[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48806-48819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22657]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 59

[AD-FRL-6149-5]
RIN 2060-AE35


National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for 
Automobile Refinish Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national volatile organic compound 
(VOC) emission standards for automobile refinish coatings pursuant to 
section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act). This final rule is based on 
the Administrator's determination that VOC emissions from the use of 
automobile refinish coatings have the potential to cause or contribute 
to ozone levels that violate the national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS) for ozone. Ozone is a major component of smog which causes 
negative health and environmental impacts when present in high 
concentrations at ground level. The final rule is estimated to reduce 
VOC emissions by 31,900 tons per year (tpy) by requiring manufacturers 
and importers to limit the VOC content of automobile refinish coatings.

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

ADDRESSES: Technical Support Documents. The regulation promulgated 
today is supported by two background information documents (BIDs), one 
specific to the automobile refinish coatings rule, and one that 
addresses comments on the study and Report to Congress under section 
183(e) that is a basis for this rule. The document, ``Volatile Organic 
Compound Emissions from Automobile Refinishing--Background Information 
for Promulgated Standards'' (EPA-453/R-96-011b), contains a summary of 
the public comments made on the proposed automobile refinish coatings 
rule and the Agency's responses to the comments. The document, 
``Response to Comments on Section 183(e) Study and Report to Congress'' 
(EPA-453/R-98-007), contains a summary of all the public comments made 
on the section 183(e) study and Report to Congress and the list and 
schedule for regulation as well as the Agency's responses to the 
comments.
    These documents may be obtained from several sources: (1) the 
docket for this rulemaking; (2) the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
telephone (919) 541-2777; (3) National Technical Information Services, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151, telephone (703) 487-
4650; and (4) through the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/
ramain.html.
    Docket. Docket No. A-95-18, containing supporting information used 
in developing the promulgated standards, is available for public 
inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through 
Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and

[[Page 48807]]

Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, Ground Floor, 401 M 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Morris at (919) 541-5416, 
Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711 ([email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action 
are manufacturers and importers of automobile refinish coatings or 
coating components. An automobile refinish coating component is a 
portion of a coating, such as a reducer or thinner, hardener, additive, 
etc., recommended (by its manufacturer or importer) to distributors or 
end-users for automobile refinishing. Automobile refinishing is the 
process of coating automobiles or their parts, including partial body 
collision repairs, that is subsequent to the original coating applied 
at an automobile original equipment manufacturing plant. Regulated 
categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                  Examples of regulated entities   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................  Manufacturers or importers of       
                                     automobile refinish coatings or    
                                     coating components that are        
                                     manufactured for sale or           
                                     distribution in the U.S., including
                                     all U.S. territories.              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine 
whether your product is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 59.100 of the final rule. If 
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
    Judicial review. The EPA proposed this section 183(e) rule for 
automobile refinish coatings on April 30, 1996 (61 FR 19005), and 
issued a supplemental proposal on December 30, 1997 (62 FR 67784). This 
notice promulgating a rule for automobile refinish coatings constitutes 
final administrative action concerning the proposal. Under section 
307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final rule is available 
only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit by November 10, 1998. Under section 
307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, only an objection to this rule which was 
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment 
can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) 
of the Act, the requirements established by today's final action may 
not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceeding 
brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Technology Transfer Network. The Technology Transfer Network (TTN) 
is one of the EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control, including copies of this rule and supporting documents. The 
TTN is free and is accessible through the Internet at ``http://
www.epa.gov/ttn.'' For more information on the TTN, call the HELP line 
at (919) 541-5384.
    Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in reading this 
preamble to the final rule.

I. Purpose and Summary of the Standards
    A. Purpose of Regulation
    1. Ground-level ozone
    2. Automobile Refinish Coatings Regulation
    3. Background on section 183(e)
    B. Summary of the Standards
II. Summary of Considerations in Developing the Rule
    A. Technical Basis of Regulation
    B. Stakeholder and Public Participation
III. Summary of Impacts
    A. Volatile Organic Compound Reductions
    B. Secondary Air, Water, and Solid Waste Impacts
    C. Energy Impacts
    D. Cost and Economic Impacts
IV. Significant Comments and Changes to the Proposed Rule
    A. Applicability
    B. Lacquer Topcoats
    C. Specialty Coatings
    D. Test Methods
    E. Coatings with Multiple Uses
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Executive Order 12866
    D. Executive Order 12875
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
    F. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
    G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Executive Order 13045

I. Purpose and Summary of the Standards

A. Purpose of Regulation

1. Ground-Level Ozone
    Ground-level ozone, which is a major component of ``smog,'' is 
formed in the atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen 
(NOx) in the presence of sunlight. The formation of ground-
level ozone is a complex process that is affected by many variables.
    Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of 
human health effects, agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and 
ecosystems. Acute health effects are induced by short-term exposures to 
ozone (observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million 
(ppm)), generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy 
exertion, and by prolonged exposures to ozone (observed at 
concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm), typically while individuals are 
engaged in moderate exertion. Moderate exertion levels are more 
frequently experienced by individuals than heavy exertion levels. The 
acute health effects include pulmonary function responses, transient 
respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise performance, increased 
sensitivity of airways to irritants, increased susceptibility to 
respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency room 
visits, and pulmonary inflammation. Groups at increased risk of 
experiencing such effects include active children, outdoor workers, and 
others who regularly engage in outdoor activities and individuals with 
preexisting respiratory disease. Available information also suggests 
that long-term exposures to ozone may cause chronic health effects 
(e.g., structural damage to lung tissue and accelerated decline in 
baseline lung function).
2. Automobile Refinish Coatings Regulation
    Before today's rule, VOC emissions from the use of automobile 
refinish coatings were not regulated at the Federal level. However, 
several States have developed automobile refinishing rules. Some 
industry parties and States have urged the EPA to issue rules for 
automobile refinish coatings to encourage consistency across the 
country. Many States with ozone pollution problems are supportive of an 
EPA rulemaking that will assist them in their efforts toward 
achievement of ozone attainment. Although regulated entities in all 
States will be required to comply with these national standards, some 
States may wish to promulgate

[[Page 48808]]

VOC standards more stringent than the national rule to assist in 
achieving attainment with the NAAQS for ozone.
3. Background on Section 183(e)
    Section 183(e) of the Act mandates a new regulatory program for 
controlling VOC emissions. Through this provision, Congress required 
the EPA to conduct a study of emissions of VOC into the ambient air 
from consumer and commercial products to determine their potential to 
contribute to ozone nonattainment, to develop criteria based upon 
statutory factors for regulation of such products, and to list for 
regulation, based on the criteria, categories of products that account 
for at least 80 percent of the emissions from such products in 
nonattainment areas, on a reactivity adjusted basis.
    In accordance with section 183(e) of the Act, the Administrator has 
determined that VOC emissions from the use of automobile refinish 
coatings have the potential to contribute to ozone levels that violate 
the NAAQS for ozone. Under authority of section 183(e), the EPA 
conducted a study of the VOC emissions from consumer and commercial 
products to determine their potential to contribute to ozone levels 
which violate the NAAQS for ozone. Based on the results of the study, 
and by application of the criteria, the EPA determined that the 
emissions from automobile refinish coatings should be regulated under 
section 183(e). Consequently, the EPA and many States consider the 
regulation of automobile refinish coatings to be an important component 
of the overall approach to reducing those emissions that contribute to 
ozone nonattainment. The EPA's determination that VOC emissions from 
the use of automobile refinish coatings have the potential to 
contribute to nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS and the decision to 
regulate automobile refinish coatings are discussed in the preamble to 
the proposed rule (61 FR 19005), in the ``Consumer and Commercial 
Products Report to Congress'' (EPA-453/R-94-066-A), in the Federal 
Register notice announcing the schedule for regulation (60 FR 15264), 
and in a separate Federal Register notice published today that 
constitutes final action on the agency's listing of automobile refinish 
coatings for regulation.

