ATTACHMENT 3

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO PUBLIC 

COMMENTS

PROPOSED RULE 323.1

ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS

June 19, 2014

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District

260 San Antonio Road, Suite A

Santa Barbara, California 93110

(805) 961-8800

Santa Barbara County APCD 3-1 June 19, 2014

Public Comments and Responses to Comments - Proposed Rule 323.1

ATTACHMENT 3

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Note: Comments on draft Rule 323.1 

received before May 18, 2014 and the 

District’s responses to those comments are 

maintained by staff. These are available 

upon request.

Comments from California Air Resources 

Board, June 6, 2014

COMMENT 1

Section A.2 indicates that Rule 323.1 shall 

be effective on January 1, 2015 and Section 

A.3 indicates that rule 323 shall remain in 

effect until January 1, 2015. This would 

cause both Rule 323 and Rule 323.1 to be 

effective on January 1, 2015. It is 

recommended that Rule 323 remain in effect 

until December 31, 2014, eliminating 

overlap between the two rules.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1

The two sections in question are shown 

below:

A. Applicability [. . .]

2. Rule 323.1 shall be effective on 

January 1, 2015.

3. Rule 323, Architectural Coatings, 

shall remain in effect in its entirety 

until January 1, 2015. A coating 

manufactured prior to January 1, 

2015 may be sold, supplied, or 

offered for sale for up to three 

years after January 1, 2015, 

provided that the coating complied, 

at the time of manufacture, with all 

applicable provisions in Rule 323 

as revised November 15, 2001. 

Such coating may also be applied at 

any time, both before and after 

January 1, 2015. This Section does 

not apply to any coating that does 

not display the date or date code 

required by Section E.1.a of this 

rule.

Staff do not see how the Rule 323 and Rule 

323.1 are both effective on the same day: 

January 1, 2015. We read Section 323.1.A.3 

to mean that Rule 323 is no longer in effect 

as of January 1, 2015.

COMMENT 2

Section B.5 states that the “rule shall not 

apply to any coating that contains less than 

20 grams of VOC per liter (0.17 pounds of 

VOC per gallon) of coatings, less water and 

less exempt compounds, as applied.” This 

would allow manufacturers who deemed 

their products to fall below this threshold to 

not label their products with VOC content, 

date code, or thinning recommendations, 

complicating enforcement efforts. In 

addition to eliminating all labeling 

requirements, it also excludes these products 

from reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 2

We amended the exemption to make it a 

partial rule exemption, as follows:

B. Exemptions [. . .]
Santa Barbara County APCD 3-2 June 19, 2014

Public Comments and Responses to Comments - Proposed Rule 323.1

5. The requirements of With the 

exception of Sections E and F, this 

rule shall not apply to any coating 

that contains less than 20 grams of 

VOC per liter (0.17 pounds of 

VOC per gallon) of coating, less 

water and less exempt compounds, 

as applied.

Per discussions with ARB staff on May 19, 

2014, the revised exemption is acceptable to 

them.

COMMENT 3

Section C provides a definition for “Ablative 

Coating.” Inclusion of this additional 

definition is unnecessary as this coating is 

an Industrial Maintenance Coating. Further, 

the proposed limit for Ablative Coating is 

the same as that of Industrial Maintenance 

Coating. It is recommended that the 

definition for Ablative Coating be 

eliminated from Section C, and the VOC 

content limit for Ablative Coating be 

stricken from Table 323.1-1.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 3

The District added this distinct category at 

the request of a stakeholder: United Launch 

Alliance, L.L.C. (ULA). Due to the unique 

operations involved with space launches, we 

believe a definition of Ablative Coatings 

with a Table 323.1-1 limit of limit of 250 g/l 

is appropriate. Hence, we did not delete the 

definition or delete the Ablative Coatings 

category from Table 323.1-1.

COMMENT 4

Section E.1.e. should be modified to delete 

the terms “Not for residential use” and “Not 

intended for residential use.” This is 

obsoleted language from the 2000 Suggested 

Control Measure for Architectural Coating

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4

On April 18, 2014, David Darling of the 

American Coatings Association (ACA) 

specifically requested that we add two 

additional labeling provisions into both the 

Industrial Maintenance (Section E.1.e) and 

the Zinc Rich Primer (E.l.k) labeling 

provisions. His letter indicates, in part:

Changing product labels is very 

expensive. To reduce the regulatory 

burden for those coatings manufacturers 

that use the IM label statements “Not 

For Residential Use,” or “Not Intended 

For Residential Use,” ACA urges Santa 

Barbara retain all four IM statements in 

Rule 323.1. In addition, ACA suggests 

that Santa Barbara include all four label 

statements for Zinc-Rich Primers 

(primers used for IM coatings) as well. 

