National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings, 15604-15631 [E8-5589]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 57 (Monday, March 24, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15604-15631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5589]



[[Page 15603]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 51 and 59



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

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 57 / Monday, March 24, 2008 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 15604]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 59

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971; FRL-8498-6]
RIN 2060-AN69


National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol 
Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for the 
aerosol coatings (aerosol spray paints) category under section 183(e) 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The standards implement section 183(e) of 
the CAA, as amended in 1990, which requires the Administrator to 
control volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from certain 
categories of consumer and commercial products for purposes of reducing 
VOC emissions contributing to ozone formation and ozone nonattainment. 
This regulation establishes nationwide reactivity-based standards for 
aerosol coatings. States have previously promulgated rules for the 
aerosol coatings category based upon reductions of VOC by mass; 
however, EPA has concluded that a national rule based upon the relative 
reactivity approach will achieve more reduction in ozone formation than 
may be achieved by a mass-based approach for this specific product 
category. 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 revising EPA's 
regulatory definition of VOC. This revision is necessary to include 
certain compounds that would otherwise be exempt in order to account 
for the reactive compounds in aerosol coatings that contribute to ozone 
formation. Therefore, certain compounds that would not be VOC under the 
otherwise applicable definition will count towards the applicable 
reactivity limits under this final regulation. The initial listing of 
product categories and schedule for regulation was published on March 
23, 1995 (60 FR 15264). This final 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 CAA.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective March 24, 2008. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 24, 
2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will 
be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971, EPA Headquarters Library, Room 3334 in the 
EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This 
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center telephone 
number is (202) 566-1744, and the facsimile number for the EPA Docket 
Center is (202) 566-9744. EPA visitors are required to show 
photographic identification and sign the EPA visitor log. After 
processing through the X-ray and magnetometer machines, visitors will 
be given an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times.
    Informational updates will be provided via the EPA Web site at 
https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm as they are available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the final 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, NC 27711; 
telephone number (919) 541-2509; facsimile number (919) 541-3470; e-
mail address: whitfield.kaye@epa.gov. 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: (919) 541-5460, facsimile number (919) 541-3470, e-
mail address: moore.bruce@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Entities Potentially Affected by This Action. The entities 
potentially affected by this regulation encompass all steps in 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 who supply the entities listed above with 
aerosol coatings for sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the 
United States. The entities potentially affected by this action 
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NAICS code    Examples of regulated
             Category                  \a\              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\ North American Industry Classification System https://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 
the promulgation preamble. 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.
    Docket. The docket number for the National Volatile Organic 
Compounds Emission Standards for Aerosols Coating (40 CFR part 59, 
subpart E) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971.

[[Page 15605]]

    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of the final rule is also available on the WWW. 
Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the final rule will 
be posted on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), judicial review of the final rule is available only by filing a 
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit by May 23, 2008. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final action may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``if the person raising the objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such an objection [within the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of 
the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20004.
    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. Photochemical Reactivity
    D. Role of Reactivity in VOC/Ozone Regulations
    E. The Aerosol Coating Industry
II. Summary of the Final Standards and Changes Since Proposal
    A. Applicability of the Standards and Regulated Entities
    B. VOC Regulated Under This Rule
    C. Regulatory Limits
    D. Compliance Dates
    E. Labeling Requirements
    F. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    G. Variance
    H. Test Methods
III. Response to Significant Comments
    A. Format of Regulation
    B. Downwind Effects and Robustness of Relative Reactivity Scale
    C. Consideration of Other Factors in the Consideration of Best 
Available Control
    D. Variance, Small Quantity Manufacturers and Extended 
Compliance Date
    E. Additional Reporting Requirements
IV. Summary of Impacts
    A. Environmental Impacts
    B. Energy Impacts
    C. Cost and Economic Impacts
V. Statutory and Executive Order 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
    K. Congressional Review Act

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 pre-
existing 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 directed 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 
listed for regulation, in order to achieve an effective regulatory 
program in accordance with EPA'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

[[Page 15606]]