B. Summary of the Standards

Applicability
    The provisions of the rule apply to automobile refinish coatings 
and coating components that are manufactured on or after January 11, 
1999 for sale or distribution in the United States, including the 
District of Columbia and all U.S. territories. The entities regulated 
by the rule include manufacturers and importers of automobile refinish 
coatings or coating components.
    The final rule does not apply to coatings or coating components 
manufactured before the compliance date of the rule, for use by 
original equipment manufacturers, or for sale outside the United 
States. The final rule also does not apply to coatings supplied in 
nonrefillable aerosol containers, lacquer topcoats or their components, 
or touch-up coatings.
Regulated Entities
    Regulated entities are generally defined under section 183(e) of 
the Act to include potentially manufacturers, processors, wholesale 
distributors, and importers. Under this final rule, regulated entities 
include manufacturers and importers of automobile refinish coatings or 
coating components which are manufactured for sale or distribution in 
the United States. Since the distribution of coatings has no effect on 
whether compliant coatings are used, distributors are not regulated 
entities under this rule.
Standards
    Coatings subject to this rule shall comply with the VOC content 
standards listed in table 1. Combinations of automobile refinish 
coating components recommended for use in the coating categories given 
in table 1 shall comply with the appropriate VOC content standards.

    Table 1.--VOC Content Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 VOC    
                                                              Content,a 
                      Coating category                       grams/liter
                                                               (pounds/ 
                                                               gallon)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretreatment Wash Primer...................................    780 (6.5)
Primer/Primer Surfacer.....................................    580 (4.8)
Primer Sealer..............................................    550 (4.6)
Single/2-Stage Topcoats....................................    600 (5.0)
Topcoats of 3 or more stages...............................    630 (5.2)
Multi-colored topcoats.....................................    680 (5.7)
Specialty Coatings b.......................................   840 (7.0) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a VOC content means the amount of VOC in a coating that has been        
  prepared for application according to the regulated entity's mixing   
  instructions, excluding water and exempt compounds. English units are 
  provided for information only. Regulation enforcement will be based on
  the metric levels.                                                    
b Specialty coatings include adhesion promoters, low-gloss coatings,    
  bright metal trim repair coatings, cut-in (jambing) clearcoats,       
  elastomeric materials, impact-resistant coatings, underbody coatings, 
  uniform finish blenders, and weld-through primers.                    

Labeling Requirements
    Each regulated entity must provide the following information on 
each container: (1) the day, month, and year on which the product was 
manufactured; or (2) a code indicating such a date.
Reporting
    Regulated entities must file an initial report to the appropriate 
EPA Regional Office no later than January 11, 1999 or within 180 days 
after a regulated entity becomes subject to the rule, whichever is 
later. Addresses for the EPA Regional Offices are provided in 
Sec. 59.108. The initial report must include the following information:
    (1) The name and mailing address of the regulated entity.
    (2) In cases where codes are used to represent the date of 
manufacture, the regulated entity shall submit an explanation of each 
date code to the Administrator.
    (3) The street address of each of the regulated entity's facilities 
in the United States that is producing, packaging, or importing 
automobile refinish coatings or coating components subject to the 
provisions of this subpart.
    (4) A list of the categories from table 1 of this subpart for which 
the regulated entity recommends the use of automobile refinish coatings 
or coating components.
    Each regulated entity must submit an explanation of any new date 
codes used by the regulated entity no later than 30 days after products 
bearing the new date code are first introduced into commerce.
    Except for applications that may be submitted by regulated entities 
requesting variances, there are no reporting requirements beyond those 
described above.
Variance
    The rule allows regulated entities to submit a written application 
to the Administrator requesting a variance if, for technological or 
economic reasons beyond their reasonable control, they cannot comply 
with the requirements of the rule.
    Upon receipt of a variance application, the Administrator will 
determine whether, under what conditions, and to what extent, a 
variance from the requirements of the rule is necessary and will be 
permitted.
    An approved variance will designate a final compliance date and a 
condition

[[Page 48809]]

that specifies increments of progress necessary to assure timely 
compliance. A variance shall end immediately upon the failure of the 
party to whom the variance was granted to comply with any term or 
condition of the variance.
Compliance Provisions
    The rule specifies the procedures to determine the VOC content of 
coatings subject to the rule. The VOC content of coatings will be 
determined using the EPA's Method 24--``Determination of Volatile 
Matter Content, Water Content, Density, Volume Solids, and Weight 
Solids of Surface Coatings,'' found in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 
Method 24 is the EPA's standard method for determining the VOC content 
of coatings.
    For purposes of determining whether a primer qualifies as a 
pretreatment wash primer, the acid weight percent of such primers shall 
be determined using the American Society for Testing and Materials 
(ASTM) Test Method D 1613-96 (incorporated by reference) to determine 
compliance with the definition of pretreatment wash primer as provided 
in Sec. 59.101 of this subpart.
    For purposes of determining whether a coating qualifies as a low-
gloss coating, the gloss reading of low-gloss coatings shall be 
determined using ASTM Test Method D 523-89 (incorporated by reference) 
to determine compliance with the definition of low-gloss coating as 
provided in Sec. 59.101 of this subpart.
    Although the EPA has chosen Method 24 as the reference method for 
determining compliance with the VOC content requirements of this rule, 
it is not the exclusive method for determining compliance. The 
manufacturer or importer may also use a different analytical method 
than Method 24 (if it approved by the Administrator on a case-by-case 
basis), formulation data, or any other reasonable means to determine 
the VOC content of coatings. However, the EPA may require a Method 24 
analysis to be conducted, and if there are any inconsistencies between 
the results of a Method 24 test and any other means for determining VOC 
content, the Method 24 test results will govern. The EPA can use other 
evidence as well to establish whether or not a manufacturer or importer 
is in compliance with the provisions of this rule.

II. Summary of Considerations in Developing the Rule

A. Technical Basis of Regulation

    Standards under Section 183(e) of the Act must reflect the Agency's 
determination of best available controls (BAC) for the product 
category. The Act defines BAC as:

    The degree of emissions reduction the Administrator determines, 
on the basis of technological and economic feasibility, health, 
environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the 
application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes, 
methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation, 
product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for 
use, consumption, storage, or disposal.