Please note that the following California 

Air Districts have adopted the 2007 

California Air Resources Board 

Suggested Control Measures for 

Architectural Coatings (CARB 2007 

SCM) and included all four IM and 

Zinc Rich Primer labeling statements: 

San Joaquin, Ventura, Imperial, Eastern 

Kern, Placer, Mojave, and Antelope 

Valley. 

Staff verified that all four label statements 

were in all the rules referenced by Mr. 

Darling. We also believe the spirit and intent 

of the two ARB 2007 SCM provisions (“For 

industrial use only” or “For professional use 

only”) are essentially met with the two 

additional statements: “Not for residential 

use” and “Not intended for residential use.” 

Hence, we did not modify the rule to align 

with the 2007 SCM text.
Santa Barbara County APCD 3-3 June 19, 2014

Public Comments and Responses to Comments - Proposed Rule 323.1

COMMENT 5

Section E.1.k. should be modified to delete 

the terms “For industrial use only”, “Not for 

residential use” and “Not intended for 

residential use.” This is obsoleted language 

from the 2000 Suggested Control Measure 

for Architectural Coatings.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 5

Same as the Comment 4 response.

COMMENT 6

Section G.3 makes reference to Section G.7, 

but rule contains no Section G.7.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6

Right, staff changed the text as shown 

below:

G. Compliance Provisions and Test 

Methods [. . .]

3. Alternative Test Methods: Other 

test methods demonstrated to 

provide results that are acceptable 

for purposes of determining 

compliance with Section G.2 or 

G.7, after review and approved in 

writing by the staffs of the District, 

the California Air Resources 

Board, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency, may also be 

used.

COMMENT 7

Please modify Section G.5 as follows “Test 

Methods: The following test methods are 

incorporated by reference herein, and shall 

be used to test coatings and solvents subject 

to the provisions of this rule”.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 7

Right, staff changed the text as shown 

below:

5. Test Methods: The following test 

methods are incorporated by 

reference herein, and shall be used 

to test coatings and solvents subject 

to the provisions of this rule:

COMMENT 8

Please correct Section G.5.a to read 

“Standard Test Methods for Fire tests of 

Building and Construction and Materials”. 

The 2007 Suggested Control Measure for 

Architectural Coatings listed this title 

incorrectly.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 8

Right, staff changed the text as shown 

below:

a. Fire Resistance Rating: The fire 

resistance rating of a fire-resistive 

coating shall be determined by 

ASTM Designation E119-07, 

“Standard Test Methods for Fire 

Tests of Building and Construction 

and Materials,” ASTM 

International (see Section C, FireResistive Coating).
Santa Barbara County APCD 3-4 June 19, 2014 

Public Comments and Responses to Comments - Proposed Rule 323.1 

Comments from Robert Wendoll of the 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation, 

June 17, 2014

COMMENT 1 

Dunn-Edwards Corporation is a Californiabased manufacturer and distributor of 

architectural coatings, serving the 

Southwestern United States. Our Main 

Office and a majority of our retail outlets are 

located in California, where we employ 

more than 1,500 people directly, and 

contribute indirectly to the livelihoods of 

thousands more professional painting 

contractors and maintenance staff painters 

throughout the state. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1

Comment noted. 

COMMENT 2 

Dunn-Edwards is pleased to support the 

adoption of Santa Barbara County APCD 

Proposed Rule 323.1 – Architectural 

Coatings, as recommended for adoption at 

the Board hearing on June 19, 2014. As it is 

essentially consistent with the California Air 

Resources Board’s Suggested Control 

Measure for Architectural Coatings, the new 

rule will promote effective enforcement by 

the District, efficient distribution of product 

by manufacturers and retailers, and simplify 

compliance for painters, both professional 

and do-it-yourselfers. We thank District staff 

for their consideration of comments 

previously offered by Dunn-Edwards and 

the American Coatings Association. 

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 2

Comment noted.