BOARD MEETING DATE: May 14, 1999 AGENDA NO. 33

Rule 1113 is applicable to manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings. It was first adopted in 1977, and has undergone numerous amendments. The purpose of the rule is to reduce VOC emissions from the use of AIM coatings, primarily by placing VOC limits on various coating categories.

On August 21, 1990, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County entered a judgment against AQMD in the case Dunn-Edwards Corporation, et al. vs. SCAQMD, et al. The judgment denied in part, and granted in part, the petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn certain amendments made in February 1990. As a result, the AQMD was prevented from enforcing the lower VOC limits for aerosol coatings, industrial maintenance coatings, lacquers, quick-dry enamels, and quick-dry primers, sealers and undercoaters. This judgment impacted approximately 4.5 tons per day (tpd) of VOC emissions. Other amendments adopted in February 1990 and prior rule provisions remained in effect.

Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings was last amended on November 8, 1996, resulting in approximately 10.3 tpd of VOC emission reductions. Subsequently, three separate lawsuits were filed by industry challenging the lower limits for flats and lacquers on both state and federal grounds. The AQMD has prevailed in all three lawsuits on all state grounds, and has succeeded in obtaining dismissal of most of the federal grounds.

The current proposed amendments will lower the VOC limits for all coating categories impacted by the 1990 court judgment, except lacquers, which was addressed in the last rulemaking. The proposed amendments also include lower limits for additional categories. The proposed lower VOC limits are all based on the concept of reformulation of existing coatings, either with water, exempt solvents, and/or currently available, innovative resin technology. The proposed amendments will also add a few additional specialty coating categories, establish current and future effective limits for the new categories, as well as expand, clarify, and streamline the implementation of the averaging provision.

In response to industry concerns, the AQMD contracted Eastern Michigan University (EMU), Coatings Research Institute, to further evaluate six of the seven issues previously raised by Environmental, Legislative & Regulatory Advocacy Program (EL RAP) pertaining to coating categories in the current proposal, and to provide recommendations for future compliance limits for the different coating categories. This study concluded that low- and zero-VOC coatings are currently available for the proposed coating categories, but could not reach conclusions regarding the overall performance of these coatings, as compared to current, compliant solvent-based coating formulations, since performance data was not provided to the researcher.

In order to obtain additional information on application and durability characteristics of the low- and zero-VOC coatings currently available, the AQMD contracted National Technical Systems (NTS) to do a side-by-side comparison of zero-, low-, and high-VOC coatings. The results of the NTS study have supported the staff’s assessment that the zero- and low-VOC products available today, when compared to the high-VOC coatings, are equal, and in some cases superior, in some performance characteristics, including but not limited to coverage, and scrub resistance. However, the NTS study has also highlighted application characteristics of the zero-VOC coatings that are somewhat limited when compared to solvent-based, higher-VOC coatings. These include lower rankings for leveling, sagging, and brushing properties. The study does show that some zero-VOC coatings have inferior application characteristics, whereas other zero-VOC coatings have comparable application characteristics, when compared to higher-VOC coatings.

Over the past two and one-half years, and concurrent with the NTS study, staff has performed its own technology assessment of these low- and zero-VOC coatings and has gained even more information pertaining to their performance characteristics. Based on its own assessment, staff is confident that both the proposed compliance limits and deadlines are achievable.

Staff has reassessed the compliance deadlines based on the information provided by the commentators, and supported by the laboratory results. Staff would also like to emphasize that the overall durability evaluation, including accelerated and real time outdoor exposure studies, will continue and be used for future technology assessments in support of the proposed limits.

Based on staff’s continued technical assessment, as well as additional discussions with the industry, the proposal has been revised since the March 12, 1999 set hearing package. Three new coating categories have been created, interim VOC limits have been raised for a few of the coating categories, and the compliance dates for both the interim and final proposed limits have been extended. The following VOC limits are proposed to be lowered, which will result in an emission reduction of about 21.8 tons per day of VOCs:

Establish the VOC limit for bituminous roof coatings at 300 g/l, effective date of adoption, and lower the VOC limit from 300 g/l to 250 g/l effective July 1, 2002.