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 (CTG) in lieu of 
national regulations if the Administrator determines that such guidance 
will be substantially as effective as a national regulation in reducing 
emissions of VOC which contribute to ozone levels in areas which 
violate the NAAQS for ozone. In many cases, a CTG can be an effective 
regulatory approach 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. Most recently, 
EPA determined that a CTG would be substantially as effective as a 
national rule for three other Group III categories: Paper, Film and 
Foil Coating; Metal Furniture Coating; and Large Appliance Coating.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques 
Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Paper, Film, and Foil 
Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and Large Appliance Coatings'' 
72 FR 57215, (October 9, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Although Section 183(e) does not 
preempt States from having more stringent State standards, EPA's 
national rule is expected to provide some degree of consistency, 
predictability, and administrative ease for the industry. A national 
rule also helps States reduce potential 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Courts have already approved EPA's creation of national 
rules under section 183(e). See, ALARM Caucus v. EPA, 215 F.3d 61,76 
(D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1018 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Photochemical Reactivity

    There are thousands of individual species of VOC 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 VOC, 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 concludes 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 approving a comparable 
reactivity-based aerosol coating rule as part of the California State 
Implementation Plan for ozone contains additional background 
information on photochemical reactivity.\8\ Recently, EPA issued 
interim guidance to States regarding the use of VOC reactivity 
information in the development of ozone control measures.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``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).
    \9\ ``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 on VOC Reactivity?
    Much of the initial work on reactivity scales was funded by the 
California Air

[[Page 15607]]

Resources Board (CARB), which was interested in comparing the 
reactivity of emissions from different alternative fuel 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.\10\ Carter 
suggested three scales for further consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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 MIR scale is the most appropriate.\11\ 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 used the MIR scale to establish fuel-neutral VOC 
emissions limits in its low-emitting vehicle and alternative fuels 
regulation.\12\ \13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Initial Statement of Reasons for the California Aerosol 
Coatings Regulation, California Air Resources Board,'' 2000.
    \12\ 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.
    \13\ 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 co-workers, who have published articles on a scale called the 
photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) scale.\14\ \15\ 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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.
    \15\ 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.
    \16\ See https://www.narsto.org/section.src?SID=10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 cautioned 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.\16\ 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.
    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 EPA's 
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.\17\ \18\ \19\ \20\ \21\ EPA commissioned a 
review of these reports to address a series of policy-relevant science 
questions.\22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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.
    \18\ 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.
    \19\ 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.
    \20\ 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.
    \21\ 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.
    \22\ 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

[[Page 15608]]

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.\23\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ``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, EPA has added other 
compounds to the list of negligibly reactive compounds based on new 
information as it has been developed. In 1992, EPA adopted a formal 
regulatory definition of VOC for use in SIPs, 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. A separate smaller group of 
compounds are treated as negligibly reactive, and are exempt from VOC 
controls.\24\ 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.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For some analytical purposes, EPA has distinguished between 
VOC and ``highly reactive'' VOC, such as in the EPA'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)).
    \25\ ``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.\26\ The traditional approach to VOC 
control that focused on reducing the overall mass of emissions may be 
adequate in some areas of the country. However, EPA's recent SIP 
guidance 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.\27\ 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 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).
    \27\ ``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 reasonably 
available control technology (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 
for aerosol coatings was designed to encourage the use of compounds 
that are less effective at producing ozone. It contains limits for 
aerosol coatings expressed as grams of ozone formed per gram of product 
instead of the more traditional limits expressed as percent VOC by 
mass. 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 using the 
relative reactivity approach.

E. The Aerosol Coating Industry

    Aerosol coatings include all coatings that are specially formulated 
and

[[Page 15609]]

packaged for use in pressurized cans. They are used by both 
professional and 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 
necessary 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 final national rule for aerosol coatings, EPA has 
used 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 EPA's 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 of 
aerosol coatings regulated in the final rule 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 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.

II. Summary of the Final Standards and Changes Since Proposal

    This section presents a summary of the major features of the final 
rule, as well as a summary of the changes made to the proposed rule. 
The reasons for the changes in the final rule are explained in Section 
III.

