UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document

F or EPA ’ s Proposed Rulemaking

F or the California State Implementation Plan

South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1151 , Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non

- Assembly Line Coating Operations

Prepared by: Nicole Law and Adrianne Borgia Reviewed by: Andrew Steckel

Octo ber 20 12- 2

-

Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

SIP Approved Rule: Rule 1151
– Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non

Assembly Line Coating Operations Adopted
– December 11, 1998
Submitted
– February 16, 1999 EPA Approv al

- May 26 , 2000 ( 65 FR 34101 ) Prior Proposed Action: Rule 1151
– Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non

Assembly Line Coating Operations
Amended
– December 2, 2005
Submitted
– April 6, 2009 EPA Limited Approval

- Limited Disapproval
– December 29, 2009 ( 74 FR 68759 ) Subject of this TSD: Rule 1151
– Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non

Assembly Line Coating Operations
Amended
– December 2, 2005
Submitted
– April 6, 2009

RULE SUMMARY

- Rule 1151 establishes VOC content limits and workplace standards for motor vehicle and mobile equipme nt coating operations. It also describes related recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements. Changes from the approved SIP rule include:
1. Purpose and applicability sections have been edited to remove Group I and
II classifications.
2. Add e d and removed definitions to clarify rule language.
3. Added language to exempt ter t iary butyl acetate (TBAc) as a VOC.
4

. R emoved distinctions between Group I and II coatings in the requirements
section . There is now only one table displaying VOC limits, which have
been lowered and updated to match limits in CARB’s SCM.- 3

-

5

. The category of specialty coatings was removed as was the provision on using specialty coatings.
6

. Added sub section s on the prohibi tion of possession of noncompliant coatings and administrative requirements for manufacture r s. 7

. Removed the exemption on touch

- up and stencil coatings.

EPA EVALUATION

- The following criteria were used to evaluate the submitted
rule:
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. Rule Stringency
– EPA’s Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) for, “Reduction for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Automobile Refinishing” (EPA

450/3

- 88

- 009), dated October 1988, CARB’s Suggested Control Measure (SCM) titled, “Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings,” (approved by the board on October, 2005) and other state and local rules for this category were used to help evaluate the r ule s tringency.
3. Relaxation

- Where previous versions of rules have been SIP approved, new submittals must comply with CAA § 110(l) and § 193 regarding SIP relaxations.

Enforceability

- The monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and other requirements generally ensure that the submitted rule can be enforced.

Stringency

- Since SCAQMD is a n extreme nonattainment area for ozone, the
district must implement RACT requirements pursuant to CAA section 182(b)(2). We believe Rule 1151 fulfills RACT requirements because the VOC limits are generally more stringent than the CTG for, “Reduction for Volatile O rganic Compound- 4

-

Emissions from Automobile Refinishing” and are equivalent to the limits set forth in CARB’s SCM for Automotive Coatings.
We note that TBAc is defined as a n exempt VOC in sub section G.16

. Although the recordkeeping/reporting of TBAc remains a requirement pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51.100 (s)(5) , EPA does not consider the lack of recordkeeping/reporting an obstacle to approving the rule because the recordkeeping provision is to determine if usage of t
- butyl acetate is significantly increasing as a result of its exemption as opposed to being used to determine a facility's compliance with the rule's specific
VOC limits. Further, t he State will continue to have a recordkeeping/reporting obligation for TBAc unless and until EPA completes a rulemaking to revoke the requirement in 40 CFR 51.100(s), which we have been petitioned to do.

SIP Relaxation

- In addition, we believe the submitted rule is more stringent than the version previously approved into the SIP, so the submitted rule does not relax the SIP and complies with CAA §110(l) and §193.