Establish the VOC limit for floor coatings of 400 g/l, effective date upon adoption, and lower the VOC limit from 400 g/l to 100 g/l effective July 1, 2002, and further reduce from 100 g/l to 50 g/l effective July 1, 2006. The proposed floor coating category is a subset of the industrial maintenance coating category, which has a VOC limit of 420 g/l. The 400 g/l limit is established in advance of the National Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) rule’s 400 g/l limit for floor coatings, which will become effective September 13, 1999. Conduct a product availability assessment by July 1, 2001 for the 100 g/l limit and July 1, 2005 for the 50 g/l limit. Include an averaging provision to allow manufacturers to average the VOC content of their floor coatings, on a sales-weighted basis.

Establish the VOC limit for high temperature - industrial maintenance coatings of 550 g/l, effective July 1, 2002, and lower to 420 g/l effective July 1, 2006.

Lower the VOC limit for industrial maintenance coatings from 420 g/l to 250 g/l effective July 1, 2002. Then reduce the VOC limit from 250 g/l to 100 g/l effective July 1, 2006. Conduct a product availability assessment by July 1, 2001 for the 250 g/l and by July 1, 2005 for the 100 g/l limit. Include an averaging provision to allow manufacturers to average the VOC content of their industrial maintenance coatings, on a sales-weighted basis.

Lower the VOC limit for nonflats from 250 g/l to 150 g/l, effective July 1, 2002 and further reduce from 150 g/l to 50 g/l, effective July 1, 2006. Conduct a product availability assessment by July 1, 2001 for the 150 g/l limit and July 1, 2005 for the 50 g/l limit. Include an averaging provision to allow manufacturers to average the VOC content of their nonflats, on a sales-weighted basis.

Lower the VOC limit for primers, sealers, and undercoaters from 350 g/l to 200 g/l, effective July 1, 2002, and further reduce from 200 g/l to 100 g/l, effective July 1, 2006. Conduct a product availability assessment by July 1, 2001 for the 200 g/l limit and July 1, 2005 for the 100 g/l limit. Include an averaging provision to allow manufacturers to average the VOC content of their primers, sealers, and undercoaters, on a sales-weighted basis.

Lower the VOC limit for quick-dry enamels from 400 g/l to 250 g/l, effective July 1, 2002, and further reduce the VOC limit from 250 g/l to 50 g/l effective July 1, 2006. Conduct a product availability assessment by July 1, 2001 for the 250 g/l limit and July 1, 2005 for the 50 g/l limit. Include an averaging provision to allow manufacturers to average the VOC content of nonflats, on a sales-weighted basis.

Establish the VOC limit for quick-dry primers, sealers, and undercoaters at 350 g/l, effective date of adoption, unless the manufacturer submits an exemption report pursuant to Rule 1113(g)(3). Lower the quick-dry primers, sealers, and undercoaters to 200 g/l, effective July 1, 2002, and further reduce from 200 g/l to 100 g/l effective July 1, 2006. Conduct a product availability assessment by July 1, 2001 for the 200 g/l and July 1, 2005 for the 100 g/l limit. Include an averaging provision to allow manufacturers to average the VOC content of their primers, sealers, and undercoaters, on a sales-weighted basis.

Establish a VOC limit for recycled flats and non-flats at 250 g/l, effective date upon adoption, and then lower from 250 g/l to 100 g/l effective July 1, 2006

Lower the VOC limits for roof coatings from 300 g/l to 250 g/l, effective date upon adoption. The proposed limit is the same as the limit established in the National Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) rule for roof coatings, which will become effective September 13, 1999.

Establish the VOC limit for rust preventative coatings at 400 g/l, effective date upon adoption, and then lower from 400 g/l to 100 g/l, effective July 1, 2006. The proposed rust preventative coating category is currently a subset of the industrial maintenance coating category, which has a VOC limit of 420 g/l, quick-dry enamels which has a VOC limit of 400 g/l, and primers, sealers, and undercoaters, which has a VOC limit of 350 g/l. However, the limit established in the National Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) rule for rust preventative coatings is 400 g/l, which will become effective September 13, 1999. Conduct a product availability assessment by July 1, 2005 for the 100 g/l limit. Include an averaging provision to allow manufacturers to average the VOC content of their rust preventative coatings, on a sales-weighted basis.