A. Applicability of the Standards and Regulated Entities

    The final 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 apply to distributors, if the name of the distributor appears on 
the label of the aerosol products.
    The final rule includes an exemption from the limits in Table 1 of 
the rule for those manufacturers that make a small annual volume of 
aerosol coating products, i.e., with a total VOC content by mass of no 
more than 7,500 kilograms of VOC per year in the aggregate for all 
aerosol coating 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. The 
regulatory language in this final rule has been changed from the 
proposed rule to clarify the regulated entity that is responsible for 
compliance with each portion of the regulation.
    The final rule includes a provision in section 59.501(f) that 
allows foreign manufacturers to qualify for the small quantity 
manufacturer exemption in section 59.501(e). Although foreign 
manufacturers are not regulated entities under this rule, some may 
choose to voluntarily become regulated entities in order to qualify for 
the small quantity manufacturer exemption. To qualify, the foreign 
manufacturer must (1) meet the same 7500 kilogram per year VOC mass 
limit that domestic small volume manufacturers must meet; (2) comply 
with the same recordkeeping and reporting requirements that domestic 
manufacturers must fulfill; and (3) comply with certain provisions in 
40 CFR 59.501(f)(3), which are similar to those used in other EPA rules 
to ensure that EPA may effectively monitor and implement this rule with 
respect to foreign entities.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Baseline 
Requirements for Gasoline Produced by Foreign Refiners, Final Rule, 
62 FR 45,533, 45,537-38 (August 28, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. VOC Regulated Under This Rule

    This rule regulates emissions of VOC from aerosol coatings. Because 
even less reactive VOC contribute to ozone formation, we are amending 
the regulatory definition of VOC for purposes of this rule by adding 40 
CFR 51.100(s)(7). As provided in that new subsection, any organic 
compound in the volatile portion of an aerosol coating is counted 
towards the product's reactivity-based limit if it: (1) Has a 
reactivity factor (RF) value greater than that of ethane (0.3), or (2) 
is used in amounts greater than 7.3 percent of the product weight in 
the product formulation.
    Table 2A currently includes those organic compounds we know to be 
used in aerosol coatings that have an RF value greater than that of 
ethane (0.3). Under the proposed rule, we had a single de minimis 
threshold that provided that a compound would not be counted towards 
the applicable limit, regardless of its reactivity, if the compound 
represented less than 0.1 percent of the product weight. In the final 
rule, we have provided a two-part threshold: (1) A 0.1 percent 
threshold for compounds with an RF value greater than 0.3; and (2) a 
7.3 percent threshold

[[Page 15610]]

for compounds with an RF value of 0.3 or less.
    The rationale for the 7.3 percent threshold is that compounds with 
an RF value of 0.3 or less will contribute minimally to ozone formation 
from this product category. We calculated the 7.3 percent figure as 
follows. We first determined the maximum RF value for a compound, which 
is 22.04 (the default value for compounds of unknown reactivity). We 
then multiplied that value by 0.1(the proposed percentage threshold for 
all organic compounds irrespective of their RF value), which resulted 
in a value of 2.2. To determine an appropriate percentage threshold for 
organic compounds with an RF value of 0.3 or less, we then divided 2.2 
by 0.3 (the RF for ethane) which resulted in the 7.3 percent threshold 
for such compounds. Therefore, in determining compliance with the 
limits of this rule, this rule does not require inclusion of de minimis 
amounts of ingredients taking into consideration the relative 
reactivity of the compound.
    As provided in 40 CFR 59.505(e)(2), if in the future, compounds 
with an RF value of 0.3 or less are used in amounts greater than or 
equal to 7.3 percent of a particular aerosol coatings product 
formulation, then those compounds will be counted towards the 
applicable limits of this rule at that time.
    The emission limits in the rule are 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. EPA has concluded that this approach 
will reduce the overall amount of ozone that results from the VOC 
emitted to the atmosphere from these products, while providing 
regulated entities with greater flexibility to select VOC ingredients 
for their products. This approach provides incentives to regulated 
entities to use VOC ingredients that have lower reactivity and that 
will therefore generate less ozone.
    EPA has revised the list of compounds in Table 2A in order to 
include only those compounds actually used as ingredients in aerosol 
coating products. In addition, EPA has provided a mechanism to add 
additional compounds to the table if a regulated entity elects to use 
them as an ingredient in aerosol coatings.

C. Regulatory Limits

    The regulatory limits for the final rule are a series of reactivity 
limits for six general coating categories and 30 specialty categories 
of specialty coatings. These reactivity limits are expressed in terms 
of grams of ozone generated per gram of product. The reactivity of each 
VOC ingredient is specified in the table of values included in the 
regulation. No changes have been made to the regulatory limits since 
proposal.

