes a conservative approach to several assumptions to produce an upper bound estimate of social cost.

V. Significant Comments and Changes to Proposed Standards

A complete summary of public comments on the architectural coatings rule and the EPA's responses are presented in the Architectural Coatings BID, as referenced in the ``ADDRESSES'' section of this preamble. The EPA received many comments addressing a wide variety of issues in the proposed rule for architectural coatings. After careful consideration of these comments, the EPA has made a number of changes to the proposed rule. The major changes made to the rule since proposal include: (1) clarification of the definitions of ``architectural coating,'' ``coating,'' ``importer,'' ``manufacturer,'' and ``paint exchange,'; (2) addition of definitions for ``imported'' and ``manufactured,'; (3) clarification of which standards apply to overlapping coating categories; (4) changes to the definitions and VOC content limits for certain categories; (5) addition of certain new coating categories; (6) addition of the exceedance fee provision; (7) deletion of the variance provisions; (8) addition of an exemption for prescribed quantities of coatings (tonnage exemption); (9) addition of administrative provisions; and (10) reorganization and reformatting of the rule for clarity.

The following sections of the preamble discuss the most significant issues raised by commenters and the EPA's responses to them.

A. National Rule Versus Control Techniques Guidelines

The EPA requested comment on whether and how a CTG approach would be as effective as a national rule in reducing VOC emissions from architectural coatings in ozone nonattainment areas. Section 183(e) of the Act authorizes the Administrator to issue a CTG in lieu of a national rule if the CTG will be substantially as effective in reducing VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.

Over 20 commenters stated that they support a national architectural coatings rule. Commenters who supported a national rule with VOC content limits stated that complying with a single uniform regulation would be less burdensome, and more cost-effective than complying with many different standards in different States. Commenters also stated that small manufacturers and importers are less likely to have the resources necessary to produce different lines of products to meet varying standards for different areas of the country. Furthermore, many commenters pointed out that coatings are widely distributed and easily transported from attainment areas to nonattainment areas. Therefore, regulating products only in nonattainment areas would be a less effective strategy, and a more difficult one to enforce.

Seven commenters stated that they support a CTG in lieu of a national rule. Commenters favoring a CTG generally contended that section 183(e) targets VOC emissions in nonattainment areas, and that a national rule is not warranted. The commenters stated that a CTG would be more appropriate since issuance of a CTG requires States to implement standards only in nonattainment areas. According to these commenters, allowing coatings manufactured or imported in attainment areas to remain unregulated would provide market niches for small manufacturers and importers. Some commenters also argued that consumers in attainment areas should not have to forego the alleged benefits of higher VOC content coatings.

Several commenters noted that, even with implementation of a national rule, States can promulgate more stringent standards. Therefore, even a national rule does not ensure uniform nationwide VOC standards. Some commenters urged cooperation and discussion between the EPA and States that consider implementing standards more stringent than the national rule.

The EPA has concluded that a national rule is the more effective approach for reducing emissions from architectural coatings for the following reasons. First, the EPA believes that a national rule is an appropriate means to reduce emissions from products that are, by their nature, easily transported across area boundaries, and many are widely distributed and are used by widely varied types of end-users. For many such products, the end-user may use them in different locations from day-to-day. Because the products themselves are easily transportable, a national rule would preempt opportunities for end-users to purchase such consumer and commercial products in attainment areas and then use them in nonattainment areas, thereby circumventing the regulations and undermining the decrease in VOC emissions in nonattainment areas. The EPA, therefore, believes that a national rule with applicability to products, regardless of where they are marketed, is a reasonable means to ensure that the regulations result in the requisite degree of VOC emission reduction.

