SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN 

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

STAFF REPORT 

Proposed Amendments to 

Rule 459, Automotive, Mobile Equipment and Associated Parts and Components Coating 

Operations (New Title) 

July 25, 2011 

Prepared by: Marc Cooley 

Associate Air Quality Engineer 

David Yang 

Associate Air Quality Engineer 

Reviewed by: Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. 

Program Coordinator 

Aleta Kennard 

Program Supervisor 

Approved by: Brigette Tollstrup 

Division Manager 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 2 

BACKGROUND 

Ground level ozone is a secondary pollutant formed from photochemical reactions of nitrogen 

oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is a 

strong irritant that adversely affects human health and damages crops and other environmental 

resources. As documented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the most 

recent Criteria Document for ozone1

, both short-term and long-term exposure to ozone can 

irritate and damage the human respiratory system, resulting in: 

 decreased lung function; 

 development and aggravation of asthma; 

 increased risk of cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks and strokes; 

 increased hospitalizations and emergency room visits; and 

 premature deaths. 

The District is currently designated as a nonattainment area for both the state and federal ozone 

standards. Since VOCs are a precursor to ozone, one of the strategies to control ozone 

pollution is to reduce VOC emissions from existing stationary sources. The projected 2012 

VOC emission inventory for Sacramento County includes 303 tons per year for automotive 

coatings. 

Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Automotive Coatings 

On October 20, 2005, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted a Suggested Control 

Measure (SCM) for Automotive Coatings. The purpose of the SCM is to promote uniformity 

among California district rules, improve enforceability, and achieve additional reductions in VOC 

emissions. The SCM consolidated coatings for Group I and Group II vehicles, replaced the 

specialty coating and multi-stage coating categories with specific coating categories, and 

established lower VOC limit for some coating categories. To date, ten other California air 

districts have amended their rules to be consistent with the SCM. 

Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings 

On October 7, 2008, EPA promulgated a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings2

. The CTG contains Reasonable Available 

Control Technology (RACT) guidelines and recommendations, including VOC content limits, 

specific exemptions, and recommended work practice procedures, for coatings applied on six 

different substrate categories: miscellaneous metal parts and products, miscellaneous plastic 

parts and products, transportation plastic parts, business machine plastic parts, pleasure craft, 

and motor vehicle materials. 

Section 182(b)(2) of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the District to implement RACT for 

the source categories included in the CTG. On October 28, 2010, the District adopted 

amendments to Rule 451 – Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products that 

lower VOC limits for specific coatings for miscellaneous metal parts and products to be as 

stringent as the requirements in the CTG. In addition, Staff is planning to propose a new rule for 

 

1

 “Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants”, U.S. EPA, February 2006. 2

 “Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings”, U.S. EPA, 

September 2008. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 3 

the coatings of miscellaneous plastic parts and products, transportation and business machine 

plastic parts, and pleasure craft. Staff is proposing to include the CTG requirements for motor 

vehicle materials in Rule 459. There are two coating categories for which the VOC limits in the 

CTG are more stringent that those in the SCM: multi-color coatings when applied to 

transportation plastic parts, and truck bed liner coatings. In these two cases, the CTG limits are 

proposed in the amendments to Rule 459. The proposed limits are described in the next 

section. 

 

Rule 459, Automotive, Mobile Equipment, and Associated Parts and Components Coating 

Operations (Proposed New Title) 

Rule 459 was first adopted on December 7, 1995 and last amended on October 2, 1997. The 

rule applies to coating, coating removal (stripping), surface preparation, and cleanup operations 

for automotive, truck or heavy equipment finishing or refinishing operations. Rule 459 also 

regulates the sale of coatings within the District by prohibiting manufacturers and suppliers of 

coatings from selling coatings that do not comply with the rule.

Staff is proposing to amend Rule 459 to incorporate the requirements of the SCM. The 

proposed amendments will satisfy a State Implementation Plan (SIP) commitment to reduce 

VOC emissions from this source category. Staff will also ensure that the limits proposed in the 

SCM meet the CTG requirements for transportation plastic parts. Staff will use the most 

stringent VOC limit for coating categories from both the SCM and the CTG. Staff is also 

proposing to amend Rule 459 to incorporate the requirements of the CTG that are specific to 

motor vehicle materials used during coating operations. The proposed amendments will satisfy 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement to implement RACT for these coatings and materials. 

LEGAL MANDATES 

Federal Mandates: 

The District is designated as a “severe” nonattainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone 

standard. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 51.908, requires “severe” 

nonattainment areas to comply with the attainment demonstration requirements of CAA section 

182(c)(2), which requires a plan to be submitted to EPA which demonstrates attainment of the 

standard by the applicable attainment date, and to include all control measures necessary for 

attainment. In 2009, the districts of the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area adopted an 

attainment demonstration plan to achieve the federal 8-hour ozone standard by the attainment 

date of June 15, 20193

. The plan includes a commitment for the District to achieve VOC 

emission reductions from automotive coating operations of 0.11 tons per day in 2018. 

Federal Clean Air Act section 172(c)(1) specifies that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include 

“reasonably available control measures” (RACM), including “reasonably available control 

technology” (RACT), for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) of the CAA provides that 

for nonattainment areas classified as “moderate” or worse, states must revise their SIPs to 

include RACT for sources of VOC emissions for each category of VOC sources covered by a 

CTG document issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area’s date of attainment. EPA 

 

3

 “Sacramento Regional 8-hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan”, EDCAQMD, 

FRAQMD, PCAPCD, SMAQMD, YSAQMD, March 26, 2009.
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 4 

defines RACT as “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting 

by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological 

and economic feasibility4

.” Pursuant to CAA Sections 108(b) and (c), EPA periodically 

publishes information regarding available controls. In developing Control Techniques 

Guidelines, EPA evaluates, among other things, the sources of VOC emissions and the 

available control approaches for addressing these emissions, including the costs of such 

approaches. CTG documents establish the presumptive minimum recommendations for RACT. 

On October 7, 2008, EPA promulgated a Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous 

Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. EPA’s CTG provides the presumptive minimum 

recommendations for RACT for various coating categories, including coatings for transportation 

plastic parts and motor vehicles materials. The proposed amendments to Rule 459 will satisfy 

the RACT requirements for motor vehicle materials and transportation plastic parts coating 

associated with automotive coating operations and also satisfy the federal plan commitment for 

automotive coating operations. 

State Mandates: 

The District is designated “serious” nonattainment for the state ozone standard. The California 

Clean Air Act requires areas designated as “serious” to adopt control measures required in 

Sections 40919 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). The plan commitment for this 

rule also satisfies the following requirements: 

 California HSC Section 40919 requires districts designated serious nonattainment for 

ozone to adopt Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for all existing 

permitted sources. BARCT means an emission limitation that is based on the maximum 

degree of reduction achievable, taking into account environmental, energy, and 

economic impacts by each class or category of sources5

. 

 Transport Mitigation Emission Control Requirements: Title 17, Section 70600 of the 

California Code of Regulations requires that districts within the areas of origin of 

transported air pollutants, as identified in Section 70500(c), include sufficient emission 

control measures (including “all feasible measures” and BARCT) in their attainment 

plans for ozone to mitigate the impact of pollution sources within their jurisdictions on 

ozone concentrations in downwind areas commensurate with the level of contribution. 

An upwind district must comply with the transport mitigation planning and 

implementation requirements set forth in this section regardless of its attainment status, 

unless the upwind district complies with the requirements of Section 70601. 

The limits proposed for Rule 459 have been adopted in the following ten California districts, with 

the implementation dates in parentheses: San Joaquin Valley APCD (January 1, 2009), South 

Coast AQMD (July 1, 2008), Ventura County APCD (January 1, 2009), Santa Barbara APCD 

(January 1, 2009), San Luis Obispo APCD (July 1, 2009), Yolo Solano AQMD (July 1, 2009), 

Bay Area AQMD (October 1, 2009), Imperial County APCD (April 1, 2010), Mojave Desert 

AQMD (July 1, 2011), and Placer County APCD (July 1, 2011). Waterborne coatings that meet 

the proposed limits also have been successfully implemented and shown to be feasible in 

Europe. 

 

4

 44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979. 

5

 California Health and Safety Code Section 40406. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 5 

The proposed amendments to Rule 459 will meet the BARCT requirements and fulfill the state 

plan commitment. 

SUGGESTED CONTROL MEASURE (SCM) FOR AUTOMOTIVE COATINGS 

CARB’s Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings contains recommendations for 

automobile and mobile equipment coating operations. The SCM consolidated Group I and II 

vehicles, replaced the multi-stage topcoat and specialty coating categories with specific coating 

categories, and lowered the VOC limits for some existing coating categories. For solvents used 

in surface preparation, cleanup and cleaning of application equipment, the SCM recommended 

to lower the VOC limit to 25 grams per liter. The following table shows the VOC limits from the 

SCM: 

SCM Suggested VOC Limits for Automobile and Mobile Equipment Coatings 

Category VOC Limit (g/l)* 

Adhesion Promoter 540 

Clear Coating 250 

Color Coating 420 

Multi-Color Coating 680 

Pretreatment Coating 660 

Primer/Primer Sealer 250 

Single-Stage Coating 340 

Temporary Protective Coating 60 

Truck Bed Liner Coating 310 

Underbody Coating 430 

Uniform Finish Coating 540 

Any Other Coating Type 250 

Solvents 25 

* Less water and exempt compounds 

In order to comply with the new coating limits, CARB anticipated that coating manufacturers 

would use exempt compounds in the coating reformulations or use water-based coatings. The 

SCM included a recommendation to exempt tertiary butyl acetate (TBAc) as a VOC for the 

purpose of complying with the VOC limits for coatings and solvents. The SCM also 

recommended a prohibition of possession provision which prohibits end users from possessing 

any coatings or solvents that do not meet the VOC limits, except when the end user uses an 

emission control device with a control efficiency of at least 85%. 

CTG RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings contains 

recommended VOC content limits coatings applied to transportation plastic parts and motor 

vehicle materials. The following tables show how the CTG categories and limits match up with 

the coating categories in the current rule and SCM. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 6 

Transportation Plastic Parts Coatings 

CTG Current Rule SCM 

Category CTG Limit 

(g/l)1 Category Limit 

(g/l)2 Category SCM Limit (g/l) 

Flexible Primer 540 Specialty Coating 840 Adhesion 

Promoter 540 

Non-flexible Primer 420 Primer 250 Primer 250 

Basecoat 520 

Multi-stage Topcoat 

System3 540 

Color Coat 420 

Multi-color 

Coating 6804

Topcoat 420 Single-staged 

Coating 340 

Clear Coat 480 Multi-stage Topcoat 

System 3 540 Clear Coat 250 

Non-basecoat or 

Non-clear Coat 520 

Precoat 600 

Any other 

coating 250 Pretreatment Wash Primer 780 

Specialty Coating 840 

Touch-up and 

Repair Coatings 620 Specialty Coating 840 Uniform 

Coating 540 

1 VOC limits are based on the “Bake Exterior Parts” coating categories. 2

 VOC limits are based on the “Group II, no color match” coating categories. 3 Multi-stage topcoat system is topcoat system that composes of a base coat and clear coat. 4 This limit does not meet the CTG limit for railroad cars or transportation equipment not covered by the national rule. 

The proposed VOC limits from the SCM are equal to or more stringent than the VOC limits listed 

for the corresponding coating categories in the CTG, except for the proposed VOC limit for 

“multi-color coating”. The VOC limit for “multi-color coating” in the SCM is not as stringent as 

the corresponding VOC limit for the “base coat” in the CTG. The CTG does not have a “multicolor coating” limit. 

The CTG is applicable to coating operations that are not already covered under the National 

Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings6

. The 

national rule applies to automobile refinish coatings for use on passenger cars, vans, 

motorcycles, trucks, and any equipment that is physically capable of being driven or drawn upon 

a highway including, but not limited to, construction vehicles, farming equipment, hauling 

equipment, and miscellaneous equipment. Railroad cars and other mobile equipment that is 

capable of being driven or drawn on rails are not covered under the national rule and are, 

therefore, subject to the CTG. 

Since Rule 459 is applicable to railroad cars or other mobile equipment capable of being driven 

or drawn on rails, Staff is proposing a limit of 520 g/l VOC for multi-color coating for the 

transportation equipment not covered by the national rule. This VOC limit for multi-color coating 

 

6 40 CFR Part 59, Subpart B: National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile 

Refinish Coatings.
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 7 

will be incorporated into the proposed amendments to Rule 459 to satisfy the federal Clean Air 

Act requirements. 

Motor Vehicle Materials

CTG Current Rule SCM 

Category CTG Limit 

(g/l) 

Rule/ 

Category 

Limit 

(g/l) 

SCM 

Category 

SCM Limit 

(g/l) 

Gasket/Gasket 

Sealing Material 200 None -- None -- 

Cavity Wax 650 None -- None -- 

Deadener 650 None -- None -- 

Lubricating 

Wax/Compound 700 None -- None -- 

Sealer 650 Rule 460/ 

Other sealant 420* None -- 

Underbody coating 650 

Rule 459/ 

Rubberized Asphaltic 

Underbody 

540* Underbody 

coating 430 

Trunk interior 

coating 650 Rule 459/ Solid Color Topcoat 420* 

Single-staged 

Coating 340 

Bed liner 200 Rule 459/ 

Specialty coating 840 Truck Bed Liner Coating 310 

* Indicates this current rule limit is less stringent than the VOC limit listed for the corresponding coating category in 

the CTG.

Sealer is regulated by Rule 460, ADHESIVES AND SEALANTS, under the category of “other 

sealant.” As shown above, the CTG limit for sealer would be less stringent than the limit listed 

in Rule 460. Staff is not proposing to include sealer in the proposed amendments to Rule 459 

since it is currently regulated by Rule 460. 

For underbody coatings and truck bed liner coatings, these categories are also coating 

categories in the SCM. As such, these coatings will be incorporated in the vehicle coatings 

section along with the other coating categories from the SCM and not in the motor vehicle 

materials section. For trunk interior coatings, the VOC limit from the CTG is less stringent than 

any coating in the SCM or current rule that might be used as a coating for trunk interiors. Trunk 

interior coatings could be applied either as single staged coatings or as solid color coat/clear 

coat systems. The limits for these coatings under the SCM are more stringent than the trunk 

interior coating limit in the CTG. Therefore, Staff is not proposing to add a coating category for 

trunk interior coatings. 

All motor vehicle materials categories in the table above will be incorporated in the proposed 

amendments to Rule 459 except for sealer and trunk interior coating. Staff is proposing the 

most stringent VOC limits for motor vehicle materials from the CTG, SCM or a current District 

rule. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 8 

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

Staff is proposing to amend Rule 459 to reduce emissions from automotive and mobile 

equipment coating operations by incorporating the requirements from the SCM. The SCM for 

automotive coatings was adopted by CARB to promote consistency and uniformity among 

districts rule and reduce VOC emissions. Adoption of these requirements will help improve rule 

enforceability by simplifying coating categories and establishing individual coating limits. In 

addition, the VOC limits proposed in the SCM meet the CTG requirements for transportation 

plastic parts except for multi-colored coating for mobile equipment drawn or driven on rails and it 

associated parts and components. Staff will incorporate the CTG recommended VOC limit for 

this coating category in order to satisfy federal RACT requirements. Staff is also proposing to 

include the requirements recommended in the CTG for motor vehicle materials such as 

gasket/gasket sealing materials, deadener, cavity wax, and lubricating wax/compound. 

The proposed amendments to Rule 459 will apply to the coating of motor vehicles, mobile 

equipment, and their associated parts and components. Only those pieces of equipment 

designed to be parts of motor vehicles or mobile equipment would be classified as associated 

parts and components. For example, truck trailers and camper shells are covered by this rule. 

The significant proposed amendments for Rule 459 are summarized below. For a detailed list 

of changes, see Appendix B. 

Changes to VOC Limits: The following table lists the changes to VOC limits for coatings, 

surface preparation solvents, and cleanup solvents currently regulated by Rule 459, and the 

new motor vehicle materials not currently regulated by a District rule. Each row applies to a 

coating or solvent type. The column labeled “Current VOC Limits” lists the current categories 

and their corresponding VOC limits. The column labeled “Proposed VOC Limits” refers to the 

new or replaced categories in the proposed amendments. Some categories are proposed to be 

changed as well as their corresponding VOC limits. Staff evaluated the VOC limits listed in the 

SCM and CTG. This table reflects the more stringent of the two and the last column lists which 

(SCM or CTG) limit was chosen. 

Proposed VOC Limits 

Current VOC Limits Proposed VOC Limits 

Current 

Category1

VOC Limit 

(g/l)2 New/Replaced Category VOC Limit 

(g/l)2

SCM 

or 

CTG 

Pretreatment Wash Primer 780 Pretreatment Coating 660 SCM 

Precoat3 600 

Primer/Primer Surfacer Primer/Primer Sealer 250 SCM 3 250 

Primer Sealer3 4204

Solid Color Topcoat 420 Single-Stage Coating 340 SCM 

Color Coating 420 SCM 

Metallic/Iridescent Topcoat 4204 Color Coating 420 SCM 

Multi-Stage Topcoat System5 5404 

Color Coating 420 SCM 

Multi-Color Coating6

Mobile equipment driven or 

drawn on rails and its parts 

and components 

520 CTG 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 9 

Current VOC Limits Proposed VOC Limits 

Current 

Category1

VOC Limit 

(g/l)2 New/Replaced Category VOC Limit (g/l)2

SCM 

or 

CTG 

Multi-Stage Topcoat System5 5404

Multi-Color Coating6

Motor vehicle or all other 

mobile equipment and its 

parts and components 

6806

 SCM 

Clear Coating 250 SCM 

Rubberized Asphaltic Underbody 540 Underbody Coating 430 SCM 

Temporary Protective Coating 607 Temporary Protective Coating 60 SCM 

Specialty Coating8

840 

Adhesion Promoter 540 SCM 

Truck Bed Liner Coating 200 CTG 

Uniform Finish Coating 540 SCM 

Any Other Coating Type 250 SCM 

Rule 451: 

Any other coatings – Air dried 

(for radiator, drive trains, 

differentials, and engine 

components) 

340 Single-Staged Coating 340 SCM 

N/A -- Gasket/Gasket Sealing 

Material 200 CTG 

N/A -- Cavity Wax 650 CTG 

N/A -- Deadener 650 CTG 

N/A -- Lubricating Wax/Compound 700 CTG 

Surface preparation solvents to 

clean plastic parts or to remove 

road tar, engine oil, grease, 

overspray, or adhesives 

780 Bug and Tar Removers 

25 or use 

regulated 

Consumer 

Product 

SCM 

Solvents 25 SCM 

Other surface preparation 

solvents 72 Solvents 25 SCM 

Equipment cleanup solvents 729 Solvents 25 SCM 1

All current categories are listed from Rule 459, except as noted. 2

Less water and exemption compounds, except as noted. 

3

 These categories have been consolidated in the SCM into the single category of Primer or Primer Surfacer. 4 VOC limit is the most stringent limit from Group I or Group II vehicle category. Group I and Group II vehicle have 

been consolidated in the SCM. 

5 This category has been eliminated in the SCM and has been replaced by specific limits on each coating stage. 6 Multi-Color Coating was previously contained within the multi-stage topcoat system. Assuming a worst-case multicolor coating (VOC content 680 g/l) for the base coat and a color coating (420 g/l) as the clear coat of a multi-stage 

system the VOC of the multi-stage is 507 g/l. The proposed limits are more restrictive. 7

 Including water and exempt compounds. 

8

 This category has been eliminated in the SCM and has been replaced by specific limits on each specialty coating. 9

 The current rule allows the use of an enclosed system in lieu of meeting the VOC limit. 

The current version of Rule 459 allows the use of any solvent for cleaning application equipment 

as long as the cleaning operation is performed in an enclosed system. The proposed 

amendments will eliminate this option for cleaning application equipment. All solvents used for 

cleaning application equipment after the proposed effective dates must meet the proposed limit. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 10 

The proposed amendments will also clarify that a coating remover (stripper) is not a solvent 

used in a cleaning operation. A material used to remove overspray or to clean application 

equipment is considered a solvent and is subject to the proposed limit of 25 grams per liter. 

Effective Date for Proposed VOC Limits: Staff did not receive adverse comments regarding the 

proposed effective dates for the amendments. As such, Staff is recommending that the 

proposed requirements be effective six months after the date of adoption, as proposed at the 

public workshop. This effective date will achieve a level playing field in a relatively short period 

of time, placing District sources that have already invested in new technology and sources in 

surrounding air districts on equal footing with shops that have not yet converted to using lower 

VOC coatings. 