    The statute thus empowers the EPA to examine a variety of 
considerations to use in determining the best means of obtaining VOC 
emission reductions from a given consumer or commercial product 
category. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR 
19005, April 30, 1996), the primary factors the EPA considered in 
determining BAC for automobile refinish coatings were technological and 
economic feasibility, and environmental impacts.
    The EPA has determined that BAC for automobile refinish coatings 
consists of specific VOC content limits, expressed as mass of VOC per 
volume of coating, for each type of coating as listed in Sec. 59.102. 
Section 183(e) of the Act allows the EPA to consider a wide range of 
strategies and technologies in determining BAC. The determination must 
be based on technological and economic feasibility, as well as on 
health, environmental, and energy impacts. The EPA has determined that, 
in most cases, all or most of a coating's VOC content is emitted during 
use. Therefore, the EPA concluded that limits on the VOC content would 
be the most feasible and least disruptive control measure to obtain 
appropriate VOC emission reductions. In working to comply with State 
VOC rules over the past several years, automobile refinish coating 
manufacturers have already developed low-VOC coatings. The standards 
reflect the degree of emission reduction that the EPA has determined to 
be BAC for different types of automobile refinish coatings. The EPA 
selected the VOC limits based primarily on existing State and local VOC 
emission standards, coating VOC content and sales information, analysis 
of coating technologies, performance considerations, cost 
considerations, market impacts, and stakeholder input.
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the BAC 
selection process involved the selection of coating categories and the 
determination of VOC content limits for those categories. Primers and 
topcoats are the general categories of automobile refinish coatings. 
Decisions to divide these categories into more specific categories was 
a direct consequence of the VOC content levels under consideration. For 
example, the primer category is fairly broad and encompasses several 
coating applications. The determination of the primer (and primer 
surfacer) VOC limit was discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule. 
The creation of a separate category for pretreatment wash primers was 
necessary because the EPA had no information indicating this specific 
primer type could achieve the lower VOC limit of the general primer 
category. The limit selected for the pretreatment wash primer category 
is essentially the VOC level of such primers in use today; therefore, 
the EPA anticipates no emission reductions from this low-usage 
category. The VOC content limit determined to be BAC for another 
category, primer sealers, is lower than the primer limit, since coating 
product information indicates that primer sealers can achieve a lower 
limit.
    Topcoats are also divided into several categories. BAC for single 
and 2-stage topcoats was determined after considering the technical 
feasibility and cost impacts of the use of topcoats at various VOC 
content levels. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, the 
EPA has no information indicating that topcoats of 3 or more stages can 
achieve the same limit as single and 2-stage topcoats; therefore, a 
separate category was created for such topcoats. As a result of a 
public comment, another topcoat category has been added in this final 
rule for multi-colored topcoats. These low-usage coatings are durable 
and wear resistant, and are used mainly for lining the cargo beds of 
trucks. The EPA established the VOC limit for this category based on 
State rules and public comments. The EPA has no information indicating 
that a lower VOC limit can be achieved.
    The specialty coating category contains several coatings designed 
for very specific uses. These coatings do not exist with a wide variety 
of VOC levels. Like pretreatment wash primers, the VOC limit for 
specialty coatings is essentially the VOC level of such coatings 
already in use. This category contains coatings that are used 
infrequently, and the EPA does not anticipate VOC reductions from this 
category.

B. Stakeholder and Public Participation

    The EPA proposed the automobile refinish coatings rule and 
published the preamble in the Federal Register on April 30, 1996 (61 FR 
19005) and

[[Page 48810]]

December 30, 1997 (62 FR 67784). The EPA placed the proposed regulatory 
text, BID, and Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) in a docket open to the 
public at that time and made them available to interested parties. The 
EPA solicited comments at the time of the proposal.
    To provide interested persons the opportunity for oral presentation 
of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed standards, a 
public hearing was held in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina on 
May 30, 1996. Seven people presented oral testimony at this hearing. 
The public comment period was open from April 30, 1996, to July 1, 
1996, and from December 30, 1997, to February 13, 1998. Twenty-six 
comment letters were received. Commenters included industry 
representatives, States, trade associations, and others. The comments 
have been carefully considered, and changes have been made to the 
proposed standards when determined by the Administrator to be 
appropriate. A detailed discussion of these comments and responses can 
be found in the Background Information Document, which is referenced in 
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
    A separate document in today's Federal Register contains a summary 
of public comments and EPA responses regarding the section 183(e) 
study, the Report to Congress, the list of consumer and commercial 
product categories selected for regulation, and the schedule for 
regulation.

III. Summary of Impacts

A. Volatile Organic Compound Reductions

    The proposed standards would reduce nationwide emissions of VOC 
from the use of automobile refinish coatings by an estimated 28,900 Mg 
(31,900 tons). These reductions represent a 33% reduction from the 1995 
baseline emissions estimates. Since many regulated VOC species are also 
on the list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) in section 112 of the 
Act, the proposed rule is expected to reduce some HAP emissions from 
the use of automobile refinish coatings.

B. Health Effects

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

C. Secondary Air, Water, and Solid Waste Impacts

    No significant adverse secondary air, water, or solid waste impacts 
are anticipated from compliance with these standards. Generally, the 
use of low-VOC coatings, a pollution prevention technique, will be used 
to comply with these standards. In cases where conversion from 
solventborne to waterborne coatings is the method used to achieve 
compliance, an increase in wastewater discharge may occur if waste from 
the manufacture of waterborne coatings is discharged by manufacturers 
to publicly owned treatment works.
    The regulations do not impact existing product inventories. 
Products manufactured before the compliance deadline are not affected. 
Excluding existing product inventories from the regulations will 
eliminate any incremental solid waste increase due to discarded unsold 
products. The new products are not expected to require any more 
packaging than existing products, and thus the volume of discarded 
packaging should not increase.

D. Energy Impacts

    The EPA anticipates no increase in energy usage as a result of this 
rule. The standards do not require the use of control devices that 
utilize energy to reduce the amount of VOC emitted to the air. The EPA 
is also not aware of any incremental energy use increase expected from 
the production of new formulations of automobile refinish coatings and 
coating components.

E. Cost and Economic Impacts

    The total cost of this rule includes coating manufacturer process 
modification costs, and costs for training coating manufacturer 
representatives, distributors, and body shop personnel. The annual cost 
of this rule is 4.5 million dollars (1993 dollars), or about $160 per 
megagram of VOC emissions reductions. This cost per megagram of VOC 
emission reduction makes this rule an economically efficient means of 
obtaining VOC emission reductions, when compared to the cost per 
megagram of reduction potentially available through other control 
measures. Economic impacts are predicted to be minimal with a maximum 
price increase of two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) or less, and a 0.02% 
increase in the cost of an average repair job. Small business impacts 
are not expected to be significant.

IV. Significant Comments and Changes to the Proposed Standards

    The EPA received a total of 26 comment letters on the proposed 
rule. In addition, 7 speakers presented testimony at a public hearing 
held in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, on May 30, 1996. The 
more significant comments on the rule are discussed in this section of 
the preamble. A complete summary of comments and the EPA's full 
responses are presented in the BID for the promulgated rule, as 
referenced in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
    In response to public comments on the proposed standards, the EPA 
has made several changes to the final rule. While most of the changes 
are clarifications designed to make the Agency's intent clearer, the 
EPA did make changes to the proposed rule based upon comments received. 
The changes include:
     Addition of definitions for ``automobile refinish coating 
component,'' ``low-gloss coating,'' and ``multi-colored topcoat,''
     Exemption of lacquer topcoats,
     Clarification of the requirements for coatings with 
multiple uses,
     Addition of the multi-colored topcoat category, and
     Reorganization of the rule for clarity.
    The following sections of the preamble discuss the most significant 
issues raised by commenters and the EPA's responses to them.

A. Applicability

    Several commenters supported including manufacturers and importers 
of automobile refinish coating components, such as thinners and 
hardeners, as regulated entities. The commenters stated that excluding 
coating component manufacturers and importers would likely result in 
the use of coatings with VOC levels higher than the proposed standards, 
since these components would not be required to be part of a compliant 
coating system.
    Regulated entities under the April 30, 1996, proposed rule included 
only manufacturers and importers of complete automobile refinish 
coatings. The VOC content of an automobile refinish coating depends, 
however, on

