**UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENTA** **L PROTECTION A GENCY**  **REGION IX A IR DIVISION**  Technical Support Document

for EPA’s Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan Feather River Air Quality Management District Rule 3.15

Architectural Coatings

Prepared by: Arnold Lazarus Reviewed by: Andrew Steckel September 20151

**RULE IDENTIFICA TION**  - **Ag ency**  Feather River Air Quality Management District ( FRAQMD) **SIP A pproved**  **Rule** Sutter County Air Pollution Control District (SCAPCD )

Rule 3.15 - Architectural Coatings . Submitted - January 28, 1981 . EPA Approved - May 3 , 1982 (47 FR 18856 ) . Yuba County Air Pollution Control District (YCAPCD) Rule 3.15 - Architectural Coatings . Submitted - March 30 1981 . EPA Approved - November 10, 1982 (47 FR 50865 ) . **Subject of this TSD**  Rule 3.15 - Architectural Coatings .

Amended - August 4, 2014 . Submitted - November 6, 2014 . **Completeness Finding**  Date of Completeness Letter - December 18 , 2014 . **BA CKGROUND**  According to the Staff Report associated with adoption of this rule , “ Feather River Air Quality Management District (District) is a Bi -County agency that administers local, state, and federal air quality management programs for Yuba and Sutter Counties which had separate air pollution control districts (APCD) each with its own state implementation p lan (SIP) approved architectural coating rule . Because portions of the FRAQMD have been designated as nonattainment for failure to meet the federal 8- hour ground - level ozone standard, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires the District to implement measures to reduce ozone precursors. ” 1 Before the FRAQMD was created , both the SCAPCD and the YCAPCD had an architectural coatings rule that was SIP approved in 1982. The new FRAQMD Rule 3.15 will supersede the SCAPCD Rule 3.15 and YCAPCD Rule 3.15 in the SIP. Architectural coatings are considered area sources of VOC and are not subject to federal Clean Air Act (CAA) section 182(b) (2) reasonably available control techniques (RACT) requirements, since there are no major architectu ral coating sources and there are no relevant EPA control techniques guidelines (CTG) documents. There are, however, national VOC content limits for architectural coatings that apply largely to coating manufacturers, importers and purveyors. These limits are described in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 59.400, Subpart D - National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings (40 CFR §59.400) . 1 . Staff Report Rule 3.15, Architectural Coatings , FRAQMD, July 3, 2014.2

FRAQMD has adopted the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2007 Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Architectural Coatings as a template for Rule 3.15 , which contains significantly more stringent VOC limits than 40 CFR §59.400 . 2 The intent of the amendments to Rule 3.15 is to reduce VOC emissions from coatings used in the painting of buildings and other structures. The District expects the proposed amendments to Rule 3.15 will reduce VOC emissions by approximately 1.095 tons per year. 3 **RULE SUMMA RY**  **-** FRAQMD Rule 3.15 controls VOC emissions from architectural coatings by establishing VOC limits on any architectural coating that is supplied, sold, offered for sale or manufactured for use within the FRAQMD . Architectural coatings are coatings that are applied to stationa ry structures and their accessories. They include house paints, stains, industrial maintenance coatings, traffic coatings, and many other products. VOCs are emitted from the coatings during application and curing , and from the associated solvents used for thinning and clean - up . **EVA LUA** **TION CRITERIA -**  1. Enforceability - The Bluebook ( Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations , EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook ( Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability. 2. Stringency –As discussed above, FRAQMD Rule 3.15 has no obligation to implement RACT because architectural coating is an area source and there is no relevant CTG guidance. Nonetheless, we have evaluated the rule for RACT- level controls and against 40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D, and CARB ’s SCM, which is the basis for most of the most stringent architectural coating requirements in California. 3. SIP Relaxation - CAA § 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable fu rther progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In addition, CAA § 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area. In applying these criteria to the submitted rule, we referred to the following guidance and policy documents: 2. 40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D , Table 1. 3 . Staff Report , FRAQMD Rule 3.15, Architectural Coatings , July 3, 2014 .3

1. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation, Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations (the "Blue Book"), US EPA, OAQPS (May 25, 1988). 2. Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC and Other Rule Deficiencies , EPA Region IX (August 21, 2001, the “Little Bluebook”). 3. State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 4. Fi nal Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS – Phase 2 , 70 FR 71612 ( Nov. 25, 2005). **EPA EVA** **LUA TION**  **-** A summary of our evaluation of the three criteria follows. 1. To help ensure enforceability, the rule requirements and applicability are clear, and the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and other provisions sufficiently ensure that affected sources and regulators can evaluate and determine compliance with Rule 3.1 5 consistently. 2. Rule 3.15 is as stringent as the SCM and more stringent than 40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D. Therefore , we determine that it implements RACT- level controls. 3. Rule 3.15 is more stringent than the existing requirements in the old SI Papproved versions of SCAPCD Rule 3.15 and YCAPCD Rule 3.15 . Therefore, we propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would comply with CAA §§ 110(l) and 193 because (1) the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the on -going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met, and (2) the emission limits in the submitted rule are more stringent than the existing SIP -approved control requirements that they would replace. **RULE DEFICIENCIES** - Wefind no deficiencies with Rule 3.15 to preclude a full approval of Rule 3.15. **AD DITIONA** **L RECOMMENDA TIONS FOR THE NEXT RULE REVISION**  - The following revision is not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but is recommended for the next time the rule is amended : To prevent the practice of “bundling” small containers, we recommend replacing paragraph A.4 ( b ) with the following text : With the exception of containers packed together for shipping to a retail outlet, warehouse, or a military distribution or redistribution facility , this rule does not apply to any architectural coating that is sold in a container with a4

volume of one liter (1.057 quart) or less provided the following requirements are met: a. The container is not bundled together to be sold as a unit that exceeds one liter (1.057 quarts), excluding containers packed together for shipping to a retail outlet. b. The label or any other product literature does not suggest combining multiple containers so that the combination exceeds one liter (1.057 quarts). **EPA A** **CTION** – The submitted Rule 3.15 strengthens the SIP, and the associated District staff report projects that it will reduce VOC emissions by approximately 1.095 tons per year. The rule fulfils the relevant CAA §110 and part D requirements. Therefore, EPA staff recommends full approval of Rule 3.15 pursuant to CAA §110(k)(3) and §301(a) **REFERENCES** 1. SCAPCD Rule 3.15 , Architectural Coatings , submitted January 28,1981 and approved by the EPA May 3, 1982 (47 FR 18856) . 2. YCAPCD Rule 3.15 , Architectural Coatings , submitted March 30, 1981 and approved by the EPA November 10,1982 (47 FR 50865). 3. FRAQMD Rule 3.15, Architectural Coatings, Adopted June 19, 2014 , Submitted November 6, 2014 . 4. Staff Report Rule 3.15 , Architectural Coatings , FRAQMD, July 3, 2014. 5. CARB SCM for Architectural Coatings, Approved October 26 , 2007. 6. EPA’s National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard for Architectural Coatings (40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D). 7. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988 ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/voc_bluebook.pdf). 8. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 ( http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/sips/littlebluebook2001.pdf). 9. 40 CFR §81.305.