Changes/Additions to the Exemptions: Changes or additions to the exemptions are proposed 

for Rule 459 for consistency with the SCM and/or the CTG. These are described as follows: 

 The exemption for restoration of special interest vehicles and street rod vehicles is 

proposed for sunset six months after date of adoption. Currently, SMAQMD and San 

Diego County APCD are the only districts in California providing such an exemption. 

The SCAQMD rule, SJVAPCD rule and the SCM do not include this exemption. 

 The exemption for radiators, drive trains, differentials, and engine components is 

proposed for sunset six months after the date of adoption. Radiators, drive trains, 

differentials and engine components will be considered associated parts and 

components and subject to the proposed amendments to Rule 459. Previously, the 

coating of these parts was regulated under Rule 451. 

 The exemption for graphic arts operations (previously called stencil coatings) is 

proposed to be narrowed, consistent with the SCM. In the current rule, stencil coatings 

are exempt from all provisions of the rule. Under the proposed exemption, these 

coatings would be exempt only from the application method requirements. 

 The exemption for aerosol containers is proposed to be revised to include any size 

aerosol coating products, which are regulated by the California Consumer Product 

Regulations7

, consistent with the SCM. 

 The exemption for touch-up coating from a container of two ounces or less will be 

lowered to a container of 0.5 fluid ounces or less, consistent with the SCM. 

 An exemption is proposed to be added for coatings in an assembly line operation at an 

original equipment manufacturing plant. The current rule exempted this type of 

operation through its applicability and definitions, but this exemption is not clearly stated. 

In addition, the requirements suggested by the SCM are not intended to cover assembly 

line operations at an original equipment manufacturing plant. 

 The applications of any coating use of no more than one fluid ounce when applied from 

a container with a capacity of no more than one fluid ounce, the application of underbody 

coating, and the application of truck bed liner coating are proposed to be exempted from 

the application method requirements. This exemption is consistent with the SCM. 

 An exemption is proposed for the VOC limits for new motor vehicle materials, which are 

materials from the CTG previously not regulated by other District rules, at stationary 

sources with total actual emissions of less than 2.7 tons of VOC per 12-month rolling 

period from truck bed liner and underbody coatings, motor vehicle materials, surface 

coating operation for miscellaneous metal parts and products subject to Rule 451, and 

 

7

 Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Sections 94520 – 94528, Aerosol Coating Products. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 11 

surface coating operation for miscellaneous plastic parts and products subject to new 

Rule 468. New Rule 468 will be proposed for adoption later this year. This exemption is 

in the CTG. 

TBAc VOC Exclusion: On November 29, 2004, EPA exempted tertiary butyl acetate (TBAc)8

from the federal definition of VOC in Title 40, Part 51 of the Code of Federal Regulations for the 

purposes of complying with VOC emission limits or VOC content requirements. However, EPA 

maintained TBAc as a VOC for the purposes of all recordkeeping, emissions reporting, 

photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements. 

In 2006, CARB, with assistance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 

(OEHHA), conducted an environmental impact assessment on TBAc9

. CARB determined that 

the increased use of TBAc is not expected to increase depletion of stratospheric ozone or 

contribute to global warming. CARB also concluded that TBAc could pose a potential cancer 

risk to humans because TBAc metabolizes to tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA); TBA is a potential 

carcinogen that may result in a cancer risk to humans. Because TBAc may be a potential 

carcinogen, OEHHA developed an interim inhalation unit risk factor for TBAc of 4x10-7 (ug/m3

)

-1. 

CARB recommended that the air districts determine whether the use of TBAc in certain products 

would pose an unacceptable exposure. 

Furthermore, CARB had adopted the SCM which recommended exempting TBAc as a VOC to 

assist in reformulating products to comply with the proposed limits in the SCM. To ensure that 

there were no adverse impacts to nearby receptors, CARB performed a health risk assessment 

(HRA). According to CARB’s 2002 Automotive Coating Survey, toluene, xylene, and methyl 

ethyl ketone (MEK) accounted for approximately 27.5% of the VOC used in automotive 

coatings10. CARB assumed that TBAc replace all toluene, xylene, and MEK in the coating 

products at a 1:1 ratio. The HRA was performed using the largest known autobody shop in 

California, where the TBAc emissions were approximately 1,350 pounds per year after the 

assumed substitution. The HRA estimated the maximum potential risk to be 2.8 excess lifetime 

cancer cases per million cases for a resident living near the autobody shop. CARB concluded 

that the risk from replacing toluene, xylene, and MEK in all automotive coatings with TBAc 

would not be significant10. 

 

In December 2005, SCAQMD amended its automobile refinishing rule (Rule 1151, Motor 

Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-assembly Line Coating Operations) which included a limited 

exemption for TBAc. TBAc is not considered a VOC when used in automotive coatings other 

than color coatings and clear coatings, citing the availability of sufficient compliant coatings on 

the market in the clear and color coating categories that meet the VOC limits of the rule without 

using TBAc11. The cancer risk for the potential use of TBAc in automotive coatings other than 

color coatings and clear coatings was calculated by SCAQMD to be 5 in a million and was 

below its threshold of significance of 10 in a million. 

 

8 “Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds – Exclusion of t-Butyl Acetate” Federal Register, 

Volume 69, November 29, 2004, p. 69298 – 69304. 

9

 “Environmental Impact Assessment of Tertiary-Butyl Acetate” CARB, January 2006. 10 “Staff Report for the Proposed Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings” CARB, October 

2005, p. VI-2 – VI-4.

11 “Staff Report for Proposed Amended Rule 1151 – Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly 

Line Coating Operations” SCAQMD, December 2005, p. 12. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 12 

SJVAPCD exempted TBAc from its automobile refinishing rule (Rule 4612, Motor Vehicle and 

Mobile Equipment Coating operations – Phase II) when it is used as a component of automotive 

coatings. SJVAPCD assumed that TBAc would replace up to 50 percent of non-exempt VOC 

compounds (xylene, toluene and methyl ethyl ketone) in automotive coatings. The cancer risk 

of the potential use of TBAc was 5.6 in a million, which is below its significance threshold of 10 

in a million. As such, SJVAPCD concluded that the potential usage of TBAc is less than 

significant and should be exempted from automotive coatings at all facilities12. In addition, 

SJVAPCD later included TBAc as an exempt compound in its Rule 1020, Definitions, with the 

requirement that an application be submitted to the district when TBAc usages are greater than 

one gallon per year. The application requirement will allow SJVAPCD to perform a health risk 

assessment on the total usage to ensure that the risk is less than significant13. 

Unlike SCAQMD and SJVAPCD, BAAQMD did not include an exemption for TBAc in its 

automobile refinishing rule (Rule 8-45, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating 

Operations). BAAQMD has a policy not to exempt compounds that deplete stratospheric ozone 

or are toxic. However, BAAQMD has considered exemptions for compounds where the 

compounds were needed to meet VOC limits in particular rules. According to BAAQMD, 

compliant coating products have been developed that meet the lower VOC standards and do 

not use TBAc. As a result, BAAQMD did not exempt TBAc in its Rule 8-45 because TBAc may 

potentially pose a cancer risk to humans and compliant coating products are commercially 

available and in use14. 

To evaluate the potential impact from the exemption of TBAc in Rule 459, Staff calculated the 

maximum emissions of TBAc that will cause adverse impact to human health. Generally, a 

cancer risk of less than 10 in a million per facility for a nearby receptor is below the threshold of 

significance and considered acceptable based on SMAQMD threshold of significance for the 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff used the Bowman Environmental 

Engineering Short Term (BEEST)15 for Windows modeling program, version 9.63, to determine 

the unit emission rate concentration from a point source and volume source necessary to reach 

a cancer risk of 10 in a million. The specific detail and modeling assumptions are summarized 

in Appendix D and the modeling results are shown in the following table. 

Source 

Type 

Unit Emission 

Rate 

Annual Conc. 

(ug/m3

)/(g/s) 

Inhalation 

Unit Risk 

Factor 

(ug/m3)

-1

Cancer 

Risk 

(per 106

Cases) 

Emission 

Rate 

(g/s) 

Annual TBAc 

Emissions 

(lb/year) 

Annual VOC 

Emissions 

(lb/year) 

Point 95.1 4 x 10-7 10 0.26 4,340 15,800 

Volume 1,880 4 x 10-7 10 0.01 220 798 

Emission Rate, g/s = Cancer Risk/[(Unit Emission Rate (ug/m3)/(g/s) * (Inhalation Unit Risk Factor (ug/m3)

-1) 

Annual TBAc emissions, lb/year = emission rate, g/s * 0.0022 lb/g * 3600 s/hr * 8 hr/day * 5 day/wk * 52 wk/yr 

Annual VOC emissions, lb/ year = (annual TBAc emissions, lb/year)/(27.5%) 

 

12 “Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed Amendments to Rule 4602, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment 

Coating Operations, and Rule 4612, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations – Phase II” 

SJVAPCD, August 2006, p. 5 – 6. 

13 “Final Draft Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Rule 1020 (Definitions),” SJVAPCD, December 18, 

2008, p. 5.

14 “Staff Report Regulation 8, Rule 45: Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations” 

BAAQMD, November 2008, p. 18 – 19. 

15 Available from BEE-Line Software at www.beeline-software.com 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 13 

For a coating operation, a point source facility is a facility that spray paints inside a spray booth, 

and the emissions are exhausted through a stack. The maximum emission rate for TBAc from a 

point source facility to ensure that the cancer risk is less than 10 in a million is 0.26 grams per 

second. The emission rate is equivalent to 4,340 pounds of TBAc per year, assuming the 

facility operates 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, and 52 weeks per year. In CARB’s 

Environment Impact Assessment of Tertiary-butyl Acetate, CARB determined that TBAc may be 

used to replace xylene, toluene, and MEK in automotive coatings. According to the SCM, 

xylene, toluene and MEK accounts for approximately 27.5% of the total VOC emissions in 

automotive coatings. Assuming that 100% of xylene, toluene and MEK are replaced by TBAc, 

the VOC emissions, including TBAc emissions, from the coating facility would need to be more 

than 15,800 pounds per year to exceed the cancer risk of 10 in a million. Staff compared the 

calculated annual emissions to actual emissions from the largest permitted automotive coating 

facility in the District. According to the inspection reports for 200616, the largest permitted 

automotive coating facility emits approximately 6,000 pounds of VOC per year. Staff can 

conclude that it is unlikely for a point source facility to use amounts that would cause an adverse 

impact to nearby receptors. 

Not all automotive coating occurs in a paint booth. A volume source technique in the BEEST 

model evaluates these facilities where coating does not occur in a spray booth, and the 

emissions are exhausted through ground level openings in the building, e.g. doors and 

windows, not through an exhaust stack. To determine, the maximum emission rate for TBAc 

from a volume source where the cancer risk is less than 10 in a million was determined to be 

0.01 grams per second. That emission rate is equivalent to 220 pounds of TBAc per year, 

assuming the operation is 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, and 52 weeks per year. As 

discussed above, if 27.5% of the total VOC is TBAc, the VOC emissions, including TBAc 

emissions, from the coating facility would need to be more than 798 pounds per year to exceed 

the cancer risk of 10 in a million. Most permitted sources use spray booths. 

Rule 459 applies to both permitted and unpermitted facilities. Permitted facilities that do not use 

paint booths could have their permit conditioned to limit their TBAc usage to ensure they do not 

exceed the cancer risk threshold. Staff analyzed whether Rule 459 needed restrictions to 

ensure that unpermitted facilities remained below this level. Rule 201 – General Permit 

Requirements exempts from permit coating operations that use less than 1 gallon per day of 

coating materials and solvents. The analysis considered an unpermitted facility without a spray 

booth using the maximum amount of coatings allowed, (just under) 1 gallon per day, for 5 days 

per week and 52 weeks per year. Using an average VOC content for coating of 4.5 pounds per 

gallon (540 grams per liter), the VOC emissions for a non-permitted volume source would be 

1,170 pounds per year. Because the potential maximum VOC emissions from an unpermitted 

facility that does not use a spray booth, 1,170 pounds per year, are more than the total VOC 

emissions that would exceed the cancer risk threshold, 798 pounds per year, restrictions are 

needed in Rule 459 that apply to unpermitted facilities. 

To ensure that proposed rule does not adversely impact nearby receptors, Staff is proposing a 

limited exemption for TBAc. Staff is proposing that TBAc is exempt as a VOC for the purposes 

of complying with the proposed VOC standard when contained in an automotive coating or 

coating component that is applied only within a spray booth. This provision will ensure that 

TBAc emissions are exhausted through a stack, for which the point source modeling shows that 

 

16 Calendar year 2006 was used because it represented the activities and VOC emissions from this 

industry before the economic downturn. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 14 

the cancer risk is less than 10 in a million. Staff is not proposing to exempt TBAc as a VOC 

when used outside of a spray booth or as a solvent during the cleaning operation (surface 

preparation and cleanup operations). Permitted and unpermitted facilities that do not have a 

spray booth will not be able to use TBAc as an exempt compound. 

In addition, specific recordkeeping requirements for TBAc will be added to the rule as required 

by the federal exemption. Rule 459 currently has no reporting requirements for VOC, and 

photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory requirements will not be addressed within the 

rule because these activities are performed by the District, not the coating manufacturers or end 

users. 

Proposed Recordkeeping Changes: Significant changes for recordkeeping are proposed. The 

duration of records maintained on site remains at three years, consistent with the SCM and in 

line with EPA guidelines for non-major sources17,18. Labeling is proposed to be required on all 

automotive coatings or components as proposed in the SCM. In addition to the VOC regulatory 

content (VOC content of a coating less water and exempt compounds) upon which VOC limits 

are based, VOC actual content (VOC content including water and exempt compounds) and 

reporting is required. VOC actual content is additional information that is used for calculating 

VOC emissions for inventory purposes. Details of the proposed recordkeeping requirements 

compared to the current Rule 459 are detailed in the following table. Only the differences in the 

requirements between the two rules are shown in the table. Requirements that are not 

proposed to change are not listed. 

Recordkeeping 

Requirement Current Rule 459 Proposed Rule 459 

Data Sheet Data sheet should include: 

- Name/code/manufacturer 

- Maximum VOC content, 

as applied, after any 

mixing or thinning as 

recommended by 

manufacturer 

- Recommendation 

regarding thinning, 

reducing, or mixing 

materials 

For coatings, coating 

components and ready to 

spray mixtures: 

- VOC regulatory and VOC 

actual 

- Weight percentage of 

volatiles, water & exempt 

compounds 

- Volume percentage of 

water and exempt 

compounds 

- Density of the material 

- For materials containing 

TBAc, actual content of 

TBAc 

For coating removers and 

solvents: 

- VOC content as supplied 

 

17 “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies” U.S. EPA, August 21, 

2001, p. 12.

18 Sacramento County does not have a Title V permitted automotive coating facility, which would require 

5-year records.
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 15 

Recordkeeping 

Requirement Current Rule 459 Proposed Rule 459 

List of Coatings / Materials - Identification of the 

materials exceeding the 

VOC limits 

- VOC actual and VOC 

regulatory, as applied 

- VOC content for solvents 

- Identify the material as 

coating or solvent 

Usage/Purchase Records - Monthly records of total 

applied volume of all 

coatings, thinners, 

reducers, hardeners, 

retarders and catalysts 

- Application method used 

for each category 

- Alternative to monthly 

recordkeeping is to 

maintain records of 

inventory, purchase 

invoices and amount of 

waste 

- Daily records of utility 

bodies coated, type and 

amount of coatings used 

in the emission control 

device, and type and 

amount of non-compliant 

material 

- Monthly purchase 

records identifying the 

coating type and volume 

of each material 

- Daily records identifying 

the coating type and 

amount if an emission 

control device is used 

- Monthly records for 

coating containing TBAc, 

including coating type 

and content of TBAc 

contained in coating 

Labeling None All automotive coatings and 

solvents subject to the 

proposed rule must be labeled 

with VOC actual and VOC 

regulatory, as supplied. 

Sales Records Requires records for all sales 

within District. 

Requires detailed sales 

records for those claiming 

exemption from proposed rule 

under the Prohibition of Sale 

or Manufacture section 

For simplicity, the proposed rule will be republished without the definitions, coating categories, 

recordkeeping requirements, and any other requirements that are no longer applicable after the 

effective date. 

EMISSIONS IMPACT 

The District’s projected emission inventory for 2012 is 303 tons per year (0.83 tons/day) of VOC 

emissions from automotive coatings, based on existing requirements. This total does not 

include emissions from aerosol coating products, which are regulated under the California 

Consumer Product Regulations and are not subject to requirements under Rule 459 or the 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 16 

proposed amendments. Staff estimates that another 99 tons per year of VOC are emitted from 

the use of solvents associated with automotive coatings. 

CARB provided the following information to the District, based on the database developed from 

the 2002 Automotive Refinish Coating Survey: 

 For each coating category, the average actual VOC content (including water and exempt 

compounds) of coatings that comply with the VOC regulatory limits (excluding water and 

exempt compounds) of the current Rule 459. 

 For each coating category, the average actual VOC content (including water and exempt 

compounds) of coatings that comply with the SCM VOC regulatory limits (excluding 

water and exempt compounds) of the SCM that are being proposed for amendment in 

Rule 459. 

 For each coating category, the total number of gallons applied in Sacramento County in 

calendar year 2001, the most recent year surveyed prior to the SCM. Statewide 

volumes were apportioned to Sacramento County based on population. 

Using the information provided by CARB, Staff estimates that implementation of the proposed 

coating limits will result in an emission reduction of 60%, as shown in Appendix C. Applying this 

percentage to the 2018 inventory, the proposed amendments will reduce VOC emissions by 189 

tons per year (0.52 tons/day) in 2018 (the attainment year). The Sacramento Regional 8-hour 

Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan includes a commitment for the 

District to reduce VOC emissions from automotive coating operations by 0.11 tons per day in 

201819. The proposed amendments will exceed the SIP commitment. 

The Sacramento Regional 8-hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan 

also includes a commitment for the District to reduce VOC emissions from solvent cleaning and 

degreasing operations by 0.59 tons per day in 201820. Nine rules with solvent cleaning 

requirements were amended in 2008, resulting in VOC emissions reductions of 0.53 tons per 

day in 2018, leaving a shortfall of 0.06 tons per day. 

Although Rule 459 was not specifically identified in the solvent cleaning/degreasing plan 

commitment, additional emission reductions will be achieved by these amendments from 

solvent cleaning activities associated with automotive coating operations. The VOC emissions 

from application equipment cleaning and surface preparation/cleanup are projected to be 102 

tons per year (0.28 tons/day) for 2018 under the current requirements of Rule 45921. Lowering 

the allowable VOC content from the current 72 g/l to the proposed 25 g/l will reduce VOC 

emissions from solvents by 67 tons per year (0.18 tons/day) in 2018, and are necessary to meet 

the solvent cleaning/degreasing plan commitment. 

 

19 “Sacramento Regional 8-hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan”, March 26, 

2009, Appendix C, p. C-93 – C-95.

20 “Sacramento Regional 8-hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan”, March 26, 

2009, Appendix C, p. C-103 – C-105.

21 “Staff Report for Rule 450 – Graphic Arts Operations, Rule 451 – Surface Coating of Miscellaneous 

Metal Parts and Products, Rule 452 – Can Coating, Rule 454 – Degreasing Operations, Rule 456 – 

Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations, Rule 463 – Wood Products coatings, Rule 464 

– Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations, Rule 465 – Polyester Resin Operations, Rule 466 – 

Solvent Cleaning,” Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, August 25, 2008.
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 17 

Assuming that the effective date of the proposed amendments is six months after date of 

adoption, the emission inventory and reductions for the implementation year (2012), the 

milestone years (2014 and 2017) and the attainment year (2018) are shown in the following 

table: 

 VOC Emission Inventory (Inv.) and Emission Reductions (Red.) 

Tons per Day

2012 2014 2017 2018 

Inv. Red. Inv. Red. Inv. Red. Inv. Red. 

Automotive Coatings* 0.83 0.50 0.84 0.51 0.86 0.52 0.86 0.52 

Associated Solvents** 0.27 0.18 0.27 0.18 0.28 0.18 0.28 0.18 

Total 1.10 0.68 1.11 0.69 1.14 0.70 1.14 0.70 

* Emission inventory for automotive coatings for Sacramento non-attainment area is from the CARB 

Ozone SIP Planning Inventory, Version 1.06. The reduction is calculated by multiplying the inventory by 

60%, the emission reductions achieved by the proposed amendments, as shown in Appendix C. 