[[Page 48811]]

the VOC content levels of all components that make up the coating. 
Coating users sometimes combine components made by multiple 
manufacturers when preparing a coating. Since components themselves are 
not coatings, a manufacturer who produces only hardeners, for example, 
would not have been subject to the April 1996 proposed rule. Such a 
manufacturer could recommend that its hardener be combined with 
components of other manufacturers, possibly resulting in a coating that 
exceeds the VOC content standards of the rule. Such a situation could 
essentially undermine the VOC emission reductions of the rule.
    The EPA proposed in a supplemental notice (December 30, 1997, 62 FR 
67784) to include as regulated entities all manufacturers and importers 
of automobile refinish coatings or coating components. The EPA also 
proposed a mechanism for determining compliance with the rule for 
coatings consisting of components made or imported by multiple 
entities. Under this approach, manufacturers and importers of coatings 
or coating components must comply with the VOC content limits for 
complete coatings by calculating the VOC content of coatings that 
result from the use of their components in accordance with their 
recommendations.
    Determining compliance for coatings consisting of components made 
or imported by one regulated entity is relatively easy. In general, 
compliance would be determined by ``spot checking,'' where the EPA (or 
the regulated entity, if requested by the EPA) would obtain coating 
components, mix the components in the ratios recommended by the 
regulated entity (on the containers or in any product literature), and 
analyze the resulting coating using Method 24. The EPA considered 
requiring regulated entities to perform VOC testing of their coatings 
on a regular basis (e.g., every nth batch) to demonstrate compliance 
with the rule, but believes that such a requirement would be 
economically burdensome. The EPA believes that random spot checks will 
be adequate to encourage regulated entities to assure that all of their 
coating batches are compliant.
    Determining the compliance of coatings that consist of components 
made or imported by multiple regulated entities is more difficult. The 
EPA considered several options for determining compliance in these 
cases. The EPA considered requiring regulated entities (that recommend 
the use of their components with those of other regulated entities) to 
use Method 24 to test the coatings resulting from their 
recommendations. Using this information, the entities could establish 
the maximum allowable VOC content of their components, and the EPA 
would spot check components to determine compliance. However, the EPA 
has no standard method for determining the VOC content of individual 
components. Also, the VOC content of a coating is not simply the sum of 
the VOC contents its components, so component VOC content is not 
necessarily an indicator of the VOC content of the overall coating. 
Therefore, the EPA believes it is technically infeasible to determine 
compliance using component VOC content information.
    Because of the technical infeasibility of the approach described 
above, the EPA has concluded that the responsibility for coatings 
should be based on product recommendations. In other words, if an 
entity recommends a combination of components (made or imported by one 
or more regulated entities), then that entity is responsible for the 
compliance of the resulting coating. There may be cases where a coating 
resulting from an entity's recommendation is noncompliant because of 
the components of other entities. Since this occurrence may be beyond 
the control of the recommending entity, the Agency determined that it 
would be appropriate to provide regulated entities with a means to 
establish their compliance with the rule, and the Agency solicited 
comments on such a mechanism. In this event, the final rule provides 
regulated entities the opportunity to submit new or existing Method 24 
test data demonstrating the compliance of the coating resulting from 
their recommendation. This option is technically feasible, and is 
appropriate since compliance is determined in essentially the same way 
for all regulated entities.
    It is important to note that regulated entities would be liable 
only for the VOC content of the coatings that result from their 
recommendations. For example, if a regulated entity recommends that 
three of its coating components be combined and used in automobile 
refinishing, it is responsible for the coating that results from that 
combination. If a regulated entity recommends the substitution of one 
of its components for that of another regulated entity, the former 
entity is responsible for the resulting coating. A regulated entity is 
not responsible for coatings resulting from the recommendations of 
others, even if such recommendations involve the use of components of 
that regulated entity.

B. Lacquer Topcoats

    In the proposed rule, the EPA indicated that it was considering 
exempting lacquer topcoats from the rule or including them in a 
specialty coating category and limiting their production. Several 
commenters supported the exemption of lacquer topcoats from the rule 
because they account for only 5-10% of coating usage, and their use is 
decreasing because automobile manufacturers use other coating types on 
new automobiles. These commenters stated that lacquers are used mainly 
by hobbyists who wish to restore vehicles to their original condition, 
including the paint finish. One commenter stated the use of lacquers to 
refinish modern vehicles is untenable because of inferior durability 
and aesthetics.
    Another commenter stated that the EPA should classify lacquer 
topcoats as specialty coatings and consider limiting their production, 
since an exemption for lacquers would create inconsistencies between 
the national rule and State rules that do not exempt them. The 
commenter stated that limiting lacquer production would aid in the 
compliance with State rules.
    The EPA has determined that it is appropriate to exempt lacquer 
topcoats from the final rule. The EPA agrees lacquer topcoats are less 
desirable than other coating types for refinishing modern automobiles, 
and that their use is therefore not likely to increase since they are 
not used on new automobiles. Lacquers are not as durable as other 
coatings. Since they dry by solvent evaporation alone (rather than 
through chemical crosslinking), they are not resistant to solvent 
attack. Although other coatings generally can be used to refinish 
antique and classic automobiles, the finish would not be the 
``original'' finish desired by users in this niche of automobile 
refinishing. The EPA exempted lacquer topcoats from the final rule 
because their use is decreasing, their contribution to the total VOC 
emissions is small, they fill a niche in the automobile refinish 
industry, and they cannot be reformulated to meet the VOC content limit 
for topcoats.
    Including lacquer topcoats in a specialty coating category and 
limiting their production, as suggested by one commenter, does not 
appear to be a viable option. First, production limits set 
significantly below current usage levels would cause shortages of 
lacquer topcoats. Such shortages would restrict consumer access to the 
product. Second,

[[Page 48812]]

production limits set at or near current usage levels would be 
equivalent to an exemption, since lacquer topcoat usage is not likely 
to increase. The additional recordkeeping necessary to make a 
production limit enforceable would be burdensome on both regulated 
entities and the EPA. For these reasons, the EPA decided against the 
creation of a specialty category with limits on production for lacquer 
topcoats.
    Some commenters noted that an exemption would lead to an 
inconsistency between State and federal rules for this coating type. 
The EPA acknowledges that an exemption for lacquer topcoats under the 
national rule may make the rule less stringent than some State rules, 
but the EPA notes that States may still choose to be more stringent 
than the national rule by the inclusion of such coatings in their own 
rules.

C. Specialty Coatings

    In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA requested comments on 
methods to determine and enforce production limits for specialty 
coatings. Production limits were considered by the EPA as a way to 
prevent abuse of an open-ended definition of specialty coatings. 
Several commenters on the proposed rule stated that an open-ended 
definition of specialty coatings would allow refinish coating 
manufacturers to produce coatings compatible with new substrates and 
coatings used on new vehicles.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA discussed the 
difficulties associated with specialty coating production limits. Since 
some specialty coatings are just modifications of other coatings, it is 
unclear what should be limited. Also, production limits would adversely 
affect manufacturers and importers that produce primarily specialty 
coatings. Several commenters reiterated these concerns, but no comments 
were received suggesting production limits or how such limits could be 
determined or enforced. Therefore, the final rule does not include 
production limits for specialty coatings.

D. Test Methods

    One commenter stated that the EPA had not designated a reliable 
test method for determining the acid content of pretreatment wash 
primers. The proposed method, ASTM Test Method D 1613-91, covers the 
determination of total acidity in organic compound and hydrocarbon 
mixtures used in paints and other substances. This method consists of a 
titration using a color indicator to determine the endpoint of the 
titration. The EPA agrees that since some pretreatment wash primers are 
pigmented, tests using color indicators may not work. However, the 
proposed method can be used to determine the acid content of the acid-
containing component of the primer, which does not contain the pigment.
    Pretreatment wash primers typically consist of two components: a 
``base'' coating and a catalyst. The base contains the pigment, and the 
catalyst contains the acid. The catalyst is a mixture of organic 
compounds that contains acid; therefore, it is in the scope of the 
proposed method. To determine the overall weight percent of acid in the 
primer, calculations must be performed that involve the acid content of 
the catalyst and the mixing ratio of the base to the catalyst. The EPA 
proposed this use of ASTM Test Method D 1613-91 in the December 30, 
1997, supplemental proposal. Several commenters agreed with this use of 
the method. One commenter on the supplemental proposal, however, stated 
that coating manufacturers may develop a single component pretreatment 
wash primer, and wondered what method would be used in such cases. 
Since no such coatings currently exist, the EPA has not proposed a test 
method for them; however, the final rule does contain a provision which 
allows the use of alternative methods when warranted.