Lower the VOC limits for stains from 350 g/l to 250 g/l, effective July 1, 2002. Conduct a product availability assessment by July 1, 2001 for the 250 g/l limit. Include an averaging provision to allow manufacturers to average the VOC content of their stains, on a sales-weighted basis.

Lower the VOC limit for waterproofing wood sealers from 400 g/l to 250 g/l, effective July 1, 2002. Conduct a product availability assessment by July 1, 2001 for the 250 g/l limit. Include an averaging provision to allow manufacturers to average the VOC content of their waterproofing wood sealers, on a sales-weighted basis.

Industry members, mainly manufacturers and contractors, provided several suggestions and introduced issues that they believe need additional research. EL RAP and other manufacturers have eight main issues: that low-VOC coatings are thicker, and thus require more thinning, more priming, more topcoats, more touch-ups and repair work, more frequent recoating, substitution, and more reactivity. Due to these eight issues, some manufacturers believe that coatings with higher VOC content will be substituted for the proposed lower VOC content coatings resulting in an increase in VOC emissions. They also believe a larger amount of low-VOC coatings will be used, resulting in an actual increase in VOC emissions. Lastly, manufacturers expressed concern regarding the lack of sufficient time necessary for research and development of the reformulated coatings.

The eight issues focus on two main points. The first seven issues all state that the new formulations, either solvent-based or waterborne, result in more coating use and an overall increase in VOC emissions over a period of time. The eighth issue involves the reactivity of solvents used in waterborne coatings. EL RAP contends that these result in more ozone formation as compared to solvents in solvent-based formulations.

In response to these concerns, the staff has again analyzed each of the specific issues raised by EL RAP. That analysis is included in the draft Subsequent Environmental Assessment (SEA).

In summary, with regards to additional thinning, the focus of the proposed amendments is limited to coatings that are mainly solventless formulations, waterborne formulations or based on using exempt solvents, thereby eliminating any concerns of thinning the coating, as supplied, with VOC. However, the proposed interim limit for rust preventative coatings relies on alkyd technology that may need some additional thinning in the field, especially for spray application. Manufacturers of these coatings, however, have ensured staff that coatings recommended as rust preventative coatings are supplied at optimal formulations, and therefore would not require thinning in the field. Nonetheless, staff has thoroughly analyzed the thinning issue in the staff report and subsequent environmental assessment.

To examine the issues of thickness, priming, topcoats, touch-up and repair, and frequent recoating, staff used coating coverage estimates, typical dry mil thickness, recommended priming, and estimated life of coating, listed on container labels and technical data sheets or provided by manufacturers during personal interviews and phone surveys. Staff’s analysis comparing emissions from the proposed lower-VOC content coatings with emissions from potential substitute coatings shows an overall VOC emission reduction as a result of the proposed amendments.

An extensive discussion regarding the feasibility of reactivity-based architectural coatings control policy development is included in the attached staff report to address the eighth issue. The District is supportive of future studies involving alternative ozone control strategies, and plans to work in conjunction with industry to studying this approach.

To date, manufacturers have not provided data to support the claim that the lower VOC coatings could cause an increase in emissions. As a part of the current rulemaking efforts, staff has requested life-cycle studies that may have been conducted over the past seven years, but none were provided.

Staff has proposed several amendments to Rule 1113 to address concerns raised relative to sufficient time to research, develop, and market compliant coatings. The proposed amendments provide a three year and a seven-year time period for future compliance limits, as well as an averaging provision for the affected categories that would allow manufacturers to offset non-compliant coatings with super-compliant coatings. The AQMD has also committed to a product availability assessment one year prior to the future rule limits for the affected categories. It should be noted, however, that the proposed limits are principally based on currently available and marketed coatings.

The 1997 AQMP estimates increased AIM emissions for the Summer-day average (due to population growth) at 68.2 tpd in 1997, growing to 74.7 tpd by the year 2005 and 79.4 tpd by the year 2010 without additional AIM regulations. If left unchecked, AIM coating emissions alone would account for more than 26% of the allowed VOC emissions. Therefore, the 1997 AQMP has a specific control measure (CTS-07) to reduce AIM VOC emissions by 50% by the year 2010, as well as a long-term measure requiring an additional 25% reduction in VOCs. This cumulative 62 tpd emission reduction based on the Summer Planning Inventory is the largest of all short- and long-term control measures.