D. Compliance Dates

    The final rule requires all regulated entities to comply by January 
1, 2009, for all aerosol coating products, except those that require 
registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide 
Act (7 U.S.C. 40 CFR 136-136y) (FIFRA), which are not subject to the 
requirements of this rule until January 1, 2010. The rule also includes 
a provision that allows regulated entities to seek a compliance 
extension if they have not previously manufactured, imported, or 
distributed in California or elsewhere any aerosol coating product that 
complies with applicable California regulations. This extension would 
give the regulated entity until January 1, 2011, to comply with the 
requirements of the final rule.
    Beginning on the compliance date, the regulated entities under this 
rule will be required to conduct initial compliance demonstration 
calculations for all coating formulations manufactured or filled at 
each of their facilities, and to maintain compliance demonstration data 
for each batch of aerosol coating. These calculations and the 
underlying documents must be maintained for at least 5 years after the 
product is manufactured, processed, distributed, or imported, and must 
be submitted to the EPA upon request. The regulated entity may use 
formulation data to make the compliance calculations; however, EPA is 
adopting California Air Resources Board Method 310 as the underlying 
test method (i.e., formulation data must be verifiable with California 
Air Resources Board Method 310, if requested). Facilities are also 
allowed to use EPA's Test Method 311.
    EPA has added a provision allowing the extension of the compliance 
date for FIFRA-registered compounds as a revision to the proposed rule. 
This provision was added to the final rule due to the additional 
approvals (e.g., approval of labels and formulation changes) that must 
be obtained for all FIFRA-registered products.

E. Labeling Requirements

    The final 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 product category, and the product 
date code. If the product date is not obvious from the date code, an 
explanation of the code is required in the initial notification 
discussed below. In the final rule, EPA has made a change to allow a 
regulated entity to develop a facility-specific category code system, 
if the system is explained in the initial notification.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    The final rule includes a requirement for an Initial Notification 
from all regulated entities to EPA at least 90 days before the 
compliance date. This notification will provide basic information about 
the regulated entity as well as contact information for the certifying 
official. In addition, this notification will need to explain the 
product date code system used to label products and the category code 
system, if the facility is not using the default category codes 
included in Table 1. The Initial Notification must also include VOC 
formulation data for each aerosol coatings product that is subject to 
this rule. The formulation data must provide the weight fraction (g 
compound/g product) for each VOC compound used in the product in an 
amount equal to or greater than 0.1 percent. The notification must also 
identify any volatile organic compound or mixture that is not currently 
listed in Table 2A, 2B, or 2C, if that compound or mixture will be used 
in an aerosol coatings formulation. Finally, the notification must 
include a statement certifying that all of the regulated entity's 
products will be in compliance with the limits by the compliance date.
    The regulated entity is required to submit a revised notification 
if there is a change in the information in the Initial Notification, 
with the exception of changes to product formulations. The regulated 
entity is not required to submit a revised notification if the VOC 
formulations submitted in its Initial Notification change. The 
regulated entity is required to submit a revised notification if the 
manufacturer, for example, adds a new coating category, changes the 
product date code system or batch definition, or begins to use a VOC 
that is not listed in Table 2A, 2B, or 2C.
    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 for 5 years after the product is 
manufactured, processed, distributed for

[[Page 15611]]

wholesale, or imported for sale or distribution in interstate commerce 
in the United States. The regulated entity must supply this information 
to EPA within 60 days of a written request. The final rule includes the 
addition of a provision that allows for manufacturers or importers to 
accept the responsibility for recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
that would otherwise be required of their distributors.
    The promulgated rule requires that every 3 years, beginning with 
calendar year 2011, each regulated entity must submit a triennial 
report. The triennial report would provide updated VOC formulation data 
and, for each VOC formulation, the total mass of each individual VOC or 
mixture used as ingredients in the aerosol coatings manufactured, 
imported, or distributed that year. This information must be provided 
only for the second year of the reporting cycle, which in the case of 
the first report would be information from 2010. Subsequent reports 
will be required at three year intervals. In other words, a report 
containing data from 2013 will be due in 2014, a report containing data 
from 2016 will be due in 2017, and so forth. EPA intends to provide 
mechanisms for regulated entities to provide this information through 
the electronic submission facilities being expanded under the National 
Emissions Inventory (NEI) program and will provide additional 
information and guidance to regulated entities before the first report 
is due. This report has been added to the final rule to address 
concerns raised during the public comment period, as explained in 
section III.E of this preamble.
    The final rule requires those small manufacturers who qualify for 
exemption from the limits of Table 1 of subpart E to make an annual 
report to EPA providing necessary information and documentation to 
establish that the products made by the entity should be exempt.
    EPA notes that the contents of any reports, including the VOC 
composition of the coatings subject to this rule, are ``emissions 
data'' under section 114 of the CAA and EPA's regulatory definition of 
such term in 40 CFR part 2. As such, this information must be available 
to the public regardless of whether EPA obtains the information through 
a reporting requirement or through a specific request to the regulated 
entity. Therefore, such information is not eligible for treatment as 
``confidential business information'' under 40 CFR 59.516 of this rule.