E. Coatings With Multiple Uses

    Several commenters recommended clarification of a proposed rule 
provision dealing with coatings having multiple uses. One commenter 
stated that a topcoat modified for a specific purpose, thus making it a 
specialty coating, can be interpreted to be noncompliant under the 
proposed rule if it does not meet the topcoat limit, which is the 
lowest applicable VOC content standard.
    To avoid confusion, the EPA has removed the provision mentioned by 
the commenters. The EPA's intent in the proposed provision was to 
clarify that if the same combination (and mixing ratio) of coating 
components were recommended for use in more than one coating category, 
then the lowest VOC content standard would apply. Different 
combinations and/or mixing ratios of coating components are considered 
different coatings. The modified topcoat described by a commenter is 
not considered a topcoat if it meets the definition of a specialty 
coating; therefore, it would not be required to meet the topcoat VOC 
content standard. A provision has been added to the final rule 
(Sec. 59.102(b)) for clarification.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket 
is a dynamic file, since material is added throughout the rulemaking 
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents 
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
Along with the statement of basis and purpose of the proposed and 
promulgated standards and the EPA responses to significant comments, 
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in case of judicial 
review [see 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(A)].

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the 
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and 
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0353.
    The information collections required under this rule are needed as 
part of the overall compliance and enforcement program. The information 
will be used by the EPA to identify the regulated entities subject to 
the rule and to ensure their compliance with the rule. The reporting 
and labeling requirements are mandatory and are being established under 
sections 114 and 183(e) of the Act. All information submitted to the 
EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded 
according to the EPA policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, 
Subpart B--Confidentiality of Information (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 
FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
    The only information collection requirements of the rule are for 
labeling and reporting. To determine whether a coating or coating 
component is manufactured before or after the compliance date of the 
rule, the date of manufacture, or code representing the date, must 
appear on the container. Manufacturers currently include this 
information on containers. The rule requires all coating or coating 
component manufacturers and importers to submit an initial report 
containing their name and mailing address, an explanation of coating or 
coating component date codes, if codes are used to represent the date 
of

[[Page 48813]]

manufacture or import, and a list of facilities where coatings or 
coating components are manufactured or imported. Reporting beyond the 
initial report is required only for the explanation of any new date 
codes used by manufacturers or importers, and for requests for 
variances. The information to be reported is not of a sensitive nature.
    The EPA estimated the cost and hour burden of the information 
collection requirements of the rule. Burden means the total time, 
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, 
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a 
Federal agency.
    This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, 
acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes 
of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and 
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; 
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable 
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to 
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review 
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the 
information.
    The initial report must be submitted by all coating or coating 
component manufacturers and importers. Averaged over a 3 year period, 
the EPA estimates that the initial report will require 8 hours to 
complete, and will be submitted by 10 respondents annually. Beyond the 
initial report, the EPA estimates that 3 respondents per year will 
spend 2 hours each reporting the explanations of any new date codes 
used. The total annual cost of the reporting requirements of the 
proposed rule is $3,200.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. 
The EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved 
information collection request control numbers issued by OMB for 
various regulations to list the information requirements contained in 
this final rule.

C. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the 
EPA must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of this Executive 
Order to prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of 
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere 
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the executive 
order.
    Pursuant to the terms of the executive order, the EPA has 
determined that this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' within the meaning of the executive order.

D. Executive Order 12875

    To reduce the burden of federal regulations on States and small 
governments, the President issued Executive Order 12875 on October 26, 
1993, entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. In 
particular, this executive order is designed to require agencies to 
assess the effects of regulations that are not required by statute and 
that create mandates upon State, local, or tribal governments. This 
regulation does not create mandates upon State, local, or tribal 
governments.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA), requires the EPA to give special consideration to the 
effect of Federal regulations on small entities and to consider 
regulatory options that might mitigate any such impacts. The EPA is 
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis, including 
consideration of regulatory options for reducing any significant 
impacts, unless the Agency determines that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    The EPA performed an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
to determine the extent of any impacts under the proposed rule. This 
IRFA was included in the docket for the proposed rule. In the 
supplemental proposal, the EPA proposed to expand the class of 
regulated entities to include all automobile refinish coating component 
manufacturers and importers.
    The EPA estimates there are about 20-25 companies producing 
automobile refinish coatings and coating components. At least 10 of 
these are large companies that have the majority of the industry market 
share. The EPA believes that the remaining 10-15 companies have fewer 
than 500 employees and are therefore small entities in accordance with 
Small Business Administration regulations applicable to this rule. 
Several of the small companies produce only thinners and reducers. The 
thinners/reducers used in low-VOC coatings are not significantly 
different from those used in conventional coatings; therefore, the rule 
will not have a significant impact on manufacturers of thinners/
reducers because little, if any, reformulation of these components will 
be necessary under the rule. Some of the remaining small companies 
already produce low-VOC coatings and coating components because they 
operate in areas that already have State or local automobile refinish 
rules in effect. Most State and local rules are at least as stringent 
as the national rule. The EPA concludes, therefore, that the rule will 
not have a significant impact on these companies.
    The remaining small companies will be impacted by the rule, but the 
EPA believes that the impact will not be significant. The impacts of 
the rule are from process modifications, training, and reporting 
requirements, as discussed in the IRFA. Process modifications are those 
changes that may be necessary for the production of low-VOC (high-
solids) coatings, including the use of different mixing and pumping 
equipment. Some manufacturers affected by State and local rules have 
already complied with those rules by changing the recommended mixing 
ratios of components and have not changed the components themselves in 
a significant way; therefore, few process modifications have likely 
been necessary in these cases. Where process modifications are 
necessary, their impact will not be significant; when such impacts are 
examined assuming that they will be passed on to the user (as was done 
in the IFRA), the impacts do not significantly affect the cost of 
coatings or refinish jobs.
    The EPA believes that the impacts from training and reporting

[[Page 48814]]

requirements of the final rule will be minimal. Many States have 
developed automobile refinish rules since the time the impacts analysis 
for the proposed national rule was performed, and the regulated 
entities have already taken steps to comply with such regulations. It 
is likely that most, if not all, regulated entities are already 
familiar with low-VOC coatings; therefore, the need for training (and, 
thus, training costs) are likely overstated in the analysis for the 
proposed rule. Training was estimated to cost less than $500 per 
individual for the proposed rule. For small entities with few employees 
needing training, this cost would not be significant. Reporting 
requirements of the proposed rule consisted of an initial report that 
provides the EPA with basic information about regulated entities (name, 
location, etc.), and periodic reports (if necessary) to explain any new 
date codes that regulated entities may use to indicate the manufacture 
date of components. The EPA has retained the same labeling and 
reporting requirements in the final rule. Given the limited nature of 
the reporting requirements, the EPA believes that the impact of the 
reporting requirements of the final rule will not be significant.
    The EPA does not have data sufficient to quantify precisely the 
impact of the rule by measures such as percentage of sales, but the 
nature of the impacts are such that the impacts will be small. The EPA 
bases this conclusion upon the information that was reasonably 
available to the Agency.
    There are several aspects of the final rule which the EPA has 
included to minimize any impacts to small entities. First, the EPA has 
not required regulated entities to perform initial VOC testing of 
coatings or coating components or any of the coatings that might result 
from the combination of the entity's components with those of other 
regulated entities. The EPA believes that such an approach would have 
required regulated entities to perform numerous tests which, in the 
aggregate, could have imposed significant costs upon regulated 
entities. The EPA believes that such a requirement could have a 
disproportionate impact upon small entities. Instead, the EPA has 
linked responsibility for a coating's compliance with the regulated 
entity's recommendations for use. The EPA will assure compliance by 
``spot-checking'' the VOC content of the coatings that result from such 
recommendations.
    Second, the EPA has not required regulated entities to perform 
periodic VOC testing of coating or coating component batches. The EPA 
considered requiring regulated entities periodically to test batches of 
their coatings or coating components to ensure that the VOC content of 
coatings resulting from the combination of such components would be 
compliant. As discussed above, compliance with the rule will be 
determined by the spot-checking of coatings. Regulated entities may 
rely on formulation data only to assure themselves of their compliance, 
or they may decide to perform some VOC testing for this purpose, but 
the EPA is not requiring batch testing. The EPA believes that not 
requiring batch testing will limit the impact upon regulated entities 
and, in particular, will help to alleviate impacts upon small entities.
    Finally, the EPA has not required recordkeeping by regulated 
entities. The EPA considered requiring regulated entities to maintain 
records containing information on coating and coating component batches 
but determined that such records would not aid significantly in the 
enforcement of the standard. As stated above, the only reporting 
requirements are an initial report that allows the EPA to determine the 
universe of regulated entities, and reports that explain date codes if 
such codes are used to indicate the date of manufacture. The EPA 
believes that minimization of recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
will help to decrease impacts upon small entities.
    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. 
Based on the results of the analysis at proposal (which was unaffected 
by public comments), the EPA concluded that this rule does not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Under 
section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-effective and least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is 
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to 
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that 
may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    Based upon the analysis presented in the EIA, the EPA has 
determined that the action promulgated today does not include a Federal 
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to 
either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector, in any one year. Therefore, the requirements of 
Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not apply 
to this action. The EPA has likewise determined that the final rule 
does not include regulatory requirements that would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's action is not subject 
to the requirements of section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq., as added 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing 
this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A 
Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. Sec. 804(2). This rule will be effective September 11, 1998.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (the NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires the 
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    Today's rule includes three test methods. To determine the VOC 
content of coatings, this rule specifies the use of