EPA’s PREVIOUS PROPOSED ACTION

- On December 29, 2009 (see 69 FR 69298) , we proposed a limited approval

limited disapproval of this rule because we determined that while it largely fulfilled the relevant CAA requirements regarding RACT, enforceability and rule relaxations, one rule deficiency was identified

- the exclusion o f recordkeeping or reporting for TBAc, as required by 40 CFR 51.100(s)(5). However, we no longer believe that omitting the requirement for recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory requirements on the exempt compound TBAc is sufficient basis to disapprove this rule. As discussed in the previous section, “...TBAc will not be VOC for purpos es of VOC
emissions limitations or VOC content requirements .” 1 , which are the basis for

1 . 40 CFR 51.100(s)(5)- 5

-

compliance with this rule by a facility. In addition, the State will continue to assume the responsibility for the reporting, modeling and inventory requ irements. In response to this prior proposed limited disapproval action, Lyondell Chemical Company commented that they encouraged the EPA to reconsider the limited disapproval of this rule because the TBAc reporting and recordkeeping requirements “are burd ensome, arbitrary, contrary to the goals of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and
should be rescinded.” 2 Lyondell, as the developer and producer of TBAc, also indicated that it has and continues to provide TBAc sales data to the EPA and that other reported emissio ns data would be inaccurate. The arguments were convincing enough to engage EPA in a discussion of the merits of this provision and to reverse our proposed decision on this rule. 40 CFR 51.100(s)(5), to date, remains unchanged but we no longer consider it an adequate justification for disapproval of SCAQMD Rule 1151.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT RULE REVISION

- The following revision s are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are recommended for the next time the rule is amended.
1. To stay consistent with requirements in CARB’s SCM, consider revising
sub section (d)(4)(A) to state the required efficiency of an emission control system shall be calculated by an equation and achieve an overall control efficiency of 85 percent or greater.
2. In subsection (d)(7), s everal references are incorrect. In (A)(iii), revise (h)(1)(E) to (h)(1)( F ) and revise (d)(6)(A)(ii) to (d)( 7 )(A)(ii). In (B), revise (d)(6)(A) to (d)( 7 )(A).
3. In subsection (e)( 3)(B) delete “or does not meet” to be consistent with the format in (e)(2)(B) and to accurately include the VOC limits and meeting the

2 . January 27, 2010 letter Re: Comments on the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Pollution Control District (EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0754, sent by Dan Pourreau, Project Manager of Lyondell Chemica l Company to EPA

.- 6

- requirements for exempt compounds and carcinogenic materials as provisions
to sell or offer for sale or distribute coatin gs. 4. In subsection (f)(2), the recordkeeping of key system parameters which need to ensure or document compliance should refer to subsection (d)(4)(A), Alternative Compliance, Emission Control System, instead of (d)(3)(A) which
does not exist.

EPA ACTION

- The submitte d Rule 1151 fulfills the relevant CAA §110 and part D requirements. Therefore, EPA staff recommends a full approval of Rule 1151 pursuant to CAA §110(k) (3) and §301(a). This analysis and recommendation replaces the TSD prepared in support of our 12/29/09 proposed action ( 74 FR 68759 ).

ATTACHMENTS

- 1. SCAQMD Rule 1151 , Motor Vehi cle and Mobile Equipment Non

- Assembly Line Coating Operations , as submitted on April 6, 2009

. 2. SCAQMD Rule 1151, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non

- Assembly Line Coating Operations, as submitted on February 16, 1999.
3. CARB Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for “Automotive Coatings” as approved by the Board on October 20, 2005. ADDITIONAL REFEREN CES

- 1

. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988 (cover only)

. 2

. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (cover only)

. 3. 69 FR 69298, November 29, 2004, Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds
– Exclusion of t

- Butyl Acetate- 7

-

4. EPA’s Control Technique Guidelines (CTG), “Control Technique Guidelines for Emissions from Automobile Refinishing” (EPA

- 450/3

- 88

- 009), October
1988.
5. Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) Document, “Automotive Refinishing” (EPA

- 453/R

- 94

- 031), April 2004.