** Emission inventory for solvents associated with automotive coating operations was from the Staff 

Report for Rule 450 – Graphic Arts Operations, Rule 451 – Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts 

and Products, Rule 452 – Can Coating, Rule 454 – Degreasing Operations, Rule 456 – Aerospace 

Assembly and Component Coating Operations, Rule 463 – Wood Products coatings, Rule 464 – Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing Operations, Rule 465 – Polyester Resin Operations, Rule 466 – Solvent 

Cleaning. The inventory was for year 2010 and was grown at the same rate as the inventory for 

automotive coatings for 2012, 2014, 2017 and 2018. 

COST IMPACT 

Section 40703 of the California HSC requires that the District consider and make public its 

findings relating to the cost effectiveness of implementing an emission control measure. 

Rule 459 applies to those who supply, sell, offer for sale, manufacture, distribute, use, or solicit 

the use or application of automotive coatings and solvents for use within the District. According 

to the staff report to the SCM, CARB concluded that most automotive refinishing facilities and 

coating manufacturers would be able to absorb the cost to comply with requirements of the 

SCM with no significant adverse impact on their profitability. Furthermore, CARB expected that 

the cost incurred by the coating manufacturers and automotive refinishing facilities would be 

passed on to consumers. As a result, most of the impact would be in the form of increased 

insurance premiums and only consumers who have their vehicle repaired or refinished are 

impacted22. 

Since CARB adopted the SCM in 2005, economic times have changed, therefore, Staff 

evaluated the potential cost impacts from the proposed amendments to Rule 459. A cost 

impact was analyzed in a socioeconomic report (included in Appendix E) prepared by Eastern 

Research Group (ERG). According to the cost analysis, adoption of the proposed amendments 

is not expected to result in increased costs for coating manufacturers because coating products 

have already been developed to meet the proposed limits. Distributors will not incur additional 

cost because the cost would be passed on to automotive coating facilities. As such, automotive 

 

22 “Staff Report for the Proposed Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings” CARB, October 

2005, p. VII-1 – VII-2. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 18 

coating facilities will incur some cost increases to comply with the proposed amendments. 

Costs for automotive coating facilities are discussed below: 

Equipment Costs: Compliance with the proposed VOC limits for color coating is expected to 

require waterborne coatings. Coating manufacturers recommend autobody facilities use 

enhanced air movement and heating systems to accelerate the drying time of waterborne 

coatings. In CARB’s Staff Report, CARB listed several options for enhanced air movement and 

heating systems, which range from small hand held devices to fully integrated air movement 

systems. CARB estimated that these systems cost ranges from $1,600 to $60,000. CARB also 

estimated other equipment cost such as replacing mixing bank lids, upgrading spray gun 

equipment, purchasing spray gun tip air pressure gauges, and upgrading waste disposal 

equipment to be approximately $1,500 per facility. Total equipment cost per facility to comply 

with the SCM ranged from $3,100 to $61,50023 . 

After several site visits from Staff and conversation with coating manufacturers, compliance with 

the proposed VOC limits did not require as much equipment as CARB had anticipated. Handheld dryers were sufficient equipment to achieve desirable coating results according to ERG. 

Prices for air movement equipment ranged from $80 for a hand-held dryer to $1,026 for a stand 

with two blower guns, air gauge and air-drying desiccants. Since hand-held dryers are the 

minimum equipment needed to comply with the proposed VOC limits, ERG used the average 

cost of $160 for a hand-held dryer. 

In addition, other equipment needed to comply with the proposed VOC limits were new spray 

guns and spray gun cleaning kits. Prices for new spray guns ranged from $99 to $586, with an 

average price of $368; and prices for spray gun cleaning kits ranged from $11 to $31, with an 

average price of $21. 

ERG assumes that a facility purchases one hand-held dryer, one spray gun, and one spray gun 

cleaning kit per spray booth. Therefore, the average equipment cost per facility to comply with 

the proposed amendments ranges from $550 for a facility with one spray booth to $2,200 for a 

facility with four spray booths24. 

Training Costs: According to CARB’s Staff Report, there are non-recurring costs associated 

with the change from solvent-based to waterborne technology, including employee training and 

material loss. These non-recurring costs range from $3,500 to $6,500, depending on the size of 

the facility25. 

The proposed new VOC limits are not effective until six months after the date of adoption. This 

will allow facilities to use up existing coatings, minimizing any costs associated with material 

loss. Therefore, Staff assumes that there would no costs associated with material loss. 

However, Staff expects facilities to incur some costs to train their employees to use waterborne 

coatings. 

 

23 “Staff Report for the Proposed Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings” CARB, October 

2005, p. C-3 – C-4.

24 “Socioeconomic Impact Analysis for SMAQMD Rule 459 Amendments, Final Report” ERG, July 7, 

2011, p. 4 – 5. 

25 “Staff Report for the Proposed Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings” CARB, October 

2005, p. C-3 – C-4.
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 19 

Waterborne coatings are applied differently than solvent based coatings. As such, coating 

manufacturers offer training to facilities to demonstrate the proper application of waterborne 

coatings. Training is usually free and provided by the coating manufacturers as incentive for 

facilities to use their coating products. Manufacturers often provide on-site training to shops 

with sufficient volume in material purchases. For low-volume businesses, manufacturers 

provide off-site, one-day training. The training class may be offered for free or as much as $250 

per person. 

For the purpose of the analysis, ERG used a conservative assumption and assumed all training 

is done off site and costs $250 per person. ERG also assumed that the facility would send one 

employee per facility and incur the cost to pay the wages of the employee. The costs include 8 

hours of training at $21.61 per hour or $172.88 per employee. ERG estimates the total training 

cost per facility to be approximately $42326. Larger facilities with more than one painter were 

assumed to train their “lead painter,” who then trains other employees (no additional cost for 

other painters). 

Combined One-time Costs: The one-time cost (including additional equipment and training for 

one person) to comply with the proposed amendments is presented in the following table. 

Description Spray Gun Spray Gun 

Cleaning Kit 

Hand-held 

Dryer 

Training Total 

1 Spray Booth $368 $21 $160 $423 $972 

2 Spray Booths $737 $42 $320 $423 $1,522 

3 Spray Booths $1,105 $63 $480 $423 $2,071 

4 Spray Booths $1,473 $85 $640 $423 $2,621 

Coating Costs: Coating manufacturers have stated that it is very difficult to compare the cost 

between solvent based coatings and waterborne coatings. Factors that affect cost differences 

include the differences in coating mixing ratios and coating coverage rates. Some coating 

manufacturers have stated that waterborne coatings may be more expensive on a price per 

gallon basis but require less material for a coating job than solvent base coatings27, 28. 

According to CARB’s Staff Report, CARB assumed that the increase in coating costs ranged 

from $378 per year to $2,367 per year, depending on the production of the autobody facility29 . 

Staff received coating cost data from four coating manufacturers for the coatings that comply 

with the current rule and the coatings that will comply with the proposed amendments. One 

coating manufacturer provided coating cost differences with adjustments to reflect the coverage 

rate showing an overall cost savings of 11% from waterborne coatings. The other three 

comparisons showed an increase in coating cost ranging from 6% to 12% that did not account 

for coating coverage. For the analysis, ERG assumed zero cost increase where there was a 

cost savings in order not to underestimate of the cost impacts to facilities affected by the 

proposed amendments. Therefore, recurring cost from increased coating cost may increase 

 

26 “Socioeconomic Impact Analysis for SMAQMD Rule 459 Amendments, Final Report” ERG, July 7, 

2011, p. 4 – 5. 

27 E-mail correspondence with Michael A. Veney, Sherwin-Williams Automotive Finishes, June 3, 2011. 

28 E-mail correspondence with Emily Taylor, DuPont Performance Coatings, May 23, 2011. 29 “Staff Report for the Proposed Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings” CARB, October 

2005, p. C-3 – C-4.
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 20 

from 0% to 12%. This is equivalent to an increase in coating costs from $0 per gallon to $25.17 

per gallon30. 

ERG used the coating usage records from 2009 or 2010 field inspection reports for permitted 

facilities that have not converted to waterborne coatings. Fifty-one permitted facilities had 

coating usage records, and the coating usage records ranged from 12 gallons per year to 1,596 

gallons per year. ERG categorized all 71 permitted facilities that have not converted to 

waterborne coatings into six categories based on the facilities’ revenue as listed on Dun & 

Bradstreet Million Dollar Database. ERG calculated the median annual coating usages from the 

permitted facilities for each facility revenue size. Where a permitted facility did not have annual 

coating usage records, ERG used the median annual coating usages determined for its 

corresponding facility size category as shown in the following table. For facilities that do not 

spray enough coatings to require a permit, ERG used the average of the lowest 10 percent of 

the coating usage data from the 51 permitted sources, 18.4 gallons per year31, to estimate the 

coating usages for unpermitted facilities. 

Facility Facility Size 

(Revenues) 

Annual Coating Usages 

(gallons/year) 

Permitted Unknown 108 

<$250,000 108 

$250,000 - $500,000 232 

$500,000 - $750,000 210 

$750,000 - $1,000,000 204 

> $1,000,000 388 

Unpermitted All 18.4 

The total increase in coating cost ranges from $0 per year to $40,171 per year, depending on 

the production of the facility. However, if waterborne coatings have higher coating coverage, 

then the coating cost increases will be less than noted above. 

Solvent Costs: Currently, Rule 459 requires that spray guns be cleaned with a solvent 

containing no more than 72 g/l VOC, or cleaned within an enclosed gun cleaner. ERG reviewed 

the changes in costs of surface preparation and cleaning of application equipment that might 

result from changing from 72 g/l VOC to 25 g/l VOC. ERG compared the prices for 72 g/l 

surface cleaners to cleaners that contain 25 g/l VOC or less. For all four manufacturers 

contacted, the cleaners meeting the 25 g/l limit were less expensive than the 72 g/l cleaners. 

Typically, facilities that use solvent based coatings use high VOC solvents such as lacquer 

thinner to clean spray guns within an enclosed gun cleaner. Lacquer thinner can be purchased 

for approximately $15/gallon in 5-gallon containers32 and $9/gallon in 55-gallon drums33. The 

cleaning solvent is recirculated within the system until it contains too much paint waste to be 

effective. At that point, the spent solvent is drained out and the gun cleaning system is refilled 

with fresh solvent. At the majority of shops, the spent solvent is put into a drum for disposal as 

 

30 “Socioeconomic Impact Analysis for SMAQMD Rule 459 Amendments, Final Report” ERG, July 7, 

2011, p. 5 – 6. 

31 Ibid, p. 5 – 6. 32 TrueValue, www.truevalue.com (accessed on 7/22/2011) 33 The Nelson Paint Company, www.nelsonpaint.com/lacquer-thinner.html (accessed on 7/22/2011) 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 21 

hazardous waste. Disposal costs approximately $2 to $3 per gallon34. Many shops contract 

with a service to maintain the gun cleaning systems and haul away hazardous waste. Some of 

the shops have solvent recycling systems, which allow recovery of a portion of the solvent from 

the paint solids by evaporation. With the recycling systems, there is a disposal cost associated 

with the paint solids, as well as a cost for fresh makeup solvent. However, the proposed VOC 

limit of 25 g/l would likely preclude the use of recycled solvent because an initially compliant 

solvent would gain VOC content from the coatings as they are cleaned from the spray guns. 

The material and disposal costs of discontinuing solvent recycling, however, may be offset by a 

decrease in the amount of cleanup material used to clean water based spray equipment, as 

discussed below. 

In the proposed amendments, solvents used to clean application equipment must contain no 

more than 25 g/l VOC. For water based coatings, a spray gun can be cleaned primarily using 

only a few ounces of tap water (virtually no cost) followed by a final rinse with acetone from a 

squirt bottle. Acetone can be purchased for approximately $16/gallon in 5-gallon containers and 

$12/gallon in 55-gallon drums35. The spent cleaning solution is disposed as hazardous waste. 

Some shops may choose to use flocculants that settle and separate the paint solids so that the 

cleaning solution can be reused several times before disposal. Flocculants can be purchased 

for approximately $63 for a 2 kg container, which can treat 150 gallons of water36. 

In 2008, the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) conducted a study of 

cleaning solvents and other materials used in the autobody industry37. One case study involved 

a facility that had recently converted from solvent based coatings to water based coatings. Prior 

to conversion, the total annual cost for application equipment cleaning, including material and 

disposal costs, was $1,832. After conversion to water based coatings, the cost decreased to 

$40738. Most of the reduced cost was due to the fact that a much lower volume of cleaning 

material was required to be purchased and disposed during the cleanup of water based spray 

guns. 

Based on the analysis above, ERG concluded that the proposed amendments would result in a 

cost savings for solvent cleaning and associated disposal, and therefore, included no cost 

impacts for solvent cost. 

Cost Effectiveness 

The one-time cost for a facility depends on the number of spray booths, and the annual cost is 

the increased coating cost based on the facilities’ coating usages. ERG used the information 

from the District permits, inventory, and inspection reports to determine the number of spray 

booths and annual coating usages for each permitted facility. Where a permitted facility did not 

have annual coating usage records, ERG used the median annual coating usages determined 

for its corresponding facility size category. Unpermitted facilities were assumed to have a single 

spray booth, train one person to use waterborne coatings, and use 18.4 gallons per year. A 

 

34 “Safer Alternative Thinners, Cleanup Materials, Coatings and Sanding Methods in the Autobody 

Industry,” Katy Wolfe, Institute for Research and Technical Assistance, May 2008. 35 Wood Finisher Depot, http://woodfinishersdepot.com/solvents-additives-36/ (accessed on 7/22/2011) 36 Restockit.com, www.restockit.com (accessed on 7/21/2011) 37 “Safer Alternative Thinners, Cleanup Materials, Coatings and Sanding Methods in the Autobody 

Industry,” Katy Wolfe, Institute for Research and Technical Assistance, May 2008. 38 Ibid, p. 22.
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 22 

total of 302 facilities will be impacted by the proposed amendments. Sixty-three facilities have 

already converted or partially converted to waterborne coatings. Partially converted facilities are 

those that have already installed the necessary equipment and are using waterborne color 

coating, but may not yet be using primers and/or clear coat that meet the proposed VOC limits. 

Three coating manufacturers provided price data for clear coats and primer sealer that comply 

with the proposed limits, as well as the coatings that meet the current VOC limits but not the 

proposed limits. For the clear coats, the costs ranged from an increase of 0.2% to a cost 

savings of nearly 15 percent. For the primer sealers, there was a cost savings for all three 

manufactures, ranging from 3% to 7%. Therefore, converted and partially converted facilities 

will not incur additional costs from the adoption of the amendments. The remaining 239 facilities 

will incur additional costs to convert their operations to comply with the proposed amendments. 

The following table summarizes the costs for the 239 facilities: 

Facility Size 

(Revenues) 

No. of 

Facilities 

One-time 

Cost 

Annual 

Cost 

Annualized 

Cost* 

Unknown 13 $11,640 $0 – 

$32,217 

$1,656 – 

$36,133 

<$250,000 161 $159,470 $0 – 

$127,701 

$22,680 – 

$159,397 

$250,000 - $500,000 32 $32,140 $0 – 

$71,281 

$4,570 – 

$80,854 

$500,000 - $750,000 12 $13,290 $0 – 

$53,803 

$1,888 – 

$59,462 

$750,000 - $1,000,000 7 $7,340 $0 – 

$42,990 

$1,043 – 

$47,044 

> $1,000,000 14 $16,330 $0 – 

$181,927 

$2,324 – 

$196,987 

Total 239 $240,210 $0 – 

$509,919 

$34,161 – 

$579,877 

*Annualized cost is the one-time cost annualized over 10 year equipment life and 7% interest rate plus the annual 

cost. 

The total annualized cost is $34,161 to $579,877. Using the reductions achieved on 

implementation in 2012 (0.68 tons per day), the cost effectiveness of the rule amendments is 

$0.07 to $1.17 per pound of VOC reduced. In comparison, previously adopted District rules 

have cost effectiveness figures for VOC reductions, in 2010 dollars, ranging from $1.12 per 

pound of VOC reduced (for the 8/21/1990 adoption of Rule 452, Can Coating) to as much as 

$19.80 per pound of VOC reduced (for the 12/17/1991 adoption of Rule 449, Transfer of 

Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks). 

INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The District is required to identify one or more potential control options that achieve the 

emission reduction objective for the regulation39. 

 

39 California Health and Safety Code, Section 40920.6.
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 23 

The incremental cost effectiveness analysis performed for Rule 459 is based on the Discounted 

Cash Flow cost analysis method to the annualized costs of the proposed rule over a 10-year 

period (the assumed equipment lifetime), using a 7% interest rate. 

The next most stringent alternative control option is to set limits achievable with add-on controls 

rather than the use of compliant, lower VOC coatings. The Best Available Control Technology 

for a spray booth is a control system that uses adsorption or catalytic incineration achieving an 

overall emission reduction of at least 85%. The capital cost to purchase and retrofit one spray 

booth with such a system, based on information from CAPCOA’s 2003 Engineering Symposium, 

is estimated to be $178,000 in 2010 dollars. Annual maintenance and operational costs are 

assumed to be 10% of the capital cost, or $17,800. With the capital cost annualized at 7% 

interest over 10 years, the annual cost (capital plus operation and maintenance) to retrofit and 

operate a single booth is $43,100. The total annualized cost for all 376 spray booths in the 

District is estimated to be $16,205,600. With the use of the add-on control device with an 

assumed 85 percent control efficiency, the emission reduction for coatings for implementation 

year 2012 is approximately 258 tons per year. The overall emission reductions for using an 

add-on control device for coatings and compliant solvents is approximately 323 tons per year. 

Another option is to require both the use of lower VOC coatings and add-on controls. The cost 

of this option is equal to the sum of the costs of the first two options, and would result in an 

overall reduction of 351 tons per year. 

The cost effectiveness and incremental cost effectiveness of the three control options (2010 

dollars) are shown in the following table. 

Control Option 

Annualized Cost 

($/yr) 

Annual 

Emission 

Reduction, 

2012 Basis 

(tpy) 

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/lb) 

Incremental Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/lb) 

Compliant 

Material 

(Proposed) 

$350,635 – 

$1,064,350 248 $0.07 – $1.17 -- 

Capture/Control 

System 

(Alternative 1) 

$16,205,600 323 $25.07 $104.16 – $107.80 

Compliant 

Material Plus 

Capture/Control 

System 

(Alternative 2) 

$16,556,235 – 

$17,269,950 351 $23.16 – $23.94 $0.62 – $10.59* 

* ICE of control alternative 2 compared to control alternative 1. The ICE of control alternative 2 compared 

to the proposed control is $79.14 per pound.

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 

HSC Section 40728.5 requires a district to perform an assessment of the socioeconomic 

impacts before adopting, amending, or repealing a rule that will significantly affect air quality or 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 24 

emission limitations. The District Board is required to actively consider the socioeconomic 

impacts of the proposal and make a good faith effort to minimize adverse socioeconomic 

impacts. 

HSC Section 40728.5 defines “socioeconomic impact” as follows: 

1. The type of industries or business, including small business, affected by the rule or 

regulations. 

2. The impact of the proposed rule or regulations on employment and the economy of the 

region affected by the adoption of the rule or regulation. 

3. The range of probable costs, including costs to industry or business, including small 

business, of the rule or regulation. 

4. The availability and cost-effectiveness of alternatives to the rule or regulation being 

proposed or amended. 

5. The emission reduction potential of the rule or regulation. 

6. The necessity of adopting, amending, or repealing the rule or regulation to attain state 

and federal ambient air standards. 

Type of industry or business, including small business, affected by the proposed rule: Rule 459 

applies to manufacturers and sellers or distributors of automotive coatings and solvents and to 

any person/business that performs coating of motor vehicles, mobile equipment, or their 

associated parts or components. The proposed amendments have the potential to affect 

coating manufacturers, coating distributors, government entities that paint/repaint vehicles, 

educational institutions that teach vehicle painting, businesses that paint/repaint their own 

vehicles as a part of a larger business activities, businesses whose primary business is vehicle 

painting/repainting and consumers who need/want a vehicle painted/repainted. The majority 

businesses affected by this rule are the businesses whose primary business is vehicle 

painting/repainting, most of which are small businesses40. 

A review of District permit records shows there are approximately 134 permitted facilities. As of 

June 2010, 63 permitted facilities were identified as facilities that have converted or partially 

converted to waterborne coatings. Another 168 unpermitted sources were identified by Dun & 

Bradstreet Million Dollar Database that are also subject to Rule 459. Therefore, a total of 239 

facilities automotive coating facilities will need to invest in waterborne technology to comply with 

the proposed amendments. 

Impact on employment and economy in the District of the proposed rule: Based on 2007 U.S. 