[[Page 48815]]

the EPA's Method 24. This method describes how to determine VOC content 
using several American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
methods. To determine the acid content of pretreatment wash primers, 
and to determine the specular gloss of topcoats, this rule specifies 
the use of other ASTM methods. The EPA proposed these voluntary 
consensus standards and received no adverse comment on their use for 
the stated purposes. In preparing the final rule, however, the EPA has 
investigated to determine the availability of any other existing 
voluntary consensus standards for use in lieu of the proposed methods. 
The EPA has searched for additional voluntary consensus standards that 
might be applicable. The search included use of the National Standards 
System Network, an automated service provided by the American National 
Standards Institute for identifying available national and 
international standards. The EPA has not identified any voluntary 
consensus standards that are not presently included in Method 24 and 
that would result in equivalent results. The EPA did identify another 
voluntary consensus method (ASTM D-3960) that provides instructions for 
calculating VOC content in many different units. Because this other 
method does not specify which units to use, it may result in 
inconsistent applications of the procedure and could make the standard 
more difficult to enforce. Consequently, the EPA determined that this 
other voluntary consensus method would be impractical to adopt. In 
addition, the EPA believes that it is appropriate to use Method 24 both 
because it has proven reliable and practical to achieve the goals of 
reducing VOC and because the EPA wishes to foster uniformity in testing 
nationwide. Accordingly, the EPA has determined that Method 24 
constitutes the appropriate method for determining product compliance 
under this final rule. The EPA has located no alternative voluntary 
consensus standards more appropriate than those included in today's 
rule.

I. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that the EPA determines 
(1) is economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, 
and (2) for which the environmental health or safety risk addressed by 
the rule has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not an economically 
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and 
it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that would 
have a disproportionate effect on children.

Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation 
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA 
provides to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the 
prior consultation and communications the agency has had with 
representatives of tribal governments and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and 
other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies 
on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' 
Information available to the Administrator does not indicate that this 
action will have any effect on Indian tribal governments.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 59

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Automobile 
refinishing, Consumer and commercial products, Incorporation by 
reference, Ozone, Volatile organic compound.

    Dated: August 14, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

    1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344, 
1345(d), and (e), 1381; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 
Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-i, 
300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-
7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

    2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding the new entries and a heading 
to the table in numerical order to read as follows:


Sec. 9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  OMB   
                       40 CFR citation                          control 
                                                                  No.   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                  *        *        *        *        *                 
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for               
 Automobile Refinish Coatings:                                          
  59.105....................................................   2060-0353
                                                                        
                  *        *        *        *        *                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Part 59 is added to read as follows:

PART 59--NATIONAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION STANDARDS FOR 
CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS

Subpart A [Reserved]

Subpart B--National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards 
for Automobile Refinish Coatings

Sec.
59.100  Applicability and designation of regulated entity.
59.101  Definitions.
59.102  Standards.
59.103  Container labeling requirements.
59.104  Compliance provisions.
59.105  Reporting requirements.
59.106  Variance.
59.107  Addresses of EPA Regional offices.
59.108  State Authority.
59.109  Circumvention.
59.110  Incorporations by reference.
59.111  Availability of information and confidentiality.
Table 1 to Subpart B--Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content Limits 
for Automobile Refinish Coatings

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7511b(e).

[[Page 48816]]

Subpart A--[Reserved]

Subpart B--National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards 
for Automobile Refinish Coatings


Sec. 59.100  Applicability and designation of regulated entity.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to automobile refinish 
coatings and coating components manufactured on or after January 11, 
1999 for sale or distribution in the United States.
    (b) Regulated entities are manufacturers and importers of 
automobile refinish coatings or coating components that sell or 
distribute these coatings or coating components in the United States.
    (c) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to automobile 
refinish coatings or coating components meeting the criteria in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this section.
    (1) Coatings or coating components that are manufactured (in or 
outside the United States) exclusively for sale outside the United 
States.
    (2) Coatings or coating components that are manufactured (in or 
outside the United States) before January 11, 1999.
    (3) Coatings or coating components that are manufactured (in or 
outside the United States) for use by original equipment manufacturers.
    (4) Coatings that are sold in nonrefillable aerosol containers.
    (5) Lacquer topcoats or their components.
    (6) Touch-up coatings.


Sec. 59.101  Definitions.