Installation of air pollution control equipment is not feasible for reducing AIM emissions, thereby leaving coating reformulation as the only practical means to achieve the required reductions. The current proposal emphasizes reformulation of existing coatings, primarily by using currently available, technologically innovative resins, as well as utilizing the growing list of exempt solvents.

These proposed Rule 1113 amendments will implement the 1994 and 1997 architectural coatings control measure, and will seek to reduce AIM emissions by approximately 38% or 21.8 tons per day.

Pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code �� 21000 et seq.) and AQMD Rule 110 - Rule Adoption Procedures to Assure Protection and Enhancement of the Environment, AQMD prepared a Draft SEA for the proposed amendments to Rule 1113. The Draft SEA was made available for a 30-day public review and comment period. All comments received on the Draft SEA, and responses to those comments, have been incorporated into the CEQA document for the proposed project such that it is now a Final SEA. In summary, the SEA concluded that there were no significant impacts as a result of implementing the proposed amendments. Copies of the Final SEA are available by calling the AQMD’s Public Information Center at (909) 396-3600.

Socioeconomic Analysis
Staff has conducted a thorough cost-effectiveness and socioeconomic impact assessment for the proposed amendments, and has concluded that the proposed amendments are within the costs identified in the AQMP.

The overall cost-effectiveness of the proposed amended rule is estimated to be approximately $13,317 per ton of VOC emissions reduced.

The Final Socioeconomic Impact Assessment is attached as Appendix E of the Staff Report.

Implementation Plan
A notice will be sent to all AIM coating manufacturers and professional painting contractors. District staff will also conduct some training of contractors for the use of low-VOC coatings.

Resource Impact
Existing AQMD resources will be sufficient to implement the proposed changes to this rule with minimal impact on the budget.

Rule 1113

The following VOC limits are proposed to be lowered:

Bituminous Roof Coatings

Establish the VOC limit for bituminous roof coatings at 300 g/l, effective date of adoption, and lower the VOC limit from 300 g/l to 250 g/l effective July 1, 2002

Essential Public Service Coatings

Establish a specialty category called "essential public service coating" which has a higher interim limit of 340 g/l, effective July 1, 2002. This category is for specific maintenance areas commonly found in water and power generation, bridges and roadways, as well as potable water storage. The District plans to include this category as a part of the technology assessments to be conducted at these essential public service agencies.

Floor Coatings

High Temperature - Industrial Maintenance Coatings

Establish the VOC limit for high temperature - industrial maintenance coatings of 550 g/l, effective July 1, 2002, and lower to 420 g/l effective July 1, 2006.

Rule 1113

Industrial Maintenance Coatings

Nonflats

Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters

Rule 1113

Quick-Dry Enamels

Quick-Dry Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters

Recycled Flats and Non-Flats

Establish a VOC limit for recycled flats and non-flats at 250 g/l, effective date upon adoption, and then lower from 250 g/l to 100 g/l effective July 1, 2006

Roof Coatings

Rule 1113

Rust Preventative Coatings

Stains

Waterproofing Wood Sealers

The container label requirements will be revised and require the special labeling for rust preventative coatings.

The exemption for Quick-Dry Primers, Sealers and Undercoaters will be deleted, effective July 1, 2002.

