Hall of States, 444 North Capitol St, Suite 638

April 15, 2011

Mr. Alex Ryan-Bond

Ozone Transport Commission

Hall of States, 444 North Capitol St, Suite 638

Washington, DC

Mr. Ali Mirzakhalili

Administrator, Air Quality Management Section

Division of Air and Waste Management

89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE19901

RE:Inclusion of “Paint Thinner and Multipurpose Solvents” in the Consumer Products Model Rule; OTC White Paper; ACA Comments Concerning Automotive Refinish and Marine/Pleasure Craft Coatings

I am writing to request additional time in which the ACA can discuss the OTC’s

“DRAFT WHITE PAPER on the Inclusion of ‘Paint Thinner and Multipurpose Solvents’ in the Consumer Products Model Rule”.

As the Draft Paper notes, such programs exist both within the CARB regulations and as a separate regulation at the SCAQMD.

Your White Paper does a good job of summarizing the developments of these programs and the ACA, and several of its members with products in California, have both participated in the development of the two programs and are regulated by them.

That experience has raised a number of concerns and considerations that we would like to discuss with you and your OTC Stationary Source Committee before any final conclusions are reached on the advisability of a similar program in the OTC, and if so, whether it should copy the California programs.

As the Paper suggests, the category is quite broad and potentially affects a multitude of different coatings and associated surface preparation and clean up operations. Indeed, the cleaning operations are not confined to those only involving coatings.

“The source category includes products that are commonly used in the thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent cleaning operations.”

Another feature of the category, at least as constructed in California, is that at the CARB level it is necessarily confined to “consumer products” because, generally CARB’s authority is so confined, with individual air districts having jurisdiction over individual coatings categories. (Strictly speaking, CARB can be said to have authority over aerosol coatings, but with the districts being allowed to go beyond the limits imposed).

Indeed CARB’s definition of consumer products makes this clear by noting the type of products that are not included:

“’Consumer Product’ means a chemically formulated product used by household and institutional consumers including, but not limited to, detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products; but does not include other paint products, furniture coatings, or architectural coatings. As used in this article, the term “consumer product” shall also refer to aerosol adhesives, including aerosol adhesives used for consumer, industrial, and commercial uses.”

One immediately sees the potential difficulties in squaring up the CARB regime with that of the air districts in regulating so-called consumer products.

Architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings by any definition encompass products that are readily used by households. Its industrial maintenance components and most of its specialized field applied coatings such as under the national AIM and the current OTC Model AIM rule, such as “antenna coatings” of course are not applied by households but rather by certified professional often with special equipment and respiratory safety protection. But the residential coatings component of the AIM rule is an important one.

A potential disconnect therefore can occur between the VOC limits authorized or permitted in the various air districts in California and a CARB limit on their thinners and the solvents to prepare surfaces and clean brushes etc.

Under the CARB rule the limit is presently 300 gram pr liter but is eventually to go to 25 g/l. Nether of these is adequate for thinning or associated clean up of the solvent borne coatings authorized by the national AIM rule or the current OTC Model AIM rule.

While it may be possible for so called exempt VOC solvents to be used in this case, this is uncertain.

More importantly, in any event such a determination has to be made on the basis of the specific individual coating categories involved- not on a generic basis.

More importantly, over the course of now over three decades of clean air national and local regulation of the VOC in coatings applications and operations, regulators have each coating category within the framework of its often unique performance and application requirements. This has not been confined to the coating itself, but also the VOC emissions from the surface preparation and clean up.

The reason for this has been the sound recognition that coatings are specifically designed and formulated for specific performance requirements and are not interchangeable. Obvious cases are seen in comparing the performance needs and application systems of can coatings versus OEM automotive coatings versus plastic parts coatings versus architectural coatings. .

In considering all of this, we firmly believe that the considerationdevelopment of any generic or multipurpose solvent VOC regulation should not include the cleaning and thinner solvents used for coatings because emissions from these materials is already controlled through existing regulations imposed on the coatings and processes in which they are used. Indeed, the effort to implement such a generic solvent thinner regulation would require the consideration of all of its potential impacts on the variety of coatings to which it would potentially apply if it is adopted in the OTC states each time it was amended.