Census data, there are an estimated 1,396 people employed in the automotive body, paint, and 

interior repair and maintenance industry and 1,365 people employed in general automotive 

repair industry in Sacramento County. General automotive repair facilities will experience 

minimal, if any, impacts because a very small part of their business involves automotive 

coatings. Businesses that produce air movement equipment for spray booths or provide 

consulting services to affected businesses may benefit from increased industry spending. 

There are no manufacturers of automotive coatings within the District. 

CARB utilized the “return-on-owner’s-equity” (ROE) method as an indicator of the SCM’s 

potential impacts on business profitability, as documented in CARB’s staff report. ROE is 

 

40 The U.S. Small Business Administration defines an autobody shop (NAICS Code 811121) as small 

business if it has less than $7 million in annual revenues. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 25 

calculated by dividing the net profit by the net worth. The adjusted cost was then subtracted 

from the net profit data. The results were used to calculate an adjusted three-year average 

ROE. The adjusted ROE was then compared with the ROE before the subtraction of the 

adjusted cost to determine the potential impact on the profitability of the businesses. CARB 

considers a reduction of more than 10 percent in ROE indicates a potential for significant 

adverse economic impacts. CARB estimated an average decline in businesses’ ROE of about 

0.07 percent for coating manufacturers, and about 15 percent for automotive coating facilities. 

Using CARB’s impact criteria, automotive coating facilities would be adversely impacted by the 

SCM. Therefore, CARB expected that automotive coating facilities will pass on the some of the 

costs from the SCM to consumers rather than absorbing all of the cost impacts on their 

profitability. If entire costs of the SCM were passed on to consumers, the average price for a 

repair or refinish would increase by $11, which represents an increase in cost of about 0.5 

percent for a typical repair of $2,200. Because the price increase is small, the cost is expected 

to be passed to consumers. CARB concluded that the requirements of the SCM will have 

minimal impact on employment41. 

ERG’s socioeconomic report (Appendix E) also concluded that coating manufacturers and 

distributors will pass through all increased costs to the automotive coating facilities, and will not 

be impacted by the proposed amendments. If the automotive coating facilities absorbed all 

costs to comply with the proposed amendments, ERG estimated a decline in profitability ranging 

from 0.3 percent to 5.7 percent. This change in ROE is less than CARB’s criteria for being a 

significant adverse impact. 

For automotive coating facilities whose primary business is vehicle painting/repainting, ERG 

believes that the automotive coating facilities may be able to pass some of the additional costs 

to consumers or their insurance companies. The insurance companies, in turn, distribute the 

costs among insurance policy holders. Facilities will not be able to pass the cost to an 

insurance company that reimburses on a fixed fee schedule, unless the insurance company 

adjusts the fee schedule to account for the additional increased coating cost from the proposed 

amendments. The fee adjustment may be done after the rule has been adopted and the limits 

are effective. If the entire costs (assuming only the high end of the cost) of the proposed rule 

were passed on to consumers, the average price increases ranges from $4.72 for a mid-sized 

car to $25.17 for a large vehicle, which represents an price increase of 0.21 percent to 1.1 

percent for an average repair price of $2,295. 

Furthermore, ERG calculated the impact on employment using the Regional Input-Output 

Modeling System (RIMS II) developed by the U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. ERG estimated that with the added costs to the facilities, it will result in losing 0 to 6 

jobs in Sacramento County if all costs were absorbed by the coating facilities42. 

Range of probable costs, including costs to industry or business, including small business of the 

proposed rule: As discussed in the Cost Impact section for Rule 459, capital and training costs 

range from $972 for a small refinishing facility with one spray booth to $2,621 for a large facility 

with four spray booths. Annual increased coating costs range from $0 per year to $40,171 per 

 

41 “Staff Report for the Proposed Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings” CARB, October 

2005, p. VII-1 – VII-11.

42 “Socioeconomic Impact Analysis for SMAQMD Rule 459 Amendments, Final Report” ERG, July 7, 

2011, p. 13 – 19.
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 26 

year, depending on the coverage rate of the coatings and the production of the facility. Some of 

these costs may be passed on to consumers. 

Availability and cost effectiveness of alternatives to the proposed rule: An alternative to the 

proposed amendments to the rule is to not adopt them. If the proposed amendments to Rule 

459 are not adopted, the District will not fulfill the federal RACT requirements and the 

commitment in the Sacramento Regional 8-hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further 

Progress Plan43. The proposed standards for Rule 459 have been implemented in other air 

districts in California. The proposed changes provide substantial, cost effective emission 

benefits. 

 

As discussed in the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness section, two alternative control options to 

the proposed Rule 459 were analyzed. This first alternative would reduce VOC emissions by an 

estimated 323 tons per year at an overall cost effectiveness of $25.07/lb. The incremental cost 

effectiveness for the additional 75 tons per year of VOC emissions that would be reduced 

ranges from $104.16/lb to $107.80/lb. The second alternative would reduce VOC emissions by 

an estimated 351 tons per year at an overall cost effectiveness ranging from $23.16/lb to 

$23.94/lb. The incremental cost effectiveness for the additional 28 tons per year of VOC 

emissions that would be reduced compared to the first alternative ranges from $0.62/lb to 

$10.59/lb. Compared to the proposed option, the second alternative achieves an additional 103 

tons per year of VOC emission reduction at an incremental cost effectiveness of $79.14/lb. 

In conclusion, the alternatives are not recommended at this time because 1) the alternatives do 

not fulfill the purpose of these amendments to meet state and federal laws and regulations, and 

2) the additional alternatives to Rule 459 are significantly higher in cost than the proposed 

amendments. 

Emission reduction potential of the proposed rule: The proposed amendments to Rule 459 are 

estimated to achieve emission reductions of 190 tons of VOC per year from the use of coatings 

in 2018, the attainment year. Another 66 tons per year are expected to be reduced from the use 

of solvents, for a total reduction in VOC emissions of 256 tons per year (see discussion under 

Emissions Impact). 

Necessity of adopting the rule: Staff finds that the proposed amendments to Rule 459 are 

necessary to meet the requirements of the Health and Safety Code for “all feasible measures”44

and BARCT45 and to satisfy a District control measure commitment in the federal 8-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration plan. In addition, the proposed amendments to Rule 459 are 

necessary to satisfy the requirements of Section 182(b)(2) of the federal Clean Air Act, which 

requires the District adopt RACT for CTG source categories46. 

 

43 “Sacramento Regional 8-hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan”, March 26, 

2009, Appendix C, p. C-93 – C-95.

44 Health and Safety Code Section 40914(b)(2). 45 Health and Safety Code Section 40919.

46 “Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings,” EPA-453/R-08-

003, September 2008.
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 27 

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Staff held a public workshop to discuss the proposed amendments on September 16, 2010. A 

public notice for the workshop was mailed to interested and potentially affected parties, 

including all permitted stationary sources (except for gas stations and dry cleaners), industry 

associations, coating manufacturers and suppliers, and all persons who have requested to 

receive rulemaking notices. The notice was also published in the “Our Region” section of the 

Sacramento Bee and posted on the District web site. The draft rule and staff report were 

available for public review prior to the public workshop. 

Staff received comments and questions concerning Rule 459 at the workshop, as well as written 

comments from coating manufacturers and distributors. CARB and EPA reviewed the proposed 

amendments. CARB responded with a no comment letter. EPA had one comment, which 

asked the District to include the full title and date of the ASTM test method referenced in the 

proposed rule. All comments and responses are included in Appendix F.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE 

California Public Resources Code Section 21159 requires an environmental analysis of the 

reasonably foreseeable methods of compliance. Compliance with the proposed VOC standard 

for coatings in Rule 459 is expected to be achieved by replacement of currently used coatings 

with compliant products, including the use of waterborne color coatings and by installation of 

new heating and air movement equipment or the use of low VOC solvent borne coating 

products. In the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sacramento Regional NonAttainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, the report 

concluded that future compliant coatings will contain less hazardous materials, or nonhazardous 

materials, as compared to conventional coatings, resulting in a net benefit regarding hazards. 

The impacts from hazardous materials are expected to be less than significant47. For the 

purpose of complying with the proposed coating standards, TBAc is proposed to be exempted 

as a VOC when contained in coatings that are applied only within a spray booth. This 

exemption may increase the use of coatings containing TBAc. CARB has determined that the 

increased use of TBAc is not expected to contribute to the formation of ozone or contribute to 

global warming. CARB also concluded that TBAc could pose a potential cancer risk to humans 

because TBAc metabolizes to t-butyl alcohol (TBA), a potential carcinogen48. To ensure the use 

of TBAc does not adversely impact human health, Staff performed an HRA and determined that 

the largest permitted automotive coating facility in the District is not likely to cause an adverse 

impact to nearby receptor if the coatings containing TBAc are applied only within a spray booth. 

Rule 459 does not exempt TBAc as a VOC when applied outside of a spray booth or when used 

as or part of a cleaning solvent. 

Compliance with the proposed VOC limit for cleaning materials is expected to be achieved by 

the replacement of current cleaning solvents with compliant products, which may contain higher 

levels of exempt compounds. Some replacement compounds, such as acetone, may have 

 

47 “Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Sacramento Regional Non-attainment Area 8-Hour Ozone 

Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan” Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District, December 2008, p. 3-41 – 3-53. 

48 “Environmental Impact Assessment of Tertiary-Butyl Acetate” CARB, January 2006, p.13 – 16, 19 – 

25. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 28 

greater flammability and lower flash points than currently used materials. These potential 

impacts were also analyzed in the EIR for the 8-hour ozone plan and found to be less than 

significant. 

In addition, compliance with the proposed VOC limit for cleaning materials will eliminate the use 

of solvent recycling systems, although ERG concluded that most facilities would switch from 

solvent cleaners to water based cleaners, reducing disposal. If there were an increase in the 

disposal of spent solvent, this disposal is governed by state and federal regulations to ensure 

that toxic waste is not released into the environment. 

Staff finds that the proposed rule is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as an 

action by a regulatory agency for protection of the environment49 and because it can be seen 

with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant 

adverse effect on the environment50. 

 

49 State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15308, Class 8 Categorical Exemption. 50 State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3). 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 29 

REQUIRED FINDINGS 

The California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Division 26, Air Resources, requires local 

districts to comply with a rule adoption protocol as set forth in Section 40727 of the Code. This 

section contains six findings that the District must make when adopting, amending, or repealing 

a rule. The findings for the rule and their statutory definitions are listed in the following table. 

Findings Required Findings 

Authority: The District must find that a provision of 

law or of a state or federal regulation permits or 

requires the District to adopt, amend, or repeal the 

rule. 

The District is authorized to amend Rule 459 by 

California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections 

40001, 40702, and 41010. [HSC Section 40727(b)(2)]. 

Necessity: The District must find that the rulemaking 

demonstrates a need exists for the rule, or for its 

amendment or repeal. 

It is necessary to adopt the proposed amendments to 

Rule 459 to comply with the Reasonably Available 

Control Technology requirements of the federal Clean Air 

Act Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2)(A), and BARCT 

requirements of HSC Section 40919(a)(3). In addition, 

the VOC emission reductions from the proposed 

amendments to Rule 459 are necessary to meet the 

control measure commitment in the 2009 Triennial 

Report and Plan update and the Sacramento Regional 8-

hour Ozone and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, 

submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 51.908 and Section 

182(c)(2)(A) of the federal Clean Air Act. [HSC Section 

40727(b)(1)]. 

Clarity: The District must find that the rule is written 

or displayed so that its meaning can be easily 

understood by the persons directly affected by it. 

Staff has reviewed the proposed amendments to the rule 

and determined that it can be understood by the affected 

parties. In addition, the record contains no evidence that 

people directly affected by the rule cannot understand 

the rule. [HSC Section 40727(b)(3)]. 

Consistency: The rule is in harmony with, and not in 

conflict with or contradictory to, existing statutes, 

court decisions, or state or federal regulations. 

The proposed amendments to the rule does not conflict 

with, and is not contradictory to, existing statutes, court 

decisions, or state or federal regulations. [HSC Section 

40727(b)(4)]. 

Non-Duplication: The District must find that either: 

1) The rule does not impose the same requirements 

as an existing state or federal regulation; or (2) that 

the duplicative requirements are necessary or proper 

to execute the powers and duties granted to, and 

imposed upon the District. 

The proposed amendments to the rule do not duplicate 

any existing state or federal regulations. [HSC Section 

40727(b)(5)]. 

Reference: The District must refer to any statute, 

court decision, or other provision of law that the 

District implements, interprets, or makes specific by 

adopting, amending or repealing the rule. 

In adopting the proposed amendments to the rule, the 

District is implementing the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.908, Section 182(c)(2)(A) of the federal Clean Air 

Act and HSC Sections 40919(a)(3). [HSC Section 

40727(b)(6)]. 

Additional Informational Requirements: In 

complying with HSC Section 40727.2, the District 

must identify all federal requirements and District 

rules that apply to the same equipment or source 

type as the proposed rule or amendments. 

Appendix B includes a comparison with federal 

requirements. [HSC Section 40727.2]. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 30 

REFERENCES 

1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Staff Report for BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 45: 

Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations, November 2008 

2. California Air Resources Board. Draft Report: 2002 Survey of Automotive coatings. June, 

2005. 

3. California Air Resources Board, Environmental Impact Assessment of Tertiary-Butyl 

Acetate, Staff Report, January 2006. 

4. California Air Resources Board, Staff Report for the Proposed Suggested Control Measure 

for Automotive Coatings, California Environmental Protection Agency, Stationary Source 

Division, Measures Assessment Branch, October 2005. (CARB, 2005A) 

5. California Air Resources Board, Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings as 

Approved by the Board on October 20, 2005, California Environmental Protection Agency, 

Stationary Source Division, Measures Assessment Branch, October 20, 2005. (CARB, 

2005B) 

6. California Autobody Association, telephone conversation between Pete Bezeck, California 

Autobody Association, and Kevin Williams, SMAQMD, September, 2010 

7. DuPont Performance Coatings, e-mail from Emily Taylor, DuPont Performance Coatings, to 

Kevin J. Williams, SMAQMD, May 23, 2011. 

8. Eastern Research Group, Socioeconomic Impact Analysis for SMAQMD Rule 459 

Amendments Final Report, July 7, 2011 

9. El Dorado County Air Quality Management District, Feather River Air Quality Management 

District, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District, Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, Sacramento Regional 8-

hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, March 26, 2009. 

10. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance, Safer Alternative Thinners, Cleanup 

Materials, Coating and Sanding Methods in the Autobody Industry, May 2008 

11. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 2009 Triennial Report and Plan 

Revision, January 28, 2010 

12. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Final Environmental Impact 

Report: Sacramento Regional Non-Attainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan. State Clearinghouse No. 2006102136, December 2008. 

13. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Staff Report for Rule 450 – 

Graphic Arts Operations, Rule 451 – Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 

Products, Rule 452 – Can Coating, Rule 454 – Degreasing Operations, Rule 456 – 

Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations, Rule 463 – Wood Products 

coatings, Rule 464 – Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations, Rule 465 – Polyester 

Resin Operations, Rule 466 – Solvent Cleaning, August 25, 2008. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page 31 

14. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Final Draft Staff Report for Proposed 

Amendments to Rule 4602, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations, and 

Rule 4612, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations – Phase II, August 

2006. 

15. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. Final Draft Staff Report: Proposed 

Amendments to Rule 1020 (Definitions). December 18, 2008 

16. Sherwin-Williams Automotive Finishes, e-mail from Michael A. Veney, Sherwin-Williams 

Automotive Finishes to David Yang, SMAQMD, June 6, 2011. 

17. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Staff Report for: Proposed Amended 

Rule 1151 – Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations. 

December, 2005. 

18. U.S. Census Bureau. Online query of industry statistics. http://www.census.gov/. 

June, 2011. 

19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related 

Photochemical Oxidants, (EPA 600/R-05/004aF), February 2006. 

20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and 

Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. (EPA-453/R-08-006), September 2008. 

21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous 

Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. (EPA-453/R-08-003), September, 2008. 

22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & 

Other Rule Deficiencies, Amended August 21, 2001. 

23. U.S Environmental Protection Agency. Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds 

– Exclusion of t-Butyl Acetate. 69FR69298, November 29, 2004. 

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 59, Subpart B: National Volatile Organic 

Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 July 25, 2011, Page A-1 

APPENDIX A 

40727.2 Matrix for Proposed Amendments to Rule 459 Automotive, Mobile Equipment and Associ

Components Coating Operations 

Comparative Requirements 

Elements of 

Comparison 

Proposed 

Rule 459 

Best Available 

Control Technology 

(BACT) 

National Volatile Organic Compound 

Emission Standards for Automobile 

Refinish Coatings 

40 CFR Part 59, Subpart B 

NE

Applicability The provisions of this rule shall apply to 

any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, manufactures, or distributes any automotive coating or associated solvent for use within the District, as well as any person who uses, applies, or solicits the use or application of any automotive coating or associated solvent within the District. 

SCM Considered BACT 

Automobile refinish coatings and coating components that are manufactured for sale or distribution in the US. 

Permethe woosubPercoamotargCd)

Exemptions Aerosol containers; OEM Assembly 

Lines; touch-up coatings; use outside the District; Application methods for the following: underbody coatings, truck bed liner coatings, graphic arts, or coating less than one fluid ounce. 

Aerosol containers; OEM Assembly Lines; touch-up coatings; use outside the District; Application Methods for the following: underbody coatings, truck bed liner coatings, graphic arts, or coating less than one fluid ounce. 

Aerosol, lacquer topcoats or their components, or touch-up coatings. Coatings or coating components manufactured before the compliance date of the rule Original Equipment Manufacturing For sale outside the U.S. 

Surperinstby NAmuindvehresactactNE

VOC Content Standards for Automotive Refinish Coatings 

Adhesion Promoter 540 g/l Same as proposed rule Specialty Coatings 840 g/l Clear Coating 250 g/l Same as proposed rule 2-Stage Topcoats 600 g/l Topcoats of 3 or more stages 630 g/l Color Coating 420 g/l Same as proposed Multi-colored Topcoats 680 g/l 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 July 25, 2011, Page A-2 

Comparative Requirements 

Elements of 

Comparison 

Proposed 

Rule 459 

Best Available 

Control Technology 

(BACT) 

National Volatile Organic Compound 

Emission Standards for Automobile 

Refinish Coatings 

40 CFR Part 59, Subpart B 

NE

rule Single/2-Stage Topcoats 600 g/l 

Topcoats of 3 or more stages 630 g/l 

Multi-Color Coating 520 or 680 g/l Same as proposed rule Multi-colored Topcoats 680 g/l Pretreatment Coating 660 g/l Same as proposed rule Pretreatment Wash Primer 780 g/l Primer/Primer Sealer 250 g/l Same as proposed rule Primer/Primer Surfacer 580 g/l Primer Sealer 550 g/l Single Stage Coating 340 g/l Same as proposed rule Single Topcoats 600 g/l Temporary Protective Coating 60 g/l Same as proposed rule N/A Truck Bed Liner Coating 200 g/l Same as proposed rule Specialty Coatings 840 g/l Underbody Coating 430 g/l Same as proposed rule Specialty Coatings 840 g/l Uniform Finish Coating 540 g/l Same as proposed rule Specialty Coatings 840 g/l Any Other Coating Type 250 g/l Same as proposed rule Specialty Coatings 840 g/l 

Application Methods 

HVLP Electrostatic application equipment Brush/roll coating, dip coat, or flow coat LVLP Any alternative method that achieves a transfer efficiency equivalent to, or higher than the above listed application methods. 

HVLP Brush, dip or roller Electrostatic spray Any alternative method that achieves a transfer efficiency equivalent to, or higher than the above listed application methods 

 HV

EleAirlAir-Or demeffithe tec
Staff Report 

Rule 459 July 25, 2011, Page A-3 

Comparative Requirements 

Elements of 

Comparison 

Proposed 

Rule 459 

Best Available 

Control Technology 

(BACT) 

National Volatile Organic Compound 

Emission Standards for Automobile 

Refinish Coatings 

40 CFR Part 59, Subpart B 

NE

Work Practice Requirements 

Solvents less than 25 g/l VOC; coatings and solvents stored in closed, vapor-tight containers; waste stored in closed, vapor-tight containers; bug and tar removal with a regulated consumer product 

Solvents less than 25 g/l VOC; coatings and solvents stored in closed, vapor-tight containers; waste stored in closed, vapor-tight containers; spray gun cleaning inside a closed system 

 Pra

evaconEacequopeall traiappstamadem98% Booreqclos

Monitoring/ Testing 

Test methods specified in Section 504 of rule 

Same as proposed rule 

No performance testing is required. No 

req

Monitoring/ Recordkeeping 

Vendors, repackagers, and manufacturers: Labels with applicable use category and VOC content; Product data sheets for each coating, coating component, or ready to spray mixture; Records of noncompliant materials sold to sources outside the District or to sources with emissions control equipment; End users: List of materials; product data sheets for each material, usage records required for end users detailing coatings and solvents used; usage and purchase records.; records to demonstrate continuous compliance if emissions 

Same as proposed rule 

Each container must be labeled with day, month and year on which the product was manufactured. 