Sal	Fname	Lname	Coname
Mr.	Bert	Adams	Glaze N Seal
Ms.	Heidi	Alderman	Air Products & Chemicals
Ms.	Jodi	Allen	Union Carbide
Mr.	Don	Ames	State of CA Air Resources Board
Mr.	Bernie	Appleman	SSPC
Mr.	Allen	Armstrong	Hill Brothers Chemical Co.
Mr.	Yin	Aye	Smiland Paint Co.
Mr.	Marty	Balow	Frazee Paint Co.
Mr.	Jasen	Banta	Matt Construction
Mr.	Barry	Barman	KTA-TATOR, Inc.
Mr.	Paul	Beemer	Henry Co
Mr.	Chuck	Benesch	D’Angelos
Mr.	Howard	Berman	Kessler & Associates, Inc.
Mr.	Jim	Bossardt	Blast/Coat Systems, Inc.
Mr.	Tim	Bosveld	Dunn Edwards
Mr.	Larry	Breeding	Walt Disney Company
Mr.	Mike	Butler	Behr Process Corporation
Mr.	Mike	Callahan	Jacobs
Mr.	David	Clifford	AKZO NOBEL
Mr.	Curtis	Coleman	Law Offices of Curtis L. Coleman
Mr.	Gerrold	Coleman	Paramount Pictures
Mr.	Tim	Conhin	LADWP
Ms.	Margaret	Coon	Ameron Protective Coatings
Mr.	Stan	Cowen	Ventura County APCD
Mr.	Pete	Cutrona	Ellis Paint Co.
Mr.	James	Dabbs	Spectra-Tone Paint Corp.
Mr.	Geoffrey	Dearth	Air Products & Chem. Inc.
Mr.	Mike	De La Vega	Life Paint Company
Ms.	Stacey	Dobrosky	Union Carbide
Mr.	Lee	Doyle	S.G. Pinney & Associates Inc.
Mr.	Richard	Drisko	SSPC
Mr.	Phil	Drooks	Metropolitan Water District of So. California
Mr.	M.	Dyer	Devoe Castings
Mr.	Mehrdad	Emami	McWhorter Tech.
Mr.	Wes	Emerson	Rust-Oleum
Ms.	Daniela	Fernandez	County Government Center
Mr.	Bob	Floriani	ICI-Dulux
Ms.	Yvonne	Fong	U.S. EPA
Mr.	Chris	Foster	Smiland & Khachigian
Mr.	Randy	Francisco	McWhorter Technologies, Inc.
Mr.	David	Fredianc	CSDLAC
Mr.	Harley	Fung	Benjamin Moore & Co.
Ms.	P	Ghuman	LACSD
Mr.	John	Gordon	Pacific Tech. Consultants, Eastern Michigan Univ.
Mr.	Robert	Gross	PPG Industries, Inc.
Mr.	Lloyd	Haanstra	DEFT
Mr.	Jay	Haines	Texture Coatings of America, Inc.
Ms.	Madelyn	Harding	The Sherwin-Williams Co.
Mr.	Hal	Hargrave	Tri-County PDCA
Mr.	Richard	Hart	Hart Polymers
Mr.	Brian	Heath	The Valspar Corp.
Mr.	Robert	Henderson	Coatings Resource Corp.
Mr.	Tony	Hobbs	Tnemec Corporation
Mr.	Scott	Holland	Cal Western Paints
Mr.	Eddy	Huang	AVES
Mr.	Alex	Iaroli	E. P. S.
Mr.	George	Illes	LFR, Levine Fricke
Ms.	Gail	Ito	Chevron
Mr.	Mike	Jacola	California Air Resources Board
Mr.	Barry	Jenkin	Benjamin Moore
Ms.	LaShawn	Johnson	Carboline Coatings
Ms.	Carol Yip	Kaufman	Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Mr.	Ned	Kisner	Triangle Coatings
Ms.	Terri	Lasso	Sherwin-Williams
Mr.	Jay	Leause	PROCOS
Mr.	Martin	Ledwitz	SCE
Mr.	Gene	Lee	Rohm and Haas Company
Mr.	David	Leehy	Vista Paints
Mr.	Stanton	Lewis	City of Los Angeles
Mr.	Pat	Lofgren	ICI Paints
Mr.	John	Long	Smiland Paint Co.
Ms.	Geraldine	Lucas	Disneyland Resort
Mr.	Dave	Lunzer	Union Carbide
Mr.	Pat	Lutz	Dunn Edwards
Mr.	Todd	Maiden	Seyfarth, Shaw
Mr.	Tom	Marsden	Disneyland Resort
Mr.	Mike	Mason	Southern California Edison
Mr.	John L.	Massingill, Jr.	Eastern Michigan University
Ms.	Judith	McCourt	Union Carbide
Mr.	John	Means	Universal Studios
Mr.	Clayton	Miller	CIAQC
Mr.	Gil	Mislang	Dunn Edwards
Mr.	Norm	Mowrer	Ameron
Mr.	Jerry	Mulnix	Cal-Western Paints, Inc.
Mr.	Stephen	Murphy	Murphy Industrial Coatings
Mr.	Dinkar	Naik	Pacific Polymers
Mr.	Bob	Nelson	National Paint & Coating Association
Mr.	Wayne	Nelson	Spectra-Tone Paint
Mr.	Bob	Newton	NSTS
Mr.	Marcy	Nichol	TruServ Mfg
Mr.	R.	Novielli	Rohm & Haas
Mr.	Jim	Nyarady	CARB
Mr.	Bert	Osen	U.S. Celluluse
Mr.	Parker	Pace	BEHR Process
Mr.	Ijay	Palansky	Dunn Edwards
Mr.	Randy	Pasek	California Air Resources Board
Mr.	Fenando	Pedroza	Frazee Paint
Mr.	Herb	Pigram	Rohm & Haas Co.
Mr.	Hamid	Pourshirazi	Vista Paint