    Adhesion promoter means a coating designed to facilitate the 
bonding of a primer or topcoat on surfaces such as trim moldings, door 
locks, and door sills, where sanding is impracticable, and on plastic 
parts and the edges of sanded areas.
    Administrator means the Administrator of the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or an authorized 
representative.
    Automobile means passenger cars, vans, motorcycles, trucks, and all 
other mobile equipment.
    Automobile refinish coating component means any portion of a 
coating, such as a reducer or thinner, hardener, additive, etc., 
recommended (by its manufacturer or importer) to distributors or end-
users for automobile refinishing. The raw materials used to produce the 
components that are mixed by the end-user to prepare a coating for 
application are not considered automobile refinish coating components. 
Any reference to automobile refinishing made by a manufacturer or 
importer on a container or in product literature constitutes a 
recommendation for automobile refinishing.
    Automobile refinish coating or coating component importer, or 
importer, means any company, group, or individual that brings 
automobile refinish coatings or coating components from a location 
outside the United States into the United States for sale or 
distribution in the United States.
    Automobile refinish coating or coating component manufacturer, or 
manufacturer, means any company, group, or individual that produces or 
packages automobile refinish coatings or coating components for sale or 
distribution in the United States, including an entity which produces 
or packages such coatings or coating components under a private label 
for another party.
    Automobile refinishing means the process of coating automobiles or 
their parts, including partial body collision repairs, that is 
subsequent to the original coating applied at an automobile original 
equipment manufacturing plant.
    Container means the individual receptacle that holds a coating or 
coating component for storage and distribution.
    Cut-in, or jambing, clearcoat means a fast-drying, ready-to-spray 
clearcoat applied to surfaces such as door jambs and trunk and hood 
edges to allow for quick closure.
    Elastomeric coating means a coating designed for application over 
flexible parts, such as elastomeric bumpers.
    Exempt compounds means specific organic compounds that are not 
considered volatile organic compounds due to negligible photochemical 
reactivity. The exempt compounds are specified in Sec. 51.100(s) of 
this chapter.
    Hardener means a coating component specifically designed to promote 
a faster cure of an enamel finish.
    Impact-resistant coating means a coating designed to resist 
chipping caused by road debris.
    Label means any written, printed, or graphic matter affixed to or 
appearing upon any automobile refinish coating or coating component 
container or package for purposes of identifying or giving information 
on the product, use of the product, or contents of the container or 
package.
    Lacquer means a thermoplastic coating which dries primarily by 
solvent evaporation, and which is resoluble in its original solvent.
    Low-gloss coating means a coating which exhibits a gloss reading 
less than or equal to 25 on a 60 deg. glossmeter.
    Mixing instructions means the coating or coating component 
manufacturer's or importer's specification of the quantities of coating 
components for mixing a coating.
    Mobile equipment means any equipment that is physically capable of 
being driven or drawn upon a highway including, but not limited to, the 
following types of equipment: construction vehicles (such as mobile 
cranes, bulldozers, concrete mixers); farming equipment (wheel tractor, 
plow, pesticide sprayer); hauling equipment (truck trailers, utility 
bodies, camper shells); and miscellaneous equipment (street cleaners, 
golf carts).
    Multi-colored topcoat means a topcoat that exhibits more than one 
color, is packaged in a single container, and camouflages surface 
defects on areas of heavy use, such as cargo beds and other surfaces of 
trucks and other utility vehicles.
    Pretreatment wash primer means a primer that contains a minimum of 
0.5 percent acid, by weight, that is applied directly to bare metal 
surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and to promote adhesion of 
subsequent coatings.
    Primer means any coating applied prior to the application of a 
topcoat for the purpose of corrosion resistance and/or adhesion.
    Primer-sealer means any coating applied prior to the application of 
a topcoat for the purpose of corrosion resistance, adhesion of the 
topcoat, and/or color uniformity and to promote the ability of an 
undercoat to resist penetration by the topcoat.
    Primer-surfacer means any coating applied prior to the application 
of a topcoat for the purpose of filling surface imperfections in the 
substrate, corrosion resistance, and/or adhesion of the topcoat.
    Reducer means any solvent used to thin enamels.
    Underbody coating means a coating designed for protection and sound 
deadening that is typically applied to the wheel wells and underbody of 
an automobile.
    Single-stage topcoat means a topcoat consisting of only one 
coating.
    Specialty coatings means adhesion promoters, low-gloss coatings, 
bright metal trim repair coatings, jambing (cut-in) clearcoats, 
elastomeric coatings, impact resistant coatings, underbody coatings, 
uniform finish blenders, and weld-through primers.
    Thinner means any solvent used to reduce the viscosity or solids 
content of a coating.

[[Page 48817]]

    Three-stage topcoat means a topcoat composed of a pigmented 
basecoat, a midcoat, and a transparent clearcoat.
    Topcoat means any coating or series of coatings applied over a 
primer or an existing finish for the purpose of protection or 
beautification.
    Touch-up coating means a coating applied by brush, air-brush, or 
nonrefillable aerosol can to cover minor surface damage.
    Two-stage topcoat means a topcoat consisting of a pigmented 
basecoat and a transparent clearcoat.
    Uniform finish blender means a coating designed to blend a repaired 
topcoat into an existing topcoat.
    United States means the United States of America, including the 
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American 
Samoa, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
    Volatile organic compounds or VOC means any compound of carbon, 
other than those organic compounds that the Administrator has excluded 
in 40 CFR part 51, Sec. 51.100 from this definition.
    VOC content means the weight of VOC per volume of coating, 
calculated according to the procedures in Sec. 59.104(a) of this 
subpart.
    Water hold-out coating means a coating applied to the interior 
cavity areas of doors, quarter panels and rocker panels for the purpose 
of corrosion resistance to prolonged water exposure.
    Weld-through primer means a primer that is applied to an area 
before welding is performed, and that provides corrosion resistance to 
the surface after welding has been performed.


Sec. 59.102  Standards.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec. 59.106 of this subpart, any coating 
resulting from the mixing instructions of a regulated entity must meet 
the VOC content limit given in table 1 of this subpart. VOC content is 
determined according to Sec. 59.104(a).
    (b) Different combinations or mixing ratios of coating components 
constitute different coatings. For example, coating components may be 
mixed one way to make a primer, and mixed another way to make a primer 
sealer. Each of these coatings must meet its corresponding VOC content 
limit in table 1 of this subpart. If the same combination and mixing 
ratio of coating components is recommended by a regulated entity for 
use in more than one category in table 1 of this subpart, then the most 
restrictive VOC content limit shall apply.


Sec. 59.103  Container labeling requirements.

    Each regulated entity subject to this subpart must clearly display 
on each automobile refinish coating or coating component container or 
package, the day, month, and year on which the product was 
manufactured, or a code indicating such date.


Sec. 59.104  Compliance provisions.

    (a) For the purpose of determining compliance with the VOC content 
limits in Sec. 59.102(a) of this subpart, each regulated entity shall 
determine the VOC content of a coating using the procedures described 
in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, as appropriate.
    (1) Determine the VOC content in grams of VOC per liter of coating 
prepared for application according to its mixing instructions, 
excluding the volume of any water or exempt compounds. VOC content 
shall be calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.000

Where:

VOC content = grams of VOC per liter of coating;
Wv = mass of total volatiles, in grams;
Ww = mass of water, in grams;
Wec = mass of exempt compounds, in grams;
V = volume of coating, in liters;
Vw = volume of water, in liters; and
Vec = volume of exempt compounds, in liters.

    (2) The VOC content of a multi-stage topcoat shall be calculated 
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE98.001

Where:

VOCmulti = VOC content of a multi-stage topcoat, in grams of 
VOC per liter of coating;
VOCbc = VOC content of the basecoat, as determined in 
paragraph (a)(1) or (f) of this section;
VOCmci = VOC content of midcoat i, as determined in 
paragraph (a)(1) or (f) of this section;
VOCcc = VOC content of the clearcoat, as determined in 
paragraph (a)(1) or (f) of this section; and
M = Number of midcoats.
    (b) To determine the composition of a coating in order to perform 
the calculations in paragraph (a) of this section, the reference method 
for VOC content is Method 24 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, except as 
provided in paragraph (f) of this section. To determine the VOC content 
of a coating, the regulated entity may use Method 24 of appendix A of 
40 CFR part 60, an alternative method as provided in paragraph (f) of 
this section, or any other reasonable means for predicting that the 
coating has been formulated as intended (e.g., quality assurance 
checks, recordkeeping). However, if there are any inconsistencies 
between the results of a Method 24 test and any other means for 
determining VOC content, the Method 24 test results will govern. The 
Administrator may require the regulated to conduct a Method 24 
analysis.
    (c) If a regulated entity recommends that its coating component(s) 
be combined with coating components of another regulated entity, and if 
the coating resulting from such a combination does not comply with the 
VOC content limit in Sec. 59.102 (a) of this subpart, then the former 
regulated entity is out of compliance, unless the entity submits Method 
24 data to the Administrator demonstrating that its recommended 
combination of coating components meets the VOC content limit in 
Sec. 59.102(a). If the latter regulated entity does not make the 
recommendation of such use of the coating components, then that entity 
is not out of compliance for purposes of that resulting coating.
    (d) Pretreatment wash primers: Except as provided in paragraph (f) 
of this section, the acid weight percent of pretreatment wash primers 
must be determined using the American Society for Testing and Materials 
Test Method D 1613-96 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 59.110). If 
the pigment in a pretreatment wash primer prevents the use of this test 
method for determining the acid weight percent of the coating, then the 
test method shall be used for the nonpigmented component of the 
coating, and the acid weight percent shall be calculated based on the 
acid content of the nonpigmented component and the mixing ratio of the 
nonpigmented component to the remaining components recommended by the 
regulated entity.
    (e) Low-gloss coatings: Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this 
section, the gloss reading of low-gloss coatings must be determined 
using the American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method D 523-
89 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 59.110).
    (f) The Administrator may approve, on a case-by-case basis, a 
regulated entity's use of an alternative method in lieu of Method 24 
for determining the VOC content of coatings if the alternative method 
is demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction to provide results 
that are acceptable for purposes of determining compliance with this 
subpart.