For opestrirecminpaiopeton devin tgennotof acom
Staff Report 

Rule 459 July 25, 2011, Page A-4 

Comparative Requirements 

Elements of 

Comparison 

Proposed 

Rule 459 

Best Available 

Control Technology 

(BACT) 

National Volatile Organic Compound 

Emission Standards for Automobile 

Refinish Coatings 

40 CFR Part 59, Subpart B 

NE

control equipment is used. For 

surcerhas traieffithe shoequequsprreqrecreqproand Recmaafte
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page B-1 

APPENDIX B 

LIST OF CHANGES TO RULE 

Rule 459, Automotive, Mobile Equipment and Associated Parts and Components Coating 

Operations 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

N/A N/A Title changed from “Automotive, Truck and Heavy Equipment 

Refinishing Operations” to “Automotive, Mobile Equipment, and 

Associated Parts and Components Coating Operations.” 

101 Same Revised purpose consistent with the SCM. 

102 Same Amended applicability language of the rule to apply to automotive 

coatings or associated solvents, consistent with the SCM and current 

rule applicability. 

110 Same Added sunset date, six months after date of adoption, for exemption 

for restoration of special interest vehicles and street rod vehicles. 

The SCM does not contain such an exemption, nor do any other 

California district rules. This exemption will be removed from the 

rule when the rule is republished. 

111 Same Revised exemption for aerosol coating products, consistent with the 

SCM. 

112 N/A Added exemption from the application method requirements when 

applying underbody coatings, truck bed liners, coatings under one 

fluid ounce, or graphic arts operations, consistent with the SCM. 

113 N/A Added an exemption for an assembly line at original equipment 

manufacturing plant, consistent with the intent of the SCM while 

maintaining applicability of current rule language. 

N/A 112 Eliminated exemption for “stencil coatings.” Exemption from 

application method requirements still included under new Section 

112. 

114 113 Added sunset date, six months after date of adoption for the 

exemption for “radiators, drive train, differential, and engine 

components.” These parts will be subject to Rule 459 as associated 

parts and components, consistent with the SCM. This exemption will 

be removed from the rule when the rule is republished. 

N/A 114 Eliminated exemption for “recordkeeping requirements.” No longer 

applicable because current Section 501 is being deleted. 

115 Same Decreased the allowable container volume for exempt touch-up 

coating from two ounces to one-half ounce, consistent with the SCM. 

This change will be effective six months after the date of adoption. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page B-2 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

116 N/A Added an exemption for application of materials for vehicles for 

sources with actual emissions from specific coatings and coating 

operations less than 2.7 tons of VOC per 12-month rolling period, 

consistent with the 2008 CTG (EPA-453/R-08-003) that includes 

motor vehicle materials in Section 303. Facilities who uses this 

exemption is required to substantiate with usage or purchase 

records that the actual emissions from the specific coatings and 

coating operations are less than 2.7 tons per 12-month rolling 

period. 

This section references Rule 468, which has not been adopted. 

Definitions were added in order to clearly define the coating 

operations for miscellaneous plastic parts and products, 

transportation and business machine plastic part, and pleasure craft. 

These definitions are effective prior to the adoption of Rule 468. 

Upon adoption of Rule 468, these definitions will no longer apply and 

will sunset. 

117 116 Section renumbered. 

201.1 201 Added sunset date to existing definition of “adhesion promoter.” 

201.2 N/A Added new definition of “adhesion promoter,” consistent with the 

SCM, effective six months after the date of adoption. 

202 Same Revised definition of “aerosol coating product,” consistent with the 

SCM while maintaining applicability to current rule language. 

203 Same Added language to sunset this definition on (six months after date of 

adoption). It will no longer be in the specialty category, consistent 

with the SCM. This definition will be removed from the rule when the 

rule is republished. 

205 N/A Added definition of “assembly line,” consistent with the SCM. 

206 N/A Added definition of “associated parts and components,” consistent 

with the SCM. 

207 N/A Added definition of “automotive coating,” consistent with the SCM. 

208 N/A Added definition of “automotive coating component,” consistent with 

the SCM. 

209 N/A Added definition of “automotive coating facility,” consistent with the 

SCM. 

210-211 205-206 Added language to sunset these definitions on (six months after date 

of adoption) and sections renumbered. Definitions no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. These definitions will be removed from the 

rule when the rule is republished. 

212 N/A Added definition of “business machine plastic part,” consistent with 

the CTG. 

213-214 206-207 Added language to sunset these definitions on (six months after date 

of adoption) and sections renumbered. Definitions no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. 

215 N/A Added definition of “cavity wax” consistent with the CTG. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page B-3 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

216 209 Revised the term “cleanup operations” to “cleaning operations,” and 

revised definition consistent with the SCM while maintaining 

applicability to current rule language. 

217 210 Revised the term “clear coat” to “clear coating,” and revised 

definition consistent with the SCM while maintaining applicability to 

current rule language. 

218 211 Section renumbered. 

219 212 Revised definition of “coating,” consistent with the SCM while 

maintaining applicability to current rule language. 

N/A 213 Eliminated “coating component” definition. Definition no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. Will be covered by the new term 

“automotive coating component.” 

220 214 Replaced the phrase “surface preparation material or cleanup 

material” with “solvent” to be consistent with the SCM while 

maintaining applicability to current rule language. Added language 

to clarify that material used to clean application equipment is a 

solvent, not a coating remover. 

221 N/A Added definition of “color coating,” consistent with the SCM. 

222 215 Added language to sunset this definition on (six months after date of 

adoption) and sections renumbered. Definition no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. This definition will be removed from the 

rule when the rule is republished. 

223 N/A Added definition of “deadener” consistent with the CTG. 

224-225 216-217 Added language to sunset these definitions on (six months after date 

of adoption) and sections renumbered. Definitions no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. These definitions will be removed from the 

rule when the rule is republished. 

226 218 Revised definition of “electrostatic spray application,” consistent with 

the SCM while maintaining applicability to current rule language. 

227 N/A Added definition of “emission control system,” consistent with the 

SCM. 

228 219 Section renumbered and changed the term “cleanup material” to 

“solvent.” Added language to sunset this definition on (six months 

after date of adoption). Definition no longer used, consistent with the 

SCM. This definition will be removed from the rule when the rule is 

republished. 

229 220 Removed the terms “surface preparation material” and “cleanup 

material” and replaced with the term “solvent” consistent with the 

SCM and section renumbered. 

230 221 Section renumbered. 

N/A 222 Eliminated “finishing” definition. Definition no longer used, consistent 

with the SCM. 

231 N/A Added definition of “gasket/gasket sealing material” consistent with 

the CTG. 

232 N/A Added definition of “graphic arts operation,” consistent with the SCM.
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page B-4 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

233-236 223-226 Added language to sunset these definitions on (six months after date 

of adoption) and sections renumbered. Definitions no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. 

N/A 227 Eliminated “high solids coating” definition. Definition no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. 

237 228 Revised definition of “high volume low pressure,” consistent with the 

SCM while maintaining applicability to current rule language. 

238-239 229-230 Added language to sunset these definitions on (six months after date 

of adoption) and sections renumbered. Definitions no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. These definitions will be removed from the 

rule when the rule is republished. 

240 231 Section renumbered. 

241 N/A Added definition of “lubricating wax/compound,” consistent with the 

CTG. 

242 232 Revised the term “metallic/iridescent topcoat” to “metallic/iridescent 

color coating,” consistent with the SCM. 

243-244 233-234 Added language to sunset these definitions on (six months after date 

of adoption) and sections renumbered. Definitions no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. 

245 N/A Added definition of “miscellaneous plastic parts and products,” 

derived from the discussion in the CTG. 

246 235 Revised definition of “mobile equipment,” consistent with the SCM 

while maintaining applicability to current rule language. 

247 N/A Added definition of “motor vehicle,” consistent with the SCM. 

248 N/A Added definition of “multi-color coating,” consistent with the SCM. 

249 236 Added language to sunset this definition on (six months after date of 

adoption) and section renumbered. Definition no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. 

250 N/A Added definition of “original equipment manufacturing plant” to clarify 

the assembly line exemption. 

251 N/A Added definition of “permanently labeled” consistent with SJVAPCD 

Rule 4612. 

252 N/A Added definition of “pleasure craft” consistent with the CTG. 

253 237 Added language to sunset this definition on (six months after date of 

adoption) and section renumbered. Definition no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. 

254 238 Revised the term “pretreatment wash primer” to “pretreatment 

coating”, and revised definition consistent with the SCM while 

maintaining applicability to current rule language. 

255 239 Revised definition of “primer,” consistent with the SCM while 

maintaining applicability to current rule language. 

256 240 Revised definition of “primer sealer,” consistent with the SCM while 

maintaining applicability to current rule language. 

N/A 241-243 Eliminated unused definitions. 

257 N/A Added definition of “single-stage coating,” consistent with the SCM. 

258 N/A Added definition of “solvent,” consistent with the SCM. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page B-5 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

259 244 Added language to sunset the definition on (six months after date of 

adoption), section renumbered and updated references to changed 

section numbers. This definition will be removed from the rule when 

the rule is republished. 

260 N/A Added definition of “spot repair,” consistent with the SCM. 

261 N/A Added definition of “spray booth” derived from the parameters used 

for the health risk assessment. 

262 245 Section renumbered. 

N/A 246 Eliminated “stencil coating” definition. Now included under “graphic 

arts.” 

263 247 Added language to sunset the definition on (six months after date of 

adoption), and section renumbered. Definition no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. This definition will be removed from the 

rule when the rule is republished. 

264 248 Revised definition of “temporary protective coating,” consistent with 

the SCM. Effective six months after the date of adoption, labeling is 

required consistent with the SCM. 

265 249 Added language to sunset the definition on (six months after date of 

adoption) and section renumbered. Definition no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. 

266 N/A Added definition of “transfer efficiency,” consistent with the SCM. 

267 N/A Added definition of “transportation plastic part,” consistent with 

requirements of the CTG. The CTG does not applied to coating 

operations subject to the National Volatile Organic Compound 

Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings or the CTG for 

Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. 

268 N/A Added definition of “truck bed liner coating,” consistent with the 

SCM. 

269 N/A Added definition of “underbody coating,” consistent with the SCM. 

270 250 Revised the term “uniform finish blenders” to “uniform finish coating,” 

and revised definition consistent with the SCM while maintaining 

applicability to current rule language. 

271 251 Added language to sunset the definition on (six months after date of 

adoption) and section renumbered. Definition no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. This definition will be removed from the 

rule when the rule is republished. 

272 252 Revised term “refinishing” to “coating”. 

273 253 Added language to exclude tertiary butyl acetate as a VOC for the 

purposes of this rule when contained in an automotive coating or 

automotive coating component that is applied only within a spray 

booth. 

274 254 Revised references to changed section numbers. 

275 255 Added language to sunset the definition (six months after date of 

adoption), and section renumbered. Definition no longer used, 

consistent with the SCM. This definition will be removed from the 

rule when the rule is republished. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page B-6 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

301.1 Same Added sunset date for current VOC limits. Removed limits with 

expired effective dates. Updated references to changed section 

numbers. This section will be removed from the rule when the rule is 

republished. 

301.2 Same Added sunset date for current VOC limits. Removed limits with 

expired effective dates. Updated references to changed section 

numbers. This section will be removed from the rule when the rule is 

republished. 

301.3 Same Added sunset date for this section. This section won’t be necessary 

because there will no longer be a distinction between Group I and 

Group II vehicles after the sunset date. This section will be removed 

from the rule when the rule is republished. 

302 N/A Added section with the new requirements for all motor vehicles and 

mobile equipment, their parts or associated components. These 

VOC limits for coatings are consistent with the most stringent limit 

from the SCM or the CTG and will take effect 6 months after the date 

of adoption. 

303 N/A Added section with the new requirements for gasket/gasket sealing 

material, cavity wax, deadener, and lubricating wax/compound. The 

VOC limits for these materials are consistent with the CTG (EPA453/R-08-003) and will take effect 6 months after the date of 

adoption. 

304 N/A Added requirement that the most restrictive VOC limit shall apply to 

any coating that is represented or recommended for more than one 

category. This requirement applies to both Sections 301 and 302. 

For Section 301, this requirement would ensure that coatings with 

multiple uses are subject to the most restrictive VOC limit, which is 

consistent with Staff’s implementation of the current rule. This 

requirement for Section 302 is consistent with the SCM. 

305 302 Revised to allow emission control equipment to be used in lieu of the 

new VOC limits for coatings materials. Added language that control 

equipment must be maintained and used at all times in proper 

working condition. 

306.1 303.1 Added additional options for application equipment, consistent with 

the SCM and SJVAPCD Rule 4612. Application must be 

electrostatic, brush, roll, dip, flow, HVLP, LVLP, or demonstrate a 

minimum transfer efficiency of greater than or equal to HVLP. 

306.1.b.1-

306.1.b.2 

N/A Added section that required HVLP spray gun to be permanently 

labeled. If not, then the end user must demonstrate the spray gun 

meets the definition of HVLP in design and use. This section is 

consistent with SJVAPCD Rule 4612. 

306.1.e Same Revised requirement for alternative application methods consistent 

with the SCM. 

N/A 303.2-

303.3 

Deleted these sections, which became unnecessary as of 1/1/98. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page B-7 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

307 304 Revised prohibition consistent with the SCM and updated terms and 

removed references to Group I and Group II vehicles. 

308 305 Added “or manufacture” to reflect revised prohibition of sale or 

manufacture. 

308.1 305 Added manufacture, blend, repackage for sale, and distribute within 

the District to the list of prohibitions, consistent with the SCM. 

308.2 N/A Added new paragraph, to state exceptions for use outside the 

District or with an emissions control system, consistent with the 

SCM. 

309 306 Added new paragraph, effective (six months after date of adoption), 

to prohibit the possession of surface preparation and cleaning 

operations materials that do not comply with the VOC limits for such 

material. This section does not apply to a facility when a facility uses 

emission control equipment that meets the requirement in Section 

305. This is consistent with the SCM. Also updated to reflect new 

section numbers containing coating VOC limits. 

310-310.1 307-307.1 Removed terms “surface preparation” and “cleanup” and replaced 

with “solvent” and “cleaning operations,” consistent with SCM and 

sections renumbered. 

310.2 307.2 Added “vapor-tight” requirement except while “adding to or removing 

them from the containers,” consistent with the SCM. 

310.3 307.3 Added sunset date of (six months after date of adoption) for existing 

requirements for cleanup of application equipment. This section will 

be removed from the rule when the rule is republished. 

310.4 N/A Added new requirement to use materials containing no greater than 

25 g/l of VOC for the cleanup of application equipment. This 

requirement is effective (six months after date of adoption), and is 

consistent with the SCM. 

310.5 307.4 Added sunset date of (six months after date of adoption) for existing 

requirements for surface preparation. The 780 g/l limit for hand-held 

spray bottles used for removing road tar, engine oil, grease, 

overspray, or adhesives or used to clean plastic parts will no longer 

apply. This section will be removed from the rule when the rule is 

republished. 

310.6 307.5 Added sunset date of (six months after date of adoption) for the 

provision that allows the soaking of spray gun nozzles in solvents 

without a limit on VOC content. This practice is not allowed under 

the SCM or under the solvent cleaning requirements of SCAQMD 

Rule 1171. This section will be removed from the rule when the rule 

is republished. 

310.7 N/A Added new requirement that for bug and tar removal (effective six 

months after date of adoption). Only bug and tar removers regulated 

under California Consumer Products Regulation or materials 

containing no more than 25 g/l VOC may be used. Consistent with 

SJVAPCD Rule 4612. 

311 308 Section renumbered. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page B-8 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

312 309 Added sunset date for the limitation on specialty coatings, which will 

no longer be applicable when new categories and VOC limits take 

effect. This section will be removed from the rule when the rule is 

republished. 

313 310 Added sunset date for the limitation on precoats, which will no longer 

be applicable when new categories and VOC limits take effect. This 

section will be removed from the rule when the rule is republished. 

401 Same Added sunset date for the current product information sheet 

requirements section. Replaced “cleanup material(s)” with 

“solvent(s)”. Clarified the VOC content, including water and exempt 

compounds, of temporary protective coatings and all other materials 

to be also displayed for direct comparison to the limit in Section 301. 

Section references revised. This section will be removed from the 

rule when the rule is republished. 

402 N/A Added section for product data sheet requirements, consistent with 

the SCM, effective six months after date of adoption. 

403 N/A Added section on labeling requirements, consistent with the SCM. 

404-405 402-403 Revised section references and section renumbered. 

406 N/A Added compliance schedule to comply with the proposed new limits. 

This section will be removed from the rule when the rule is 

republished. 

For existing operations, the facility is required to meet the proposed 

new limits six months after the date of adoption. For new operations 

installed after the adoption of the rule, the facility is required to meet 

the proposed new limits immediately. For existing facilities that 

modifies their operation after the adoption, these facilities will be 

subject to Rule 202, New Source Review. Staff expects EPA to 

approve the latest version of Rule 202, which sets the Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT) threshold at zero. As a result, any 

modified facility with increased emissions will have to apply BACT. 

BACT for an automotive coating facility is to comply with the 

proposed new VOC limits. 

407 404 Revised the reference to the test method for determining the VOC 

mass concentration. 

408 405 Section renumbered. 

409 406 Revised definition to be aligned with VOC Regulatory consistent with 

the SCM and updated to reflect changed section numbers. 

Corrected error in description of Wv. 

410 N/A Added section to determine VOC Actual, consistent with the SCM. 

411 407 Updated to reflect the changed definition of “cleanup” to “cleanup 

operations” and updated to reflect changed section numbers. 

Corrected error in description of Wv. 

501 Same Eliminated the existing sales record requirements. Added 

requirements for recordkeeping for prohibition of sale or 

manufacture, consistent with the SCM. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page B-9 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

502 Same Revised language that records must be presented immediately on 

request. 

502.1 Same Updated to reflect new and changed section numbers, updated to 

reflect changed definitions and added a sunset date for this section. 

502.2 N/A Added section specifying information to be kept for each material, 

consistent with the SCM. 

502.3 502.2 Updated to reflect new and changed section numbers, updated to 

reflect changed definitions and added a sunset date for this section. 

Section 502.4 replaces this section effective (six months after date of 

adoption). Also, updated to reflect changed section numbers and 

changed definitions. This section will be removed from the rule when 

the rule is republished. 

502.4 N/A Added section for product data sheet requirements, consistent with 

the SCM. 

502.5 502.3 Added sunset date for the records of usage. Updated to reflect new 

and changed section numbers and updated to reflect changed 

definition. This section will be removed from the rule when the rule 

is republished. 

502.6 N/A Added new requirement for maintaining material purchase and 

usage records, consistent with of the SCM. 

503 502.4 Revised section to require “all records required by this rule” to be 

maintained on-site for continuous 3 year period and section 

renumbered. 

504.1 503.1 Revised language to specify that the VOC content of coatings and 

solvents shall be determined in accordance with EPA Method 24 and 

sections 406, 407 and 503.3 of this rule, consistent with the SCM 

and updated to reflect changed definition of “cleanup.” 

504.2 503.2 Updated ASTM method to latest version and updated to reflect 

changed definition of “pretreatment coating.” 

504.3 503.3 Added statement that this method only applies to exempt 

compounds other than those determined pursuant to section 504.8 

(methyl acetate, acetone, t-butyl acetate, and PCBTF), for which a 

new method has been added. 

504.4 503.4 Updated test methods to latest versions. 

504.5 503.5 Section renumbered. 

504.6 503.6 Updated SCAQMD test method to latest version. 

504.7 N/A Added ASTM method for determination of methyl acetate, acetone, tbutyl acetate, and PCBTF, consistent with the SCM. 

504.8 503.7 Updated test methods to latest versions. 

504.9 N/A Added SCAQMD method for determining the transfer efficiency of 

spray equipment, consistent with the SCM. 