Mr.	Greg	Quinn	Los Angeles PDCA
Mr.	Joe	Ramirez	Ever Guard Coatings
Mr.	Bob	Reeves	Benjamin Moore Paints
Mr.	Benjamin	Remley	DuPont Engineered Services
Ms.	Ellen	Reinhardt	The Better Paint Tray LLC
Mr.	William	Riechers	Genesis Coatings, Inc.
Mr.	Ray	Robinson	ELRAP
Mr.	Mark	Robson	Golden State PDCA
Mr.	Andy	Rogerson	Caltrans
Mr.	Steve	Sanchez	US Can Company
Mr.	Oscar	Sandoval	Frazee Paint
Mr.	Anil	Sayta	Zynolyte/I.C.I Paints
Mr.	Jim	Sell	NPCA
Mr.	Rodney	Sells	Resin Technology Co.
Mr.	Patrick	Shannon	Sierra Performance Coatings
Ms.	Erin	Sheehy	Environmental Compliance Solutions
Mr.	Dean	Simeroth	Air Resources Board
Mr.	Mark	Simon	MWD
Mr.	Al	Singh	Surface Protection Inc.
Mr.	Jim	Sliff	Rust-Oleum
Mr.	Craig	Smith	C-F
Mr.	Harry	Sporidis	Kessler & Associates/Dunn-Edwards
Ms.	Christine	Stanley	Ameron Protective Coatings Systems
Mr.	Bob	Steel	Park Water District / SICC
Mr.	Joe	Stoddard	Mobile Pipe Wrappers & Coaters Inc.
Mr.	Gene	Suconey	Disneyland Resort
Ms.	Sharilen	Talati
Ms.	Sheri	Thompson	Sherwin Williams
Mr.	Rob	Truitt	Dayton Superior Corp
Mr.	Jay	Umphrey	EPS Inc.
Ms.	Barbara	VanCina	Carboline
Mr.	John	Wallace	MWD
Mr.	John	Waltman	Cal Western Paints
Mr.	Robert	Wendoll	Dunn-Edwards Paints
Mr.	Peter	Whittingham	County of Los Angeles
Mr.	Max	Wills	Cal Poly State University
Mr.	Tek	Woo	Union Carbide
Mr.	Kevin	Worrall	TeraCota
Mr.	Steven	Yagade	Walt Disney Imagineering
Ms.	Carol	Yip Kaufman	MWD
Mr.	Mark	Zielinski	ICI

Rule 1113
Issue	Response
High-solids coatings will require thinning in the field	Manufacturers can reformulate existing coatings using resins that require less coalescing solvents, without increasing the solids in the coating. However, high solids coatings, with numerous IM coatings available at 100% solids, have been in the market for more than twenty years. These coatings are supplied ‘ready to use’ without the need for additional thinning in the field, and can be readily applied using airless spray equipment and the appropriate spray tips. Furthermore, the future limits are based on waterborne technology and the use of exempt solvents; therefore, thinning with VOCs will not be an issue, as these coatings are thinned with water, if needed.
Industrial Maintenance Coatings should not be banned for residential and commercial uses, and labeling should not be required	Industrial Maintenance Coatings are to be used in areas where high heat, chemical resistance, impact resistance, and corrosion resistance are an issue. In response to comments regarding problematic metal substrates used in commercial and residential development, staff has created the new ‘rust preventative coating’ category, specifically for metal substrates. This category’s proposed interim limit is higher than the proposed limit for industrial maintenance coatings, due to the relative ease of application of alkyd-based formulations. Staff has removed any duplicative labeling requirement for industrial maintenance coatings.