G. Variance

    The final rule allows regulated entities to submit a written 
application to EPA 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. No changes were made 
to this section since the proposal.

H. Test Methods

    Although regulated entities may use formulation data to demonstrate 
compliance with the reactivity limits, EPA concludes 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 may be used by regulated entities or EPA 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 California Air Resources Board 
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 in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas 
Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) to determine the reactive 
organic compound content of an aerosol coating. California Air 
Resources Board Method 310 includes some test procedures that are not 
required to determine the VOC content of aerosol coatings; for example, 
California Air Resources Board Method 310 incorporates EPA Method 24 
for determining the VOC content of a coating. We have identified those 
sections of California Air Resources Board Method 310 that are not 
required for compliance demonstration purposes in the regulation. EPA 
Method 311--Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and 
Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, 
appendix A) 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 EPA Method 311--
Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by 
Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) 
must separate the aerosol propellant from the coating using either ASTM 
D3063-94 or ASTM D 3074-94. There were no changes to the test methods 
in the final rule.

III. Response to Significant Comments

    During the public comment period, we received a total of 18 comment 
letters. Of these, seven were brief letters in support of the proposed 
regulation. A summary of the most significant comments is presented 
below. A summary of all comments received on this rule, as well as 
complete responses to each of these comments, are presented in the 
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0971).

A. Format of Regulation

    Several commenters discussed the use of a reactivity-based rule 
versus a mass-based rule. Two commenters fully supported the 
reactivity-based rule, while five commenters raised some concerns over 
some aspects of this approach.
    The commenters supporting the rule generally supported the use of a 
reactivity-based approach both nationally and in California. One 
commenter stated that EPA did a good job in evaluating the reactivity 
regulation in California and the feasibility of making it apply 
nationwide, calling it a ``bold step forward in the arena of air 
quality regulations.'' Another commenter stated that ``[t]he rule is an 
important advancement in the use of reactivity-based emissions 
regulations for VOC.'' The commenter provided the following points in 
support of this rule and the future use of reactivity-based VOC 
emission limits in other consumer product and coating standards:

    1. Reactivity-based VOC emission regulations are more 
appropriate and effective for addressing the environmental concern 
of interest, ozone formation potential.
    2. This national proposed rule is based on an established CARB 
regulation for aerosol coatings which has already been approved by 
EPA and in use for several years.

[[Page 15612]]

    3. Reactivity-based VOC emission regulations provide product 
formulators with more options for meeting environmental performance 
standards while providing technically feasible product performance, 
and stimulating future product development enhancements.
    4. There is evidence that lower mass-based VOC limits in some 
products may be leading to the increased use of more photochemically 
reactive VOC, eliminating some of the anticipated environmental 
benefit (ozone reduction) of these regulations, and possibly 
increasing the actual ozone formation potential of the products 
themselves.

    This commenter also stated that the reactivity-based approach is 
consistent with EPA's September 2005 ``Interim Guidance on Control of 
Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans,'' which 
specifically ``encourages States to consider recent scientific 
information on the photochemical reactivity of volatile organic 
compounds in the development of state implementation plans designed to 
meet the national ambient air quality standards for ozone [70 FR 54046-
54051; September 13, 2005].''
    The commenter concluded that reactivity-based VOC standards should 
not be considered ``only as a supplement to mass-based approaches, but 
as a scientifically valid and appropriate means for controlling ozone 
formation.'' The commenter also stated that in its approval of the CARB 
regulation, EPA appropriately