504.10 N/A Added section allowing use, upon approval, of alternative test 

methods, consistent with the SCM. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page B-10 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

504.11 N/A To address U.S. EPA concerns about enforceability, added 

paragraph stating that where multiple test methods are specified, a 

violation established by any one of the test methods constitutes a 

violation of the rule. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 July 25, 2011, Page C-1 

APPENDIX C 

EMISSION REDUCTIONS BASED ON 2002 CARB SURVEY

SMAQMD Category 

SMAQMD 

VOC 

Limits 

(g/l)1

VOCact

SMAQMD 

(g/l)2 SCM Category 

SCM 

VOC 

Limits 

(g/l)1

VOCact

SCM 

(g/l)2

Percent 

Reduction 

2001

SMAQMD 

Total 

Volume 

(gallons)3

Plastic Primer 840 763 Adhesion Promoter 540 167 78% 134 Adhesion Promoter Clear Coat 420 310 Clear Coat 250 157 49% 22,421 Elastomeric Clear Metallic/Iridescent 520 

631 Color Coat 420 204 68% 64,085 

Camouflage 760 Color Coat and MultiStage Color Coat 780 Pretreatment Wash Primer 780 716 Pre-treatment Coating 660 285 60% 1,645 Primer and Primer Surfacer 250 

225 Primer 250 130 42% 19,167 

Primer Sealer and Ground Coat 420 Precoat 600 Flexible Primer 840 Single Stage Color 420 331 Single Stage Coating 340 216 35% 17,786 Temporary Protective Coating 60 16 Temporary Protective Coating 60 16 5% 25 Truck Bed Coating (Specialty Coatings) 840 278 Truck Bed Liner Coating 310 278 0% 10 Underbody Coating 540 266 Underbody Coating 430 240 10% 52 Uniform Finish Coating 840 693 Uniform Finish Coating 540 258 63% 369  Total  

1. VOC regulatory limit is calculated as grams per liter, excluding water and exempt compound. 

2. Supplied by CARB, this is the average actual VOC content, including water and exempt compound, of co

with the corresponding regulatory limit. 

3. Total volume is based on calendar year 2001 as documented in CARB's 2002 Automotive Refinish Coat

and apportioned to Sacramento County based on population data. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page D-1 

APPENDIX D

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

Point Source Modeling Parameters 

Emission Rate: 1 gram per second 

Release Type: Default 

Stack Height: 20 feet 

Stack Temperature: 140° Fahrenheit 

Exit Diameter: 2.83 feet 

Exit Velocity: 31.8 feet per second 

Flow Rate: 12,000 cubic feet per minute 

Building Height: 14 feet 

Land: Urban 

Point Source BEEST for Windows Output 

Max Annual Concentration: 95.09 (ug/m3

)/(g/s) 

Volume Source Modeling Parameters 

Emission Rate: 1 gram per second 

Building Dimensions: 24 feet x 24 feet x 12 feet (length x width x height) 

Release Height: 10 feet 

Horizontal Dim: 5.58 feet (length/4.3) 

Vertical Dim: 5.58 feet (height/2.15) 

Elevation: 0 feet 

Land: Urban 

Volume Source BEEST for Windows Output 

Max Annual Concentration: 1,878 (ug/m3

)/(g/s) 

Cancer Risk Equation 

Cancer Risk = Inhalation Unit Risk Factor (ug/m3

)

-1 * Concentration (ug/m3

)/(g/s) * Emission Rate (g/s)
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page D-2 

Tertiary Butyl Acetate 

Density of TBAc: 7.18 lb/gal 

Inhalation Unit Risk Factor (URF) = 4 x 10-7 (ug/m3

)

-1

Calculating the maximum emission from a point source to have a cancer risk of less than 10 in a million: 

 ER = Cancer Risk/(URF*Annual Conc) 

 ER = (10 x10-6)/(4 x 10-7 (ug/m3

)

-1 * 95.09 (ug/m3

)/(g/s)) 

 ER = 0.26 g/s 

Annual Emission = ER * 0.0022 lb/g * 3600 s/hr * 8 hr/day * 5 days/wk * 52 wk/yr 

Annual Emission = 0.26 g/s * 0.0022 lb/g * 3600 s/hr * 8 hr/day * 5 days/wk * 52 wk/yr 

Annual Emission = 4340 lb/year 

Calculating the maximum emission from a volume source to have a cancer risk of less than 10 in a 

million: 

 ER = Cancer Risk/(URF*Annual Conc) 

 ER = (10 x10-6)/(4 x 10-7 (ug/m3

)

-1 * 1,878 (ug/m3

)/(g/s)) 

 ER = 0.01 g/s 

Annual Emission = ER * 0.0022 lb/g * 3600 s/hr * 8 hr/day * 5 days/wk * 52 wk/yr 

Annual Emission = 0.01 g/s * 0.0022 lb/g * 3600 s/hr * 8 hr/day * 5 days/wk * 52 wk/yr 

Annual Emission = 220 lb/year 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page E-1 

APPENDIX E 

EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP FINAL REPORT 

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR SMAQMD RULE 459 AMENDMENTS 
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT 

ANALYSIS FOR SMAQMD 

 RULE 459 AMENDMENTS 

Final Report 

Sacramento Metropolitan 

 Air Quality Management District 

Program Coordination Division 

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814

July 25, 2011
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 

FOR SMAQMD RULE 459 AMENDMENTS 

Final Report 

Prepared for: 

Sacramento Metropolitan 

Air Quality Management District 

Program Coordination Division 

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Prepared by: 

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) 

8950 Cal Center Drive 

Suite 348 

Sacramento, CA 95826

July 25, 2011
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3

2.0 OPTION CONSIDERED, COST COMPONENTS, AND CONVERSION COSTS ............ 3

2.1 Equipment Costs .....................................................................................................4

2.2 Training Costs ........................................................................................................4

2.3 Total One-Time Costs .............................................................................................5

2.4 Increased Coating Costs ..........................................................................................5

2.4.1 Annual Coating Volumes..........................................................................6

2.4.2 Incremental Coating Costs ........................................................................6

2.5 Solvent Recycling ...................................................................................................7

3.0 SUPPLIER INDUSTRIES .................................................................................................. 9

3.1 Affected Sectors .....................................................................................................9

3.2 Permitted Autobody Shops......................................................................................9

3.3 Dun & Bradstreet List of Auto Repair/Painting Facilities ...................................... 10

3.4 Merged and Updated Lists .................................................................................... 11

3.5 Final Industry Profile ............................................................................................ 11

4.0 ESTIMATED COST OF AMENDMENTS TO RULE 459 .............................................. 13

5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .................................................................................................. 13

5.1 Suppliers ............................................................................................................... 13

5.1.1 Who Might Bear Costs?.......................................................................... 13

5.1.2 Potential Impacts .................................................................................... 17

5.2 Consumers ............................................................................................................ 21

5.2.1 Who Might Bear Costs?.......................................................................... 21

5.2.2 Potential Cost Increase to Consumers ..................................................... 23

5.2.3 Potential Demand Shifting to Non-Sacramento County Shops ................ 23

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 24
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued 

Tables Page 

Table 1. Equipment Costs........................................................................................................... 5

Table 2. Imputed Coating Volumes ............................................................................................ 7

Table 3. Noncommercial Permitted Facilities ........................................................................... 10

Table 4. Autobody Industry Profile .......................................................................................... 12

Table 5. Cost Analysis—Low Cost Scenario ............................................................................ 14

Table 6. Compliance Costs to Revenue and Net Income by Size Category Low Cost Scenario . 18

Table 7. Potential Impacts from Low Cost Scenario ................................................................. 21

Figures Page 

Figure 1. Logic Diagram of Potential Impacts on Manufacturers, Distributors, and Users of 

Water-based Coatings................................................................................................ 15

Figure 2. Logic Diagram of Potential Impacts on Commercial Entities ..................................... 17

Figure 3. Logic Diagram of Potential Impacts on Consumers ................................................... 22
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Rule 459 (Automotive, Truck, and Heavy Equipment Refinishing Operations) is being 

proposed for amendment. SMAQMD is considering a decrease in the allowable VOC content of 

coatings used in the refinishing process. Compliance with the low VOC limits in the proposed 

amendment will require autobody shops to use water-based color coatings instead of the 

traditional solvent-based coatings. 

ERG examined the potential impacts on manufacturers, distributors (jobbers), 

commercial facilities (permitted and unpermitted), non-commercial facilities, and consumers. 

Through the use of SMAQMD information and commercial financial databases, ERG identified 

302 facilities potentially affected by the Rule 459 amendments. Of these, 63 have already 

converted to water-based coatings. The remaining 239 facilities (3 noncommercial permitted 

facilities, 68 commercial permitted facilities, and 168 commercial unpermitted facilities) are 

included in the cost analysis. 

ERG developed equipment and costs based on the experience of Sacramento County 

facilities that have already converted to water-based coatings and information provided in 

industry articles and manufacturers’ websites. SMAQMD staff supplied ERG with coating price 

information obtained from four coating manufacturers. ERG researched manufacturers’ VOC 

compliance charts and developed “ready-to-spray” $/gallon costs for water-based and solventbased coatings based on usage data supplied to SMAQMD by commercial autobody shops. In 

addition, one manufacturer also calculated the $/sq. ft. covered costs for water- and solventbased coatings. Water-based coatings are more efficient at coverage than solvent-based coatings; 

that is, a smaller volume of water-based coating is needed to cover the same area covered by a 

unit of solvent-based coating. When improved coverage is taken into consideration, water-based 

coatings were about 11 percent lower in cost than solvent-based coatings. Based on this 

information, ERG developed two scenarios, both of which incorporate the assumption that no 

costs can be passed through to the consumer and that insurance companies make no adjustment 

in their reimbursement policies. The first scenario (“Low Cost”) assumes $0/gallon incremental 

coating cost (i.e., it does not consider potential cost savings). The second scenario (“High Cost”) 

uses the highest price differential ($25.17/gallon) between water-based and solvent-based 

coatings. 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

2

The cost analysis is based on facility-specific one-time and annual costs (based on 

reported coating usage) for permitted facilities. For unpermitted facilities, the cost assumptions 

include 1 spray booth, 1 person trained, and the average of the lowest 10 percent of coating use 

by permitted facilities. Under the Low Cost scenario, one-time costs of equipment and training 

total $240,210 and total annualized costs is 34,161. Average annualized costs per facility range 

from $127 to $166 depending on the revenue category with an overall average of $143 per 

facility. Under the High Cost scenario, the results are $240,210 in one-time costs, $509,919 in 

annual costs, and $579,877. Average annualized costs per facility range from $990 to $14,071 

depending on the revenue category with an overall average of $2,426 per facility. 

The added costs of the Low Cost scenario might lead to the loss of $44,905 in output, 

$43,528 in earnings, and 0 jobs. For perspective, this is 0.07 percent of the earnings in this 

industry in Sacramento County, and no discernable impact on output or employment. The added 

costs for the High Cost scenario might lead to the loss $762,248 in output, $738,705 in earnings, 

and 6 jobs. For perspective, this is 0.03 percent of the output, 1.25 percent of the earnings, and 

0.37 percent of the employment in this industry in Sacramento County. Neither scenario has any 

discernable impact on the Sacramento County unemployment rate. On an industry-wide basis, 

return on equity (ROE) is projected to decline by 0.3 to 5.7 percent, depending on the scenario. 

ERG examined a third scenario where a consumer had to pay for the cost increase 

associated with the switch to water-based coatings. Under the “High Cost” scenario, the 

consumer would spend up to an additional $25 or about 1.1 percent of the average repair price of 

$2,295 (Autobody Shop Business, 2010). Based on this small difference, ERG does not consider 

the Rule 459 amendments to pose an incentive to move business out of the county. 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

3

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The District is considering amendments to Rule 459—Automotive, Truck and Heavy 

Equipment Refinishing Operations. The purpose of the amendments is to reduce volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from the refinishing of motor vehicles and mobile equipment. 

Emissions will be reduced by decreasing the allowable VOC content of coatings used in the 

refinishing process by changing from solvent-based coatings to water-based coatings. 

This report presents the socioeconomic analysis for the amendments to Rule 459 

conducted by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). ERG identified the equipment, one-time 

costs, and annual cost components to change to water-based coatings (Section 2); identified the 

universe of facilities to which Rule 459 amendments could apply (see Section 3); and calculated 

the estimated costs for the rule amendment (Section 4). 

The socioeconomic analysis (Section 5) examines two scenarios to estimate the potential 

impact on the suppliers. Both scenarios incorporate the assumption that autobody shops are not 

able to raise prices. This approach maximizes the potential impacts on the shops while 

minimizing the impacts on the consumers. The first scenario is what is likely to happen (Low 

Cost scenario) given the price and coverage differences between water-based and solvent-based 

coatings. The second scenario examines the impacts of the highest incremental cost identified 

between water-based and solvent-based coatings (High Cost scenario). Another analysis 

examines the potential impact on a consumer should all incremental costs incurred to comply 

with Rule 459 amendments be passed on to the consumer; this minimizes impacts on the 

autobody shops but maximizes them for consumers. 

2.0 OPTION CONSIDERED, COST COMPONENTS, AND CONVERSION COSTS 

The socioeconomic analysis considers the change from solvent-based to water-based 

coatings. Section 2.1 examines the equipment, training, and material changes needed to comply 

with the Rule 459 amendments while Section 2.2 addresses the increased coating costs (“annual 

costs”). These data are combined with the industry profile (discussed in Section 3) to provide the 

estimated industry costs of the Rule 459 amendments presented in Section 4. 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

4

ERG found that there was a significant difference between the equipment that retailers 

would like to sell to the autobody shops to convert to water-borne coatings and the minimum 

amount of equipment that the shops actually use for the conversion. For example, information 

from the PPG website suggests several substantial pieces of equipment, such as booth blowers, 

fans, floor stands, or a waterborne downdraft booth, are likely to be needed in order to convert to 

water-borne coatings (see http://www.ppg.com/coatings/refinish/en/products/waterborne/

Pages/equipment.aspx ) while at the same time (also on their website) they suggest that the 

amount of new equipment needed may consist of only a spray gun, gun washing equipment, and 

possibly air movement equipment (see http://www.ppg.com/coatings/refinish/en/products/

waterborne/Pages/FAQ.aspx). ERG developed costs for the minimum equipment needed to 

convert to water-based coatings (i.e., spray guns, gun washing equipment, and air movement 

equipment). 

2.1 Equipment Costs 

Several distributors provide lists of spray guns that are compatible with their water-borne 

products; ERG searched the Internet for vendor prices for these models. Spray gun prices ranged 

from $99 to $586, with an average price of $368. 

Prices for spray gun cleaning depend on whether the shop purchased a wash cabinet 

($563 to $1,839) or used gun cleaning kits ($11 to $31). ERG assumed the shops used spray gun 

cleaning kits with an average price of $21. 

Prices for air drying equipment ranged from a low of $80 for a hand-held dryer to as high 

at $1,026 for a stand with two blower guns, air gauge and air drying desiccants. However, based 

on observations and information collected by SMAQMD staff, hand-held guns were the standard 

equipment; these ranged from $80 to $225 with an average price of $160. 

2.2 Training Costs 

Based on information gathered from site visits conducted by SMAQMD and telephone 

calls made by SMAQMD and ERG with distributors, it was determined that most manufacturers 

provide training to shop personnel at autobody shops which they convert to water-borne coatings 

when the facility is likely to provide a sufficient volume in material purchases. For low-volume 

businesses, training costs were about $250 per person. To the class cost, ERG added $423 to 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

5

reflect 8 hours of training time at $21.61/hour, the Level 3 wage rate for industry 40900-

automotive body and related repairers for the Sacramento Metropolitan Statistical area (FLC, 

2011). 

2.3 Total One-Time Costs 

Table 1 shows the equipment costs for a facility depending on the number of spray 

booths at a location. A facility is assumed to purchase one spray gun per booth. Locations with 

are assumed to purchase one spray gun cleaner per spray gun. 

All jobbers indicated that training was necessary due to the differences between the types 

of coatings. A mobile operator with whom ERG spoke indicated that the training costs would be 

picked up by his manufacturer (Barkman, 2011). This is consistent with recommendations given 

in an industry journal (Clark, 2009a; Clark, 2009b; Clark, 2009c). It is likely that most permitted 

facilities have their training provided free of charge by the manufacturer while many small 

unpermitted facilities may be required to pay the cost of training one person. ERG used the 

conservative assumption that all unconverted shops would need to pay for training one person. 

Table 1. Equipment and Training Costs 

Description

Spray 

Gun

Spray Gun 

Cleaner

Hand-held 

Dryer Training Total

Total

Rounded

1 booth $368.26 $21.16 $160.00 $422.88 $972.29 $970

2 booths $736.51 $42.32 $320.00 $422.88 $1,521.71 $1,520

3 booths $1,104.77 $63.47 $480.00 $422.88 $2,071.12 $2,070

4 booths $1,473.02 $84.63 $640.00 $422.88 $2,620.53 $2,620

2.4 Increased Coating Costs 

The annual incremental cost incurred by a facility when it changes from solvent-based to 

water-based coatings depends on two parameters: 

• Annual volume of coatings used 

• Incremental cost per unit volume 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

6

2.4.1 Annual Coating Volumes 

ERG analyzed data collected by SMAQMD on coating usage from 51 permitted 

autobody shops that had not converted to water-based coatings. ERG extrapolated quarterly 

volumes to annual volumes and the annual amounts ranged from 12 gallons/year to 1,596 

gallons/year. The amounts used do not always correlate with the location revenues. Some shops 

whose primary business is not automobile refinishing (i.e.., automobile dealers, businesses that 

maintain their own fleets, or those for which painting is subsidiary to the primary business of 

repairing vehicles) may have substantial revenues but low coating usage. Conversely, a relatively 

small shop for which automobile refinishing is the only business might show a much larger 

amount of coating usage but much smaller revenues. 

As part of the socioeconomic analysis, ERG classified the autobody shops into six 

revenue categories. ERG calculated the median volume of coating use within each revenue 

category and used the median to impute the coating use for facilities in that category without 

data. Unpermitted facilities in the SMAQMD region will also incur the costs of changing to 

water-based coatings. Because such facilities do not spray enough coating to require a permit, 

ERG used the average of the lowest 10 percent of the coating volume data from the permitted 

facilities to estimate coating use for unpermitted facilities. Table 2 summarizes the coating 

volumes used to complete missing data. 

2.4.2 Incremental Coating Costs 

ERG used price lists obtained from four coating manufacturers, specifications (i.e., 

mixing ratios for the highest volume coatings: color coats, clear coats, primers, and primer 

sealers), and VOC compliance charts for the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Yolo-Solano 

districts. The requirements considered for the Rule 459 amendments are already in effect in the 

San Joaquin and Yolo-Solano districts. Based on this information, ERG developed $/gallon 

“ready to spray” costs for clear coats, primers, primer sealers, and a range of colors. ERG 

combined the costs according to the usage patterns provided to SMAQMD by some permitted 

facilities to create a “composite” cost for a gallon of solvent-based coatings (based on 

Sacramento County and Placer County VOC charts) and water-based-coatings (based on San 

Joaquin County and Yolo/Solano Counties VOC charts). 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

7

Table 2. Imputed Coating Volumes 

Permit Status 

Annual Revenues 

(2009$) 

Imputed Annual Coating Use by Facilities 

With Missing Data (gallons/year) 

Permitted Unknown 108 

 <$250,000 108 

 $250,000 - $500,000 232 

 $500,000 - $750,000 210 

 $750,000 - $1,000,000 204 

 >$1,000,000 388 

Unpermitted all 18.4 

On a percentage basis, water-based coatings ranged from 6 to 12 percent higher in price 

per gallon than solvent-based coatings for the manufacturers included in the analysis. However, 

one manufacturer took the initiative to provide dollars per square foot ($/sq. ft.) covered values 

for water- and solvent-based coatings. Water-based coatings have higher coverages than solventbased coatings; that is, a smaller volume of water-based coating is needed to cover the same area 

covered by a unit of solvent-based coating. When improved coverage is taken into consideration, 

water-based coatings were about 11 percent lower in cost than solvent-based coatings. ERG 

considers it likely that similar findings would result from the other three manufacturers. 

In order not to underestimate impacts, ERG did not include cost savings from product 

substitution in the socioeconomic analysis but instead considered a $0/gallon incremental coating 

cost as the Low Cost scenario. ERG used the highest incremental cost/gallon from the remaining 

manufacturers as the High Cost scenario. In absolute terms, water-based coatings are estimated 

to be $25.17/gallon more expensive than solvent-based coatings.

2.5 Solvent Costs 

The proposed amendments to Rule 459 will require a switch to very low VOC solvents 

for cleanup and surface preparation. Currently, Rule 459 requires surface preparation solvent to 

contain no more than 72 g/l VOC. The proposed amendments lower this limit to 25 g/l. ERG 

compared the prices for 72 g/l surface cleaners to cleaners that contain 25 g/l VOC or less. For 

all four manufacturers, the cleaners meeting the 25 g/l limit were less expensive than the 72 g/l 

cleaners.