Second, the EPA believes that national rules with nationwide applicability may help to mitigate the impact of ozone and ozone precursor transport across some area boundaries. Recent modeling performed by the OTAG and others suggests that in some circumstances VOC emitted outside nonattainment area boundaries can contribute to ozone pollution in nonattainment areas, for example, by traveling into neighboring nonattainment areas. The EPA has recognized the potential for VOC transport in the December 29, 1997, ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS'' concerning credit for VOC emission reductions towards rate-of-progress requirements. The guidance indicates that the EPA may give credit for VOC reductions within 100 kilometers of nonattainment areas. In addition, the June 1997 recommendations made by OTAG supported the EPA's use of VOC regulations that apply to both nonattainment and attainment areas to implement section 183(e) of the Act for certain products. The particular product categories OTAG cited for national VOC regulations are automobile refinish coatings, consumer products, and architectural coatings. The EPA believes that regulation of products in at least some attainment areas is necessary to mitigate VOC emissions that have the potential to contribute to ozone nonattainment in accordance with section 183(e) of the Act.

Based on these considerations, and considerations of the effectiveness and enforceability of emission controls, the EPA has determined that a CTG for architectural coatings would not be substantially as effective as a national rule in reducing VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.

A major trade association representing many architectural coating manufacturers provided comments supporting a national rule that applies to all areas as the most efficient regulatory mechanism from the perspective of marketing and distribution of products. In addition, comments from a number of small and large manufacturers favored a national rule to encourage uniformity in regulation from State to State, and thereby minimize significant costs and burdens associated with understanding and meeting differing State and local requirements. The EPA also received some comments suggesting that a national rule apply only in nonattainment areas. The EPA believes that rules applicable only in nonattainment areas would be unnecessarily complex and burdensome for many regulated entities to comply with and for the EPA to administer. The potentially regulated entities under section 183(e) are the manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of consumer and commercial products. For these three product categories, EPA believes that regulations that would differentiate between products destined for attainment and nonattainment areas should adequately insure that only compliant products go to nonattainment areas. For such a rule to be effective, EPA believes that this would necessitate requiring regulated entities to track their products and control their distribution, sale, and ultimate destination for use to insure that only compliant products go to nonattainment areas. The EPA notes that for architectural coatings, regulated entities do not currently track or control distribution of their products once they sell them to retail distributors. Although the EPA recognizes that some product lines in some product categories may only be distributed regionally in areas that are already in attainment, the large majority of the product lines will be distributed nationally. Regulations targeted only at nonattainment areas could, thus, impose significant additional burdens upon regulated entities to achieve the goals of section 183(e).

By comparison, existing State regulations in some instances apply to a broader range of entities, including retail distributors and end- users. Given the limitations of section 183(e) as to regulated entities, the EPA believes that regulations applicable to both attainment areas and nonattainment areas is a reasonable means to ensure use of complying products where necessary, while avoiding potentially burdensome impacts and less reliable mechanisms to achieve the goals of section 183(e).

The EPA expects a national VOC rule for architectural coatings to encourage uniformity in requirements across the country. Many States may choose to rely on the EPA rule rather than adopt their own requirements. The EPA's consideration of this factor, however, is not meant to imply that it would be inappropriate for States to develop more stringent levels of controls where necessary to attain the ozone standard. Some States, particularly those with long-standing and significant nonattainment problems, may need additional emission reductions to achieve attainment of the NAAQS and may need to adopt or maintain more stringent requirements for consumer products like architectural coatings in order to help reach attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The final rule has been amended to include provisions in Sec. 59.410, State authority, to clarify that States are not restricted by this rule in establishing and enforcing their own additional standards and limits.

The consultation provisions of section 183(e)(9) of the Act are designed to promote uniformity in such cases where States or local areas need to adopt requirements other than those promulgated by the EPA. Section 183(e)(9) requires the EPA to provide relevant information and studies requested by any State. The EPA expects such consultation and cooperation to result in States developing options for regulation that will be compatible with other States and with the national standards. The EPA considers a national VOC rule an important element in promoting consistency among architectural coating standards.