Rule 1113
Issue	Response
Although some nonflat coatings can meet the proposed 150 g/l limit, not all can be reformulated to meet the proposed limits, especially by July 1, 2002. The AQMD should establish higher limits for exterior non-flats.	AQMD staff found, as a part of their data collection and information gathering phase, that over 56% of the total volume of nonflat coatings sold in California in 1996, complied with the July 1, 2002 proposed limit. This is based on information submitted by manufacturers regarding sales of both their interior and exterior nonflat coatings. Staff has also created a new specialty coating category called rust preventative coatings, that will be limited to metal substrates and will have a higher VOC limit. Staff also found compliant interior and exterior nonflat coatings with equivalent performance characteristics found in some higher-solvent containing nonflat coatings. The 1998 CARB survey also shows that over 40% of all nonflat coatings are recommended for both interior and exterior uses, indicating that a high percentage of the products are formulated the same for interior and exterior uses. In addition, staff included a commitment for a detailed product availability assessment one year prior to the implementation of the 150 g/l and 50 g/l limits in order to reevaluate available coatings. Lastly, staff has included an averaging provision for manufacturers to enable them to average the emissions from the nonflat coatings. This provision would allow them to continue selling non-compliant coatings, as long as the average sales-weighted emissions are equivalent or lower than emissions based on the VOC limits.

Rule 1113
Issue	Response
Labeling of "rust preventative" coatings will result in greater costs and not result in additional air quality benefit.	Staff believes that the labeling of rust preventative coatings will enhance the enforceability of the rule, and mitigate potential misuse of rust preventative coatings.
Averaging provision is a good compliance option for affected coatings, but industry has proposed an alternative method that they believe will not place a cap on their coating sales.	Staff has adopted a hybrid averaging provision that incorporates Industry’s alternative averaging proposal, while maintaining the enforceability of the previously adopted averaging provisions.
The interim limit for rust preventative coatings is higher than the interim limit for industrial maintenance coatings, which typically have a harsher environment.	Staff has proposed a higher interim limit for rust preventative coatings in response to comments made by some members of the industry that untrained homeowners should not use the lower-VOC two-component coatings, which require more training in its use. As a result, staff created a category for rust preventative coatings with a higher interim limit for use by homeowners.
Essential Public Service Agencies need higher limits, since they cannot shut down operations for maintenance related items. Need higher limits for some specific uses.	Staff’s technology assessment has identified compliant coatings in each of the categories used by Essential Public Service Agencies. The AQMD will participate in technology assessments conducted by Essential Public Service Agencies. Nonetheless, staff has created a new specialty coating category called essential public service coating that has a higher interim limit of 340 g/l.

Rule 1113
Issue	Response
Timing – The public hearing should be delayed to provide industry more time to evaluate the CARB survey and NTS Study results.	The 1998 Draft CARB survey was completed and forwarded to industry members in March 1999. CARB staff finalized the data in February 1999, which has been used by staff to calculate emission reductions. The laboratory testing of the NTS study is also complete. The results are consistent with staff’s own technology assessment. In addition to the laboratory results, the NTS study will continue with additional testing, including accelerated actual exposure, real time actual exposure, and actual application characteristics. Staff plans to utilize the on-going testing results for future technology assessments. The results were initially forwarded and discussed with the Technical Advisory Committee, comprised of members from the Industry, on April 12, 1999. A summary of the study was presented to the AQMD Governing Board’s Stationary Source Committee, which is attended by the public, and a summary of the results were passed out to the public. Members of the architectural coatings industry were present at the last meeting, held on April 23, 1999. Subsequent discussions with the Technical Advisory Committee regarding the interim report were conducted on April 26, 1999 and May 3, 1999.
The proposal should be expanded to include more categories found in the National AIM Rule.	The AQMD has incorporated definitions and other elements of the National AIM rule, where appropriate. However, the AQMD does not believe it is necessary to adopt all of the categories in the National AIM rule, since paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 1113 covers all other categories with VOC content limits of 250 g/l. Furthermore, a rule with fewer categories is a lot easier to implement and enforce. Lastly, the VOC limits in the National AIM Rule do not achieve the reductions in VOCs that are possible and necessary.