## ATTACHM ENT 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

- 8800Santa Barbara County APCD 3

- 1 June 19, 2014

Public Comm ents and Res ponses 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 s taff

. These are available

upon request.

Comment s 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 section s 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,

20 15 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 app lied 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to mean that Ru le 323 is no longer in effect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 recommen dations, 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 amend ed the exemption to make it a partial rule exemp tion, as follows:

B. Exemptions [. . .]Santa Barbara County APCD 3

- 2 June 19, 2014

Public Comm ents and Res ponses to Comments

- Proposed Rule 323.1 5. The requirements of With the exception of Sections E and F, t his 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 l ess 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 t his 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

c ontent 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 laun ches, 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 mod ified 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

America n 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 l abels 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 Sugg ested 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 sta tements 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 re sidential

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 Comm ents and Res ponses 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 inten ded 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 S ection 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 determ ining 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 fir e

- 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, Fire

Resistive 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 a nd 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 re tailers, 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.