Currently, Rule 459 requires that spray guns be cleaned with a solvent containing no 

more than 72 g/l VOC, or cleaned within an enclosed gun cleaner. Typically, facilities that use 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

8

solvent based coatings use high VOC solvents such as lacquer thinner to clean spray guns within 

an enclosed gun cleaner. Lacquer thinner can be purchased for approximately $15/gallon in 5-

gallon containers and $9/gallon in 55-gallon drums. The cleaning solvent is recirculated within 

the system until it contains too much paint waste to be effective. At that point, the spent solvent 

is drained out and the gun cleaning system is refilled with fresh solvent. At the majority of 

shops, the spent solvent is put into a drum for disposal as hazardous waste. Disposal costs 

approximately $2 to $3 per gallon. Many shops contract with a service to maintain the gun 

cleaning systems and haul away hazardous waste. Some of the shops have solvent recycling 

systems, which allow recovery of a portion of the solvent from the paint solids by evaporation. 

With the recycling systems, there is a disposal cost associated with the paint solids, as well as a 

cost for fresh makeup solvent. However, the proposed VOC limit of 25 g/l would likely preclude 

the use of recycled solvent because an initially compliant solvent would gain VOC content from 

the coatings as they are cleaned from the spray guns. The material and disposal costs of 

discontinuing solvent recycling, however, may be offset by a decrease in the amount of cleanup 

material used to clean water based spray equipment, as discussed below.

In the proposed amendments, solvents used to clean application equipment must contain 

no more than 25 g/l VOC. For water based coatings, a spray gun can be cleaned primarily using 

only a few ounces of tap water (virtually no cost) followed by a final rinse with acetone from a 

squirt bottle. Acetone can be purchased for approximately $16/gallon in 5-gallon containers and 

$12/gallon in 55-gallon drums. The spent cleaning solution is disposed as hazardous waste. 

Some shops may choose to use flocculants that settle and separate the paint solids so that the 

cleaning solution can be reused several times before disposal. Flocculants can be purchased for 

approximately $63 for a 2 kg container, which can treat 150 gallons of water.

In 2008, the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) conducted a study of 

cleaning solvents and other materials used in the autobody industry (Wolf 2008). One case study 

involved a facility that had recently converted from solvent based coatings to water based 

coatings. Prior to conversion, the total annual cost for application equipment cleaning, including 

material and disposal costs, was $1,832. After conversion to water based coatings, the cost 

decreased to $407. Most of the reduced cost was due to the fact that a much lower volume of 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

9

cleaning material was required to be purchased and less waste was generated during the cleanup 

of water based spray guns.

ERG concludes that the proposed amendments will not increase costs for solvent cleaning 

and associated disposal. For both the Low Cost and High Cost scenarios, ERG assumed no 

incremental costs.

3.0 SUPPLIER INDUSTRIES 

3.1 Affected Sectors 

Rule 459 amendments have the potential to affect a variety of sectors: 

• Coatings manufacturers 

• Coatings distributors (jobbers) 

• Government entities that paint/repaint vehicles 

• Educational institutions that teach vehicle painting 

• Businesses that paint/repaint their own vehicles as part of a larger business activity 

• Businesses whose primary business is vehicle painting/repainting 

• Customers that need/want a vehicle painted/repainted 

According to discussions with jobbers, coating manufacturers charge higher prices for 

water-based coatings. ERG therefore assumed no impacts from Rule 459 amendments to the 

manufacturing sector because additional costs are passed through to the jobbers. In support of 

this project, ERG spoke with eight jobbers. Every jobber that we contacted stated that they 

passed the higher costs to the autobody shops. ERG therefore assumed no impacts from Rule 459 

amendments to jobbers. 

3.2 Permitted Autobody Shops 

SMAQMD refines and updates its list of permitted facilities on an ongoing basis. As of 

June 2011, 63 facilities were identified as converted to water-based coatings and 72 as 

unconverted facilities. One facility (Porter Sprague) appears on both the converted and 

unconverted list because it performs both water-based and solvent-based coatings. For the 

purpose of the economic analysis, this facility is considered converted. Thus the total number of 

SMAQMD permitted facilities is 134. 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

10

One government facility has all the equipment and training necessary for water-based 

operations but has not switched to using water-based color coatings. For the economic analysis, 

this facility incurs incremental coating costs, but no equipment or training costs. For the purpose 

of the economic analysis, there are 63 converted facilities and 71 unconverted facilities. The 

unconverted facilities are likely to incur costs under Rule 459 amendments. 

Six noncommercial facilities hold permits (see Table 3); four are government institutions 

and two are educational institutions. The four government institutions (two for Regional Transit, 

one for the City of Sacramento Public Works, and one for the State of California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans)) have a total of six spray booths. Of these, three booths have converted 

to water-based coatings, one booth has partially converted, and two have not converted. The two 

educational institutions (Los Rios District College and Universal Technical Institute) have a 

combined total of 11 spray booths—all of which have been converted to water-based coatings. 

Thus, of the six noncommercial facilities, three are likely to incur costs under Rule 459 

amendments. 

Table 3. Noncommercial Permitted Facilities 

Category 

Data 

Source 

Number 

of 

Facilities

Number of 

Spray 

Booths Converted

Partially 

Converted

Not 

Converted

Government SMAQMD 4 6 3 1 2

Educational SMAQMD 2 11 11 0 0

3.3 Dun & Bradstreet List of Auto Repair/Painting Facilities 

Under District Rule 459, General Permit Requirements, facilities that use less than 1 

gallon per day of coating/solvent are exempt from permits. Thus, there are additional facilities 

that do not appear on the SMAQMD list but might incur costs under the amendments to Rule 

459. The unpermitted facilities are likely to be small businesses. In order to better characterize 

this segment, ERG extracted all locations with primary or secondary NAICS code 811121 

(Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance) from the Dun & Bradstreet 

(D&B) Million Dollar Database1. Given the time lag for reporting data and its incorporation in 

commercial databases, financial date extracted in early 2011, as was done for this report, reflects 

 

1

 Which, despite its name, tracks businesses with annual revenues as low as $50,000 although coverage might not be as complete 

as for businesses with larger annual revenues. 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

11

2009 data. After removing facilities that only did interior work, (i.e., upholstery), and an industry 

organization (California Autobody Association), ERG’s final list included 280 locations that 

potentially could be affected by the rule. 

3.4 Merged and Updated Lists 

ERG, with input from SMAQMD, merged the permitted facilities and D&B lists. This 

involved tracking name changes, entities that held permits under one name but “did business as” 

under a second name, distinguishing mailing and location addresses, etc. After matching 

facilities to the D&B list extracted under the NAICS code 811121, ERG searched the D&B 

database for the names of unmatched businesses. These generally do auto painting as a small part 

of a larger business. In all, 112 matches were made between the two sets of commercial 

facilities. The resultant profile includes 6 noncommercial permitted facilities, 128 commercial 

permitted facilities, and 168 commercial unpermitted facilities for a total of 302 facilities. 

3.5 Final Industry Profile 

Table 4 describes the overall industry profile. The first set of rows shows the 134 

permitted facilities (i.e., 6 noncommercial and 128 commercial). There are an additional 168 

commercial facilities that are not permitted. The second set of rows shows the counts of 

converted facilities. While 63 of 134 permitted facilities have already converted to water-based 

coatings, ERG assumes that none of the unpermitted facilities have done so. 

The third set of rows identifies the counts of unconverted facilities likely to be affected 

by Rule 459 amendments. Three noncommercial permitted facilities, 68 commercial permitted 

facilities, and 168 commercial unpermitted facilities are in the cost analysis for a total of 239 

facilities. ERG could not identify revenues for 10 commercial permitted facilities; these are listed 

under the column labeled “Unknown.” 

Unpermitted facilities are smaller operations (i.e., none fall into the revenue categories 

greater than $750,000 per year). Of the 41 facilities with annual revenues greater than 

$1,000,000 (2009 data), 27 have already converted. As a result, all but 14 of the 239 commercial 

facilities considered to incur costs under Rule 459 amendments have less than $1,000,000 in 

annual revenues. 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments

July 25, 2011 

12

Table 4. Autobody Industry Profile 

Revenue Category 

Category Source Unknown <$250,000

$250,000 - $500,000 

$500,000 - $750,000 

$750,000 - $1,000,000 >$1,00

ALL NonCommercial SMAQMD 6 Commercial SMAQMD 23 32 9 13 10 Commercial D&B 0 139 25 4 0 Total CONVERTED NonCommercial SMAQMD 3 Commercial SMAQMD 13 10 2 5 3 Commercial D&B 0 0 0 0 0 Total INCURRING COSTS NonCommercial SMAQMD 3 Commercial SMAQMD 10 22 7 8 7 Commercial D&B 0 139 25 4 0 Total 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

13

4.0 ESTIMATED COST OF AMENDMENTS TO RULE 459 

ERG used SMAQMD permit, inventory, and inspection data on the number of spray 

booths and annual coating usage to conduct a facility-specific cost analysis for each permitted 

facility. Unpermitted facilities were assumed to have a single spray booth, train one person in the 

use of water-borne coatings, and use 18.4 gallons of coatings per year. Equipment, training, and 

incremental coating costs are incurred in the first year while only incremental coating costs are 

incurred in subsequent years. The initial costs were annualized over a 10-year period with a 7 

percent discount rate. 

Table 5 summarizes the results of the Low Cost and High Cost scenarios. Costs are 

aggregated by revenue category. For both scenarios, the one-time costs of equipment and 

training total $240,210. The scenarios differ according to the incremental cost incurred every 

year for using waterborne coatings (i.e., the Low Cost scenario assumes zero incremental coating 

costs on a coverage basis). For the Low Cost Scenario, the total annual cost is $0 and the total 

annualized cost is $34,161. Average annualized costs per facility range from $127 to $166 

depending on the revenue category with an overall average of $143 per facility. 

Under the High Cost scenario, the results are $509,919 in annual costs, and $579,877 in 

annualized costs. This High Cost scenario is conservative because the improved coverage of 

water based coatings has not been taken into account. Improved coverage will likely result in a 

decrease in coating usage. 

5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS 

5.1 Suppliers 

5.1.1 Who Might Bear Costs? 

Figure 1 is a logic diagram of how different groups might be affected by Rule 459 

amendments. Beginning at the top of the figure, the coatings manufacturers incur the cost of 

adding a new product line (water-based coatings). These requirements have already been in place 

in different areas of California. Based on conversations with the distributors, the manufacturers 

pass all increased costs for water-based coatings to the distributors. Thus, ERG estimates that 

there will be no impacts on the manufacturers. The same conversations consistently indicated 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments

July 25, 2011 

14

Table 5. Cost Analysis 

Revenue Category

Category Variable Total Unknown <$250,000 

$250,000 - 

$500,000 

$500,000 - 

$750,000 

$750,000 

$1,000,00

SMAQMD Counts 3 3Non-Commercial One-time $1,940 $1,940 Annual 

$0-

$8,054

$0-

$8,054

 Annualized 

$276-

$8,895

$276-

$8,895

SMAQMD Counts 68 10 22 7 8 Commercial One-time $75,310 $9,700 $24,640 $7,890 $9,410 $7,3 Annual 

$0-

424,060

$0-

$24,163

$0-

$63,327

$0-

$59,703

$0-

51,590

$

42,9

 Annualized 

$10,701-

$464,470

$1,380-

$27,238

$3,498-

$71,271

$1,120-

$65,004

$1,336-

$56,926

$1,04

$47,0

D&B Counts 168 0 139 25 4 Commercial One-time $162,960 $0 $134,830 $24,250 $3,880  Annual 

$0-

$77,805 $0

$0-

$64,374

$0-

$11,578

$0-

$1,852 

 Annualized 

$23,184-

$106,512 $0

$19,182-

$88,126

$3,450-

$15,850

$552-

$2,536 

Totals Counts 239 13 161 32 12  One-time $240,210 $11,640 $159,470 $32,140 $13,290 $7,3 Annual 

$0-

$509,919

$0-

$32,217

$0-

$127,701

$0-

$71,281

$0-

$53,803

$

$42,9

 Annualized 

$34,161-

$579,877

$1,656-

$36,133

$22,680-

$159,397

$4,570-

$80,854

$1,888-

59,462

$1,04

$47,0

Average Annualized Cost per Facility 

$143-

$2,426

$127-

$2,779

$141-

$990

$143-

$2,527

$157-

$4,995

$14

$6,7
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

15

Figure 1. Logic Diagram of Potential Impacts on Manufacturers, Distributors, and 

Users of Water-based Coatings 

that distributors pass through all increased costs to their customers. Thus, ERG estimates there 

will be no impacts on the distributors. 

Government and educational entities conduct repainting operations to maintain their fleet 

of vehicles or to teach automobile painting and several of them appear in SMAQMD’s list of 

permitted facilities. Under the Low Cost scenario, the combined annualized cost incurred for the 

three noncommercial facilities is $276. This minimal cost is likely to have no adverse impact on 

government facilities. Under the High Cost scenario, the combined annualized cost is $8,895. 

This cost is small compared to the operating budget and can be mitigated by training in proper 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

16

and efficient application of water-based coatings. Both educational entities in the analysis have 

already converted to water-based coatings with no discernable impact. 

However, there might be impacts on commercial entities and these are described in more 

detail in Figure 2. Rule 459 amendments might affect businesses where vehicle painting/painting 

is part of a larger business (see box labeled “Secondary Business”). For example, MCM 

Construction in Sacramento is on the list of permitted facilities where vehicle repainting appears 

to be part of the maintenance program for its own equipment (MCM, 2011). The Rule 459 

amendment costs would be very small compared to the overall operations of such businesses and 

ERG believes that it is highly likely that all costs could and would be passed on to the consumer. 

However, we analyzed secondary businesses as if they could not pass costs through to the 

consumers of their primary business’s products and services. 

The right side of Figure 2 shows some of the possible situations for entities whose 

primary (if not sole) business is vehicle painting/repainting. If the repainting job is discretionary 

(e.g., the customer doesn’t like the color any more, etc.), the business might be able to pass 

through some of the additional costs subject to the pressure on prices from the local competition. 

The next branch in the logic diagram concerns repainting that is necessary, perhaps part 

of a vehicle repair. If the driver is insured and the insurance company uses a cost-reimbursement 

approach, then the autobody shop is able to pass through the additional costs. The insurance 

company, in turn, distributes the cost among its policy holders. Given the relative magnitude of 

the costs associated with accident repairs and the marginal cost increase for water-based 

coatings, ERG considers it likely that the insured community would see miniscule, if noticeable, 

increases in policy costs. 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

17

Figure 2. Logic Diagram of Potential Impacts on Commercial Entities 

If, on the other hand, the insurance company uses a fixed fee schedule of repayment, then 

the autobody shop would be forced to absorb all the incremental costs. This is a “High Cost” 

scenario where none of the incremental cost can be recovered and, as such, is the case that will 

be analyzed for impacts. One insurer mentioned that the company takes such regional regulatory 

requirements into consideration when it calculates regional fee schedules (Williams, 2011b). 

Finally, if the driver is not insured, the driver will have to pay for the repair and 

painting/repainting on an out-of-pocket basis. This is similar to the discretionary case where the 

autobody shop would be able to pass through cost increases as constrained by local competition. 

5.1.2 Potential Impacts 

Costs as Percent of Revenues and Net Income. ERG examined IRS data for the 

automotive repair and maintenance industry for tax year 2007 (the most recent year available) 

(IRS, 2011). These data represent more than 110,000 returns nationwide. For this industry, a 

substantial proportion of businesses (44 percent) do not have net income (i.e., the business 

showed a loss for the year). For the 56 percent of businesses reporting net income, the profit 

margin was 6.2 percent. However, in keeping with the High Cost analysis approach, ERG 

calculated the profit margin for all returns, profitable and not profitable. The profit margin used 

in the calculations is 4.3 percent. 

Table 6 shows the annualized compliance costs compared to revenues and net income by 

revenue category and by total industry. Both converted and unconverted facilities were included 

- -
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

18

when calculating the category average for a total of 273 facilities.2 Table 6 compares the 

category average revenues (per facility) with the average annualized cost per facility. Annualized 

costs from 0.0 percent to 0.9 percent of revenues for all size categories under both scenarios. 

Annualized costs range from 0.0 percent to 3.0% of net income under the Low Cost scenario and 

from 3.1 percent to 21.0 percent under the High Cost scenario. On an industry basis, under the 

High Cost scenario, the annualized costs are 3.1 percent of net income; the impacts reflect the 

substantial proportion of the industry that has already converted to water-based coatings (63 of 302 

facilities or 21 percent of the population). These results are not inconsistent with other analyses; 

BAAQMD 2008 found the cost/net income ratio was 19.5 percent for their smallest category. 

Even under High Cost assumptions (no costs passed through to the customer and highest 

incremental cost for water-based coatings) did the annualized costs exceed net income. 

Table 6. Compliance Costs to Revenue and Net Income by Size Category 

No. 

Incurring 

Costs 

Average 

Revenues 

Average 

Net Income

Annualized 

Cost 

Annualized Cost to 

Category Revenues Net Income 

Unknown 13 —a —

a

 $127-$2,779 —a —

a

 

<$250,000 161 $109,194 $4,717 $141-$990 0.1%-0.9% 3.0%-21.0% 

$250,000 - 

$500,000 32 $346,629 $14,973 $143-$2,527 0.0%-0.7% 1.0%-16.9% 

$500,000 - 

$750,000 12 $614,249 $26,534 $157-$4,955 0.0%-0.8% 0.6%-18.7% 

$750,000 - 

$1,000,000 7 $884,500 $38,207 $149-$6,721 0.0%-0.8% 0.4%-17.6% 

>$1,000,000 14 $10,658,408 $460,408 $166-$14,071 0.0%-0.1% 0.0%-3.1% 

Industry 

Average 239 $1,782,928 $77,017 $143-$2,426 0.0%-0.1% 0.2%-3.1% 

a Unable to calculate average revenues or net income due to lack of data. 

Return on Equity. The average net worth and net income can be calculated from the IRS 

data. The ratio of these values is the return on equity. Under the Low Cost scenario, the return on 

equity declines by 0.3 percent. Under the High Cost Scenario, the return on equity declines by 

5.7 percent.3 

Output, Earnings, and Employment. ERG used the Regional Input-Output Modeling 

System (RIMS II) developed by the U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis 

 

2

 ERG could not locate revenue information for 23 commercial permitted facilities, see Table 4. Adding these and the six 

noncommercial facilities results in a total count of 302 facilities in the analysis. 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

19

(BEA) for detailed industry 8111A0 (automotive repair and maintenance, except car washes) to 

estimate the loss in output, earnings, and employment (BEA, 2011a). RIMS multipliers are done 

on the basis of 2007 dollars. For output and earnings, the multipliers are from dollars to dollars. 

Hence, no adjustment needs to be made for a change in time. The multiplier for employment, 

however, is in terms of jobs per $1 million (2007 dollars). ERG used the change in Consumer 

Price Index (CPI-U) (BLS, 2011a) to deflate the annualized regulatory cost to 2007 dollars 

before applying the multiplier. 

ERG used BEA estimates of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by Metropolitan Area for 

the Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA (Metropolitan Statistical Area or MSA) (BEA, 

2011b). The estimated 2009 GDP for the NAICS Sector 81 “other services except government” 

is $2.47 billion. The sector includes other services, such as computer and office equipment repair 

and maintenance and personal and laundry services. As a result, the relative impacts on output 

might be underestimated, but no further detail was available from BEA. 

ERG used annual payroll data for NAICS 81112 from the 2008 County Business Patterns 

for Sacramento County to estimate earnings (Census, 2011a).4 This is about $59.2 million. 

Estimating the number of jobs associated with the industry is complicated by the large 

proportion of single-person facilities. If these are sole proprietorships and the proprietor does not 

pay himself or herself a set wage, they would not appear in County Business Pattern data as a 

“paid employee.” Thus, ERG used both County Business Pattern data and data from the Census’ 

Non-employer statistics (Census, 2011b) to estimate the number of jobs associated with the 

industry. For Sacramento County, in 2008, this is about 1,605 jobs. 

Table 7 presents the data and calculations for estimating impacts on output, earnings, and 

employment. The added costs for the Low Cost scenario might lead to the loss of $44,905 in 

output, $43,518 in earnings, and 0 jobs. For perspective, this is 0.07 percent of the earnings in 

this industry in Sacramento County, and no discernable impact on output or employment. The 

added costs for the High Cost scenario might lead to the loss of $762,248 in output, $738,705 in 

 

3

 These findings are more favorable than those in CARB (2005) which found a 15% change in the ROE and said “If the 

automotive refinishing facilities absorbed all costs, they would be adversely impacted by the proposed SCM” (p. VII-9). 