B. Applicability and Regulated Entities

1. Subject Coatings
The EPA received several comments requesting clarification regarding the definition of ``coating'' and what particular coatings are subject to the architectural coatings rule. The EPA has modified the definition of ``coating'' so that it no longer defines a coating as an application that creates a film when applied. The revised definition states that a coating is a ``material applied onto or impregnated into'' a substrate. The EPA did not intend to limit rule applicability to film-building products.

Commenters questioned whether coatings recommended for both architectural uses and non-architectural uses would be subject to the rule. The commenters also questioned whether shop-applied and factory- applied coatings would be subject. Additional commenters requested clarification as to whether adhesives are subject to the rule.

The architectural coatings rule applies to coatings ``recommended for field application to stationary structures and their appurtenances, to portable buildings, to pavements, or to curbs.'' Therefore, the rule does not apply to coatings that are marketed solely for shop application, such as in a manufacturing setting, or coatings marketed solely for application to non-stationary structures, such as aircraft and ships. However, a coating that is recommended by the manufacturer or importer for use as an architectural coating is subject to the architectural coatings rule even if the coating is also recommended for non-architectural uses. The fact that a coating regulated by the architectural coatings rule may also be subject to other rules with different requirements does not alter the manufacturer's or importer's obligation to meet the requirements of the architectural coatings rule. The EPA did not intend to regulate adhesives of any kind in the architectural coatings rule. The EPA intends to regulate industrial adhesives as a separate product category under section 183(e) authority.

To clarify the EPA's intent regarding what products are covered by this final rule, the definition of architectural coating has been revised to exclude adhesives and coatings recommended solely for shop application or for application to non-stationary structures. For additional clarity, definitions of ``adhesive'' and ``shop application'' have also been added to the final rule.

The EPA has added definitions of ``imported'' and ``manufactured'' to the final rule to clarify the point at which an architectural coating becomes subject to the requirements in the rule. The final rule also includes additional language in the definitions of ``importer'' and ``manufacturer'' to clarify that all divisions of a company, subsidiaries, and parent companies are considered to be a single importer or manufacturer for the purpose of this rule.

2. Regulation of Processors
Section 183(e)(1)(C) of the Act allows the regulation of processors of consumer and commercial products. For the proposed architectural coatings rule, the EPA considered regulating processors as well as manufacturers and importers. ``Processors'' would be defined as individuals who add organic thinner to coatings in a commercial or industrial setting at the point of application. The EPA's concern was to provide a means to enforce against thinning of coatings beyond manufacturers' recommendations. Thus, the EPA considered a provision to prohibit an applicator from using organic solvents to thin a coating beyond the manufacturer's recommendation.

In the proposal preamble (61 FR 32737), the EPA requested comment on the possible regulation of processors under the architectural coatings rule. Commenters generally opposed the regulation of applicators, arguing that: (1) over-thinning is not likely to occur since the proposed VOC content limits are reasonable; (2) rules promulgated under section 183(e) of the Act are not intended to apply to end-users or applicators; and (3) restrictions on thinning at the point of application would be difficult to enforce. The commenters stated that the term ``processors'' was intended to mean entities that repackage coating materials or further enhance finished products before they are offered for sale to end-users.

The final rule does not include processors as a regulated entity. The EPA believes that end-users' compliance with thinning restrictions for architectural coatings would be difficult to enforce in practice.

Instead, the EPA has determined that it will be more effective to guard against excessive VOC emissions from thinning by taking into account the amount of thinning in advance. Thus, the final limits are expressed as VOC content of coating ``thinned to the manufacturer's maximum recommendation.'' The EPA believes that these limits provide adequate assurance that compliant coatings will be manufactured to perform optimally with recommended thinning. Regulation of processors would not add significantly to the effectiveness of the rule.

C. General Comments on Determination of Best Available Controls Many commenters provided general comments on the overall stringency of the VOC content limits in the proposed rule. One group of commenters, composed mainly of m