[[Page 48818]]

    (g) The Administrator may determine a regulated entity's compliance 
with the provisions of this subpart based on information required by 
this subpart or any other information available to the Administrator.


Sec. 59.105  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Each regulated entity must submit an initial report no later 
than January 11, 1999 or within 180 days of the date that the regulated 
entity first manufactures or imports automobile refinish coatings or 
coating components, whichever is later. The initial report must include 
the information in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.
    (1) The name and mailing address of the regulated entity.
    (2) An explanation of each date code, if such codes are used to 
represent the date of manufacture, as provided in Sec. 59.103.
    (3) The street address of each of the regulated entity's facilities 
in the United States that is producing, packaging, or importing 
automobile refinish coatings or coating components subject to the 
provisions of this subpart.
    (4) A list of the categories from table 1 of this subpart for which 
the regulated entity recommends the use of automobile refinish coatings 
or coating components.
    (b) Each regulated entity must submit an explanation of any new 
date codes used by the regulated entity no later than 30 days after 
products bearing the new date code are first introduced into commerce.


Sec. 59.106  Variance.

    (a) Any regulated entity that cannot comply with the requirements 
of this subpart because of circumstances beyond its reasonable control 
may apply in writing to the Administrator for a temporary variance. The 
variance application must include the information specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3).
    (1) The specific grounds upon which the variance is sought.
    (2) The proposed date(s) by which the regulated entity will achieve 
compliance with the provisions of this subpart. This date must be no 
later than 5 years after the issuance of a variance.
    (3) A compliance plan detailing the method(s) by which the 
regulated entity will achieve compliance with the provisions of this 
subpart.
    (b) Upon receipt of a variance application containing the 
information required in paragraph (a) of this section, the 
Administrator will publish a notice of such application in the Federal 
Register and, if requested by any party, will hold a public hearing to 
determine whether, under what conditions, and to what extent, a 
variance from the requirements of this subpart is necessary and will be 
granted. If requested, a hearing will be held no later than 75 days 
after receipt of a variance application. Notice of the time and place 
of the hearing will be sent to the applicant by certified mail not less 
than 30 days prior to the hearing. At least 30 days prior to the 
hearing, the variance application will be made available to the public 
for inspection. Information submitted to the Administrator by a 
variance applicant may be claimed as confidential. The Administrator 
may consider such confidential information in reaching a decision on a 
variance application. Interested members of the public will be allowed 
a reasonable opportunity to testify at the hearing.
    (c) The Administrator will issue a variance if the criteria 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are met to the satisfaction 
of the Administrator.
    (1) If complying with the provisions of this subpart would not be 
technologically or economically feasible, and
    (2) The compliance plan proposed by the applicant can reasonably be 
implemented and will achieve compliance as expeditiously as possible.
    (d) Any variance will specify dates by which the regulated entity 
will achieve increments of progress towards compliance, and will 
specify a final compliance date by which the regulated entity will 
achieve compliance with this subpart.
    (e) A variance will cease to be effective upon failure of the party 
to whom the variance was issued to comply with any term or condition of 
the variance.
    (f) Upon the application of any party, the Administrator may review 
and, for good cause, modify or revoke a variance after holding a public 
hearing in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this 
section.


Sec. 59.107  Addresses of EPA Regional Offices.

    All requests, reports, submittals, and other communications to the 
Administrator pursuant to this regulation shall be submitted to the 
Regional Office of the EPA which serves the State or territory in which 
the corporate headquarters of the regulated entity resides. These areas 
are indicated in the following list of EPA Regional Offices.

    EPA Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
Rhode Island, Vermont), Director, Office of Environmental 
Stewardship, Mailcode: SAA, JFK Building, Boston, MA 02203.
    EPA Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin 
Islands), Director, Division of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assistance, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866.
    EPA Region III (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, 
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia), Air Protection Division, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
    EPA Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee), Director, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics, Management Division, 345 Courtland Street, 
NE., Atlanta, GA 30365.
    EPA Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, 
Wisconsin), Director, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507.
    EPA Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, 
Texas), Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
    EPA Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska), Director, Air 
and Toxics Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101.
    EPA Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, 
Utah, Wyoming), Director, Air and Toxics Division, 999 18th Street, 
1 Denver Place, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2405.
    EPA Region IX (American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, 
Hawaii, Nevada), Director, Air and Toxics Division, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    EPA Region X (Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Washington), Director, Air 
and Toxics Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.


Sec. 59.108  State Authority.

    The provisions in this regulation shall not be construed in any 
manner to preclude any State or political subdivision thereof from:
    (a) Adopting and enforcing any emission standard or limitation 
applicable to a manufacturer or importer of automobile refinish 
coatings or components in addition to the requirements of this subpart.
    (b) Requiring the manufacturer or importer of automobile refinish 
coatings or components to obtain permits, licenses, or approvals prior 
to initiating construction, modification, or operation of a facility 
for manufacturing an automobile refinish coating component.


Sec. 59.109  Circumvention.

    Each manufacturer and importer of any automobile refinish coating 
or component subject to the provisions of this subpart must not alter, 
destroy, or falsify any record or report, to conceal what would 
otherwise be noncompliance with this subpart. Such concealment 
includes, but is not limited to, refusing to provide the Administrator 
access to all required records and date-

[[Page 48819]]

coding information, altering the VOC content of a coating or component 
batch, or altering the results of any required tests to determine VOC 
content.


Sec. 59.110  Incorporations by Reference.

    (a) The following material is incorporated by reference in the 
paragraphs noted in Sec. 59.104. These incorporations by reference were 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These materials are incorporated as 
they exist on the date of the approval, and notice of any changes in 
these materials will be published in the Federal Register.
    (1) ASTM D 1613-96, Standard Test Method for Acidity in Volatile 
Solvents and Chemical Intermediates Used in Paint, Varnish, Lacquer, 
and Related Products, IBR approved for Sec. 59.104(d).
    (2) ASTM D 523-89, Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss, IBR 
approved for Sec. 59.104(e).
    (b) The materials are available for inspection at the Office of the 
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, 
DC; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, 401 
M Street, SW, Washington, DC; and at the EPA Library (MD-35), U.S. EPA, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The materials are available for 
purchase from the following address: American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428, 
telephone number (610) 832-9500.


Sec. 59.111  Availability of information and confidentiality.

    (a) Availability of information. The availability to the public of 
information provided to or otherwise obtained by the Administrator 
under this part shall be governed by part 2 of this chapter.
    (b) Confidentiality. All confidential business information entitled 
to protection under section 114(c) of the Act that must be submitted or 
maintained by each regulated entity pursuant to this section shall be 
treated in accordance with 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

  Table 1 to Subpart B.--Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content Limits 
                    for Automobile Refinish Coatings                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Grams VOC    Pounds VOC
               Coating category                  per liter    per gallon
------------------------------------------------------------------a-----
Pretreatment wash primers.....................          780          6.5
Primers/primer surfacers......................          580          4.8
Primer sealers................................          550          4.6
Single/two-stage topcoats.....................          600          5.0
Topcoats of more than two stages..............          630          5.2
Multi-colored topcoats........................          680          5.7
Specialty coatings............................          840         7.0 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a English units are provided for information only. Compliance will be   
  determined based on the VOC content limit, as expressed in metric     
  units.                                                                

[FR Doc. 98-22657 Filed 9-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-p