We note that CARB in interpreting the application of its regulation has drawn a distinction between “consumer/institutional” usages and “industrial” usages, stating that the regulation does not apply to industrial usages. Unfortunately, confusion still exists even in the application of this distinction. An example from its 2009 Response to Comments:

Staff acknowledges that clarifications of rule applicability as suggested

By the commenter would be helpful. Therefore, the following response serves to

Clarify the applicability of the proposed amendments. When considered together, the

Applicability of the regulation found in section 94507 and the definitions of Consumer

Product; Institutional Product; Multi-purpose Solvent; and Paint Thinner in section

94508(a), make it clear that solvents and reducers labeled to be used exclusively in

Marine and automotive coatings are not subject to the regulation. The Suggested

Control Measure that the commenter refers to specifies the VOC content limits of the

Coatings for which the solvent products are a part. However, the use of solvents in

automotive refinishing is not an industrial application and is subject to local air districtrules. Further, the Consumer Products Regulation would apply to the VOC contentof the solvents sold to the facility that were not part of a coating system.

As the CARB response suggests, it sees its Consumer Products solvent regulation as capable of trumping solvent materials that are required in the surface preparation and clean up of a coating which uses a solvent but not over the thinner, reducer, over which it has no say.

Moreover, its position above seems to be at variance with an Advisory from its own legal counsels office which clearly stated that an “industrial” product is not only what is incorporated into a finished good, but also those materials that are needed for that industrial process, such mold-release materials, and therefore by analogy, surface prep and clean up solvents. See

All of this confusion we believe can be avoided by continuing the practice of considering VOC emission control technologies within the context of each individual coating categories performance and application requirements as opposed to having generic solvent requirements potentially applying.

Consumer Access as a Criterion

Another issue raised under the California regulation is whether including a product within the reach of the regulation should turn upon whether a consumer has access to it. We believe that while such a criterion has some validity in determining what is likely to generally be found in household usage, mere accessibility cannot be a dispositive criterion.

Similar Issues Exist for Marine/Pleasure Craft Coatings

The issues discussed above with respect to refinish coatings are also found in the case of marine/pleasure craft coatings. Like refinish coatings, these coatings can be very specialized and unique materials that are sold by specialty distributors in the industry, often referred to as “ship or marine chandler” stores.

A typical statement indicating the special use of marine coatings is seen in the following:

“DuPont Marine Finishes provide long-lasting beauty, exceptional color and gloss retention for the marine industry. The product offering includes primers, fairing compounds, topcoats, exterior clearcoats and interior wood finishing products that are polishable and repairable. DuPont Marine Finishes for Professional Use Only.” See

Similarly, for an International/AKZO marine coating,the following appears in advertizing:

“Two Part Linear Polyurethane Enamel Paint, (professional Application Only) 2 Claret Qt. from Awlgrip” See

CARB’s Review Provisions

The White Paper notes that CARB will conduct a technology review to determine if there are effective solvents available prior to imposing VOC limits of three percent on solvents regulated by its rule. We question the soundness of a decision by the OTC to encourage states to adopt the CARB measure without first knowing whether this limit will be available - and if so, whether for all uses and applications it will be technologically and economically feasible as “reasonably available control technology” (RACT) as defined by the federal Clean Air Act and state programs. This would be less of a worry for the coatings addressed here if the OTC would continue the practice of determining the types of solvents needed for these coatings operations strictly in the context of those operations themselves.

Cured Coating Exception

In reviewing some California air district regulations relating to solvent cleaning of equipment used in the application of coatings, inks, and adhesives, which specify relatively low VOC limits for cleaning solvents, coatings material which have “cured” (“dry to the touch”) are excluded from the regulation. In setting any similar generic low VOC solvent limits, this factor must also be considered, which in our view requires evaluating the circumstances of each particular coating operation. See

Would Welcome the Opportunity to Meet With the Stationary Source Committee

In summary, we would like to meet with you and your Stationary Source Committee to discuss this matter before any recommendations for the Commissioners are finalized.

James Sell

ACA Senior Counsel

1