4

 The most recent year for which data are available. 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

20

earnings, and 6 jobs. For perspective, this is 0.03 percent of the output, 1.25 percent of the 

earnings, and 0.37 percent of the employment in this industry in Sacramento County. 

Sacramento County Unemployment Rate. The preliminary estimate of the December 

2010 unemployment rate for Sacramento County is 12.61 percent (BLS, 2011b). Neither the Low 

Cost or High Cost scenario has an effect on the unemployment rate. 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

21

Table 7. Potential Impacts from Low Cost Scenario 

Parameter Data 

Annualized Cost of the Rule (2010$) 

$34,161-

$579,887

Annualized Cost of the Rule (2007$) 

$32,483-

$551,385

RIMS II Multipliers For Automotive Repair and Maintenance 

Output ($/$) 1.3145

Earnings ($/$) 1.2739

Employment (Jobs per $1 million, 2007$) 11.6816

Potential Impacts 

Output 

$44,905-

$762,248

Earnings 

$43,518

$738,705

Employment 0.00-6.00

Sacramento County Data 

Output (2009)--all other services except government ($) $2,470,000,000

Earnings (2008)--NAICS 81112 $59,236,000

Paid employees in NAICS 811121 (2008) 1,156

Nonemployer firms in NAICS 81112 449

Total Jobs 1,605

Relative Impacts 

Output 0.00%-0.03%

Earnings 0.07%-1.25%

Jobs 0.00%-0.37%

5.2 Consumers 

5.2.1 Who Might Bear Costs? 

Figure 3 is the logic diagram for evaluating the potential impacts on consumers. In these 

analyses, the suppliers are assumed to pass through all increased costs to the consumer. That is, 

there are no impacts on the suppliers. A consumer might wish to touch up paint flaws that 

accumulate through routine use. If the consumer decides to do it herself/himself, the amendments 

to Rule 459 contain exemptions for aerosol coating products (Section 459.111) and containers 

with no more than 1 fluid ounce of product (Section 459.112). 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

22

Figure 3. Logic Diagram of Potential Impacts on Consumers 

If, in his or her discretion, a consumer decides to use an autobody shop to repaint all or 

parts of a vehicle to match its original color or the change the vehicle’s color, there are three 

possible reactions to any cost increases for the use of water-borne coatings. The consumer can 

forego or delay the paint job, pay the increased cost, or go outside the SMAQMD region to a 

business that is not required to use water-based coatings. 

For this analysis, if the paint job is associated with a repair, the paint job is considered 

necessary. If the customer is insured, he or she would see no impact from Rule 459 amendments. 

If the customer is not insured—and, during 2002-2004, about 15 percent of the motorists in 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

23

Sacramento County were not insured5—then the consumer faces the same three decisions as he 

or she would for discretionary painting (California, 2011). 

For this analysis, ERG assumes that accidents are equally likely to occur to insured and 

uninsured motorists. Thus a consumer might be exposed to higher prices for water-based 

coatings in the 15 percent of the cases where an uninsured motorist pays out-of-pocket for 

accident repairs plus some unknown percentage of discretionary paint jobs. 

5.2.2 Potential Cost Increase to Consumers 

ERG found several references that refer to the amount of coatings needed to coat an 

entire vehicle (AutocolorLibrary.com, 2011; Lutz, 2010; and Wise, 2011). These range from 

three to four quarts for a mid-sized car to seven to eight quarts for a truck or large vehicle. Most 

of the time, customers are not looking to recoat an entire car. The vehicle is painted as part of a 

repair, which might be a quarter to half the vehicle. Under the High Cost scenario, the estimated 

cost differential for water-borne coatings is $25.17 per gallon.6 Thus, the price increase for a 

mid-sized car might range from $4.72 (three quarts for car, one-quarter painted) to $12.58 (4 

quarts per car, half painted) for a mid-sized car. For a large vehicle, the estimated price increase 

ranges from $11.01 to $25.17. Given that the average ticket price for a repair is $2,295 

(Autobody Shop Business, 2010), the price increase to the customer would range from 0.21 

percent to 1.1 percent of the repair price. 

The 2008 median household income for Sacramento County is $56,882 (Census, 2011c). 

Thus, the incremental cost of using water-based coatings to repaint an entire vehicle is less than 

0.1 percent of median household income. 

5.2.3 Potential Demand Shifting to Non-Sacramento County Shops 

ERG does not anticipate any discernable loss in business to surrounding areas for two 

reasons. First, the neighboring counties of San Joaquin, Placer, Yolo, and Solano have already 

enacted requirements comparable to the Rule 459 amendments. That these areas converted to 

water-based coatings with minimal, if any, impacts supports Sacramento’s use of the Low Cost 

scenario as the primary findings for the socioeconomic analysis. Even if there were a price 

 

5

 The most recent years for which data appear to be available 

6

 Under the Low Cost scenario, there is zero incremental coating cost so there are no impacts to the consumer. 
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

24

differential for water-borne coatings, these regions would have already incorporated them in the 

prices offered to customers. Second, the High Cost estimate for painting half a large vehicle is 

$25.17 or 1.1 percent of the overall repair cost. Any incentive to take the job outside of 

Sacramento is likely to be negated by the additional travel time, travel expenses, and annoyance 

factors involved. 

6.0 REFERENCES 

AutocolorLibrary.com, 2011. How Much Paint Does It Take To Fully Paint A Car? Internet: 

http://www.tcpglobal.com/autocolorlibrary/P101-13.html

BAAQMD; 2008. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 

45: Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations. June 2008 

BEA, 2011a. U.S. Commerce Department. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Input-Output 

Modeling System. Benchmark detailed industry multipliers for Sacramento County, CA. 

Internet: https://www.bea.gov/regional/rims/rimsii/placeorder.aspx

BEA, 2011b. U.S. Commerce Department. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Gross Domestic 

Product by Metropolitan Area. Internet: http://www.bea.gov/regional/gdpmetro/

BLS, 2011a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index. All Urban Consumers (CPIU). ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

BLS, 2011b. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Sacramento 

County, California. Internet: http://www.bls.gov/lau/

Barkman, D. 2011. Personal communication between D. Barkman, Colors on Parade, and Gopi 

Manne, Eastern Research Group, Inc., February. 

BodyShop Business, 2011. Operations Profile. Internet: 

http://www.bodyshopbusiness.com/Content/Site303/ContentBlocks/3063operations0_000000208

65.pdf

California. 2011. California Department of Insurance. Estimated Rate of Uninsured Motorist 

2002 – 2004. Internet:http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0200-studies-reports/1200-

uninsured-motorist/upload/um0204.pdf

CARB. 2005. California Air Resources Board. Staff Report for The Proposed Suggested Control 

Measure For Automotive Coatings. October 2005. 

Census. 2011a. U.S. Census Bureau. County Business Patterns. 2008 data for Sacramento 

County. Internet: http://censtats.census.gov/cbpnaic/cbpnaic.shtml
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis - Rule 459 Amendments 

July 25, 2011 

25

Census. 2011b. U.S. Census Bureau. Nonemployer Statistics. Internet: 

http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/nonemployer/nonsect.pl

Census. 2001c. U.S. Census. Sacramento County, California Quick Facts. Internet: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06067.html. 

Clark, Mark, 2009a. A history of automotive finishes. Bodyshop Business. January 14. Internet: 

http://www.bodyshopbusiness.com/Article/38902/a_history_of_automotive_finishes.aspx

Clark, Mark, 2009b. Equipment Needed for Waterborne Conversion. Bodyshop Business. 

February 9. Internet: 

http://www.bodyshopbusiness.com/article/45721/Equipment_Needed_for_Waterborne_Conversi

on.aspx?refresh=1

Clark, Mark, 2009c. Preparing a Body Shop for Waterborne Paint Conversion. Bodyshop 

Business. March 2. Internet: 

http://www.bodyshopbusiness.com/article/46078/Preparing_a_Body_Shop_for_Waterborne_Pai

nt_Conversion.aspx?refresh=1

D&B, 2011. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. Million Dollar Directory. Accessed through Boston public 

Library. 

FLC, 2011. Foreign Labor Certification Data Center. Online Wage Library. Internet: 

http://www.flcdatacenter.com/

IRS, 2011. Internal Revenue Service. Table 1.Number of Returns, Selected Receipts, Cost of 

Goods Sold, Net Income, Deficit, Income Subject to Tax, Total Income Tax Before Credits, 

Selected Credits, Total Income Tax After Credits, Total Assets, Net Worth, Depreciable Assets, 

and Depreciation Deduction by Minor Industry. Internet: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irssoi/07co01ccr.xls. 

Lutz, Virginia M., 2010. How Much Paint Does One Need to Paint a Car? Internet:

http://www.ehow.com/way_6171457_much-one-need-paint-car_.html

MCM, 2011. MCM Construction. Company Website. 

http://www.mcmconstructioninc.com/About_MCM/about_mcm.html

Wise, Lauren, 2011. How Much Paint Does it Take to Paint a Car? Internet: 

http://www.ehow.com/about_4811338_much-paint-does-paint-car.html

Wolf, Katy, 2008. Safer Alternative Thinners, Cleanup Materials, Coatings and Sanding 

Methods in the Autobody Industry. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance. May. 

Internet: http://www.irta.us/DTSC%20Autobody%20Report%202008%20

Without%20MSDS.pdf
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-1 

APPENDIX F 

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

Public Workshop for Rules 101, 451 and 459 

September 16, 2010, 2:00 PM 

Attendees: 

Allen Cripe, CalTrans Josh Cox, Jerry’s Paint 

Brad Gacke, SMUD June Livingston, BERC 

Brett Hayes, Hayes Brothers Collision Kelly Hitt, Nestle Waters North America 

Brittany Marcotte, Nestle Waters North America Kendall McCane, Jerry’s Paint 

Bryon Theis, 3M Kevin Holley, MAC’s Distribution 

Cerlut Fre, Sherwin Williams Kevin Thompson, Thompson Sales 

Clifford Waters, Sherwin-Williams Larry Medrano, PBE Inc 

Dale Schell, Jims Color Corner Lisa Dobeck, Caltrans 

Dan Porreau, Lyondell Basell Mark McCleskey, Jerry’s Paint 

Danny Nunez, Finish Masters Mark Tavianini, CARB 

Dave Fisher, Morrison Paint Supply Matt Stevens, Shanahan’s Autobody 

Dave Harshbarger, MAC’s Distribution Mike Veney, Sherwin Williams 

David Luer, MAC’s Distribution Pat Newcomb, Jerry’s Paint 

David McClune, California Autobody Association Pat Stickle, Angel Warehouse 

David Roznowski, Lyondell Basell Peter Bezeck, California Autobody Association 

Debra Wynne, Original Paint Phil Brown, PPG Industries 

Dennis Barkman, Colors On Parade Rich Mott, Jerry’s Paint 

Deran Berggne, Terry’s Paint Rick Hays, MAC’s Distribution 

Eric Cooc, Precision Autobody Robert Blair, Finish Master 

George Contos, Blomberg Window Shane Whitcomb, Ellis & Ellis Sign Systems 

Glenn Galbaugh, DuPont Company Stan Brecetu, 3M 

Grey Calhorn, Finish Master Steve Nesbitt, PCL 

Jason Kowen, Spies Hecker Terry Klemin, Matrix 

Jeanette Duncan, Ellis & Ellis Sign Systems Todd Everitt, Valspar Refinish 

Jeremy Tiner, Warehouse Paint Tom Walther, Jims Color Corner 

Jim Brett, CalTrans Vern Heffner, City of Sacramento Fleet Management 

Jim Cropper, CARB 

Oral Comments from the Public Workshop 

Note: A combined workshop was held for proposed amendments to Rule 451, Rule 101 and 

Rule 459. Only comments pertaining to the proposed amendments to Rule 459 are shown 

below. 

Comment #1 Why is Rule 459 not being proposed nationwide? Why is it just 

California? 

Response: California has some of the worst air quality areas in the nation. 

Sacramento County, in particular, has been designated as “severe” 

nonattainment for ozone. To improve air quality, the District is required to 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-2 

implement control measures to reduce the ozone precursor pollutants, 

NOx and VOCs. 

Comment #2 Is the cost shown for Rule 459 an additional fee to business? 

Response: No. The costs are the capital costs of equipment and additional 

operational and maintenance costs to comply with the proposed 

amendments. The District is not proposing additional fees for 

businesses. 

Comment #3 Lyondell supports the exemption of TBAc in Rule 459 to comply with 

coating VOC limits. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. 

Comment #4 What year did air quality start to monitor emissions from coating 

vehicles? AB32 wants to lower our emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. 

My automobile coating operation was established in the early 1980s and 

regulations have lowered my emissions below the 1990 levels. We are 

already doing our part. 

Response: AB32 requires CARB to implement regulations to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions to the 1990 levels by 2020. These regulations are not related 

to the proposed amendments to Rule 459. Proposed amendments to 

Rule 459 will reduce VOC emissions from automotive coating operations. 

The proposed amendments are necessary to meet a federal 8-hour 

ozone plan commitment. See “Legal Mandates” Section in the Staff 

Report. 

 

Comment #5 Why is SMAQMD the only district to add recordkeeping for using TBAc? 

Additional recordkeeping is a burden and very costly (hundreds of 

thousands of dollars) to the manufacturer to label all products just to 

comply with SMAQMD’s rule. The information for TBAc may be available 

on the MSDS or provided to the District by the manufacturer. 

Response: The requirement for facilities to keep records of the TBAc content is 

necessary to comply with the federal TBAc exemption requirements in 40 

CFR 51.100(s)(1). Staff has changed the rule proposal to remove 

labeling requirements for TBAc; however, the content of TBAc in coating 

must be listed on the product data sheet or the MSDS. 

Comment #6 The exemption for aerosol coating in Rule 459 is confusing. Can you 

explain this? Does it have to be an aerosol to be exempt? 

Response: This exemption exempts any aerosol coating product from the 

requirements in Rule 459. It has to be an aerosol and a coating. 

Comment #7 Where does bug and tar remover fall if it is not an aerosol? Does bug and 

tar remover have to be in an aerosol can? Can it be in a bucket or gallon 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-3 

can? Is bug and tar remover available in the aftermarket for automotive 

refinishing? 

Response: Bug and tar remover does not have to be in an aerosol can; however, it 

does have to be labeled as a bug and tar remover. Bug and tar remover 

is classified as a solvent in the proposed amendments and subject to the 

25 g/l VOC limit. In lieu of using low VOC solvents, facilities may elect to 

use bar and tar removers that are subject to the requirements of CARB’s 

Consumer Products Regulations. Bug and tar removers are available in 

the aftermarket. 

 

Comment #8 What is the District doing to regulate mobile applicators? Is the District 

going to lower the permitting threshold to regulate mobile applicators? 

Response: Mobile applicators must comply with Rule 459. The District is not 

proposing to lower the permitting threshold, which is specified in Rule 

201, General Permit Requirements. 

Comment #9 There is an exemption that exempts operations if their emissions are 

below the 2.7 tons of VOC per year. Mobile operations are below 2.7 

tons per year. Are they exempt from the requirements? 

Response: No. This proposed exemption exempts an operation only from the 

requirements for motor vehicle materials in Section 303, Vehicle Material 

Limits, if their VOC emissions from specific coatings and coating 

operations are less than 2.7 tons per 12-month rolling period. Mobile 

operations are subject to the requirements in the proposed amendments 

to the rule. 

Comment #10 The issues here are the non-licensed industry that uses non-compliant 

product and operates after regular business hours. What is the District 

doing to deal with these operations? Where and to whom do we report 

these operations if some are found? Will we be notified on what actions 

are taken if we report these operations? 

Response: The District will take the appropriate enforcement action when an 

unpermitted or non-compliant facility is discovered. The public may file a 

complaint about an unpermitted or non-compliant facility. The public can 

contact the District at 916-874-4800 to file the compliant. The District will 

log and investigate all complaints. If requested, the District will report to 

the public on what actions were taken. 

Comment #11 Why is end user required to demonstrate a HVLP spray gun meets the 

pressure requirement? Would it be enough if the spray gun has been 

certified as a HVLP spray gun or has been proven to be as efficient as a 

HVLP spray gun? 

Response: This section ensures that the HVLP spray equipment is operated within 

the pressure requirement and in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

specifications. After discussing the intent of this requirement with CARB, 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-4 

Staff has determined that if a HVLP spray gun is permanently labeled as 

HVLP, then it would satisfy this requirement. Staff has incorporated this 

change to the proposed rule. This section is applicable only to HVLP 

spray guns. Spray guns that are not HVLP or have been proven to be as 

efficient as a HVLP spray gun are not required to meet this requirement. 

Comment #12 Are there enough spray tip pressure gauges available for each shop? 

How much are these devices? If there is no air pressure tip gauge for the 

spray gun, does that mean the spray gun is not allowed to be used? 

Response: Staff has changed the proposed rule to allow the use of an HVLP spray 

gun permanently labeled as HVLP in lieu of demonstrating that the HVLP 

spray gun meets the pressure requirement. Therefore, not all shops will 

be required to purchase air pressure tip gauges. The cost of air pressure 

tip gauges ranges from $30 to $225 depending on the model of the HVLP 

spray gun. If the HVLP spray gun is not permanently labeled as a HVLP 

and does not have an air pressure tip gauge kit, then the spray gun 

cannot demonstrate compliance with this requirements and the operator 

will be in violation, if used. 

Comment #13 Is the end user the shop or the person applying the coating? 

Response: In most cases, the shop owner/operator is the end user who will be in 

violation if the rule requirements are not met. In some cases, the 

owner/operator is the painter. 

Comment #14 What is the effective date of the labeling requirements? Is there a sellthrough provision? Is that for the manufacturer or the shop? Placer 

County APCD based the requirement on the manufacturer date of the 

product. 

Response: The effective date of the labeling requirement is six months after the date 

of adoption, and the manufacturer or repackager of the coatings, coating 

components, coating removers, or solvents are responsible for the labels. 

The proposed rule does not contain a sell-through provision, consistent 

with the SCM. 

Comment #15 Is an open spray gun cleaning system allowed with these proposed 

amendments? 

Response: Yes, however, the solvent used must meet the VOC limit of 25 g/l or less. 

Comment #16 With the proposed amendments, the use of acetone may increase. Has 

the District looked at the impacts (flammability issues) with the increased 

use of acetone? 

Response: The District has adopted other coating rules that require the stringent 25 

g/l limit and has reviewed the flammability issues regarding the increased 

use of acetone. Acetone has characteristics that are similar to 

conventional solvents; however, acetone has a lower flash point 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-5 

compared to other solvents. Nevertheless, acetone vapors cannot cause 

an explosion until the vapor concentration exceeds 26,000 ppm. 

Operating under state and federal OSHA guidelines by working with 

flammable materials in well-ventilated areas, it would be difficult to 

achieve concentrated streams of such vapors. 

 

In addition, coating facilities subject to other District coatings in 

Sacramento are already using acetone for cleaning operations, and Staff 

is not aware of any flammability problems associated with its use. Also, 

requirements for solvents to contain 25 g/l or less VOC have been in 

effect in South Coast AQMD Rule 1171, Solvent Cleaning Operations, 

since 2003. Sources there have largely used acetone to comply, with no 

significant adverse effects.

Comment #17 Spot repair is defined in Rule 459. Where is it used? 

Response: The term “spot repair” is used in the definition of “uniform finish coating.” 

Comment #18 Solvent is defined in Rule 459 as a fluid used to perform cleaning 

operations. Solvent can be used in coatings such as a solvent reducer. 

Why is the definition limited to only cleaning operations? 

Response: Solvents used to perform cleaning operations is subject to a specific VOC 

limit in the rule (25 g/l). Solvents used as component of a coating, such 

as solvent reducers, are not subject to a specific VOC limit; only the VOC 

content of the coating as applied. 

Comment #19 Could TBAc be used as a reducer for a TBAc-based coating? 

Response: Yes. TBAc is exempted as a VOC when contained in a coating or used 

as a coating component. TBAc is not exempted when used as a solvent 

or coating remover. 

Comment #20 When is the adoption date for Rule 459? 

Response: Our board hearings date occur on the fourth Thursday of every month, 

except for November and December. At the workshop, Staff had planned 

to take the proposed amendments to our board during the first quarter of 

2011. With the current economic situation, Staff wanted to ensure that 

adoption of this rule will adversely impact the economy for Sacramento 

County. As such, a socioeconomic report was completed. Since there 

are minimal economic impacts, we are now planning to bring the 

proposed amendments to Rule 459 to our board in August of 2011. Staff 

will be mailing notices 30 days prior to the board hearing date to the 

original mailing list and to every workshop participant. 

Comment #21 Can trunk interior coating be merged with another category like 

underbody coating? 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-6 

Response: Trunk interior coating was removed from the proposed amendments 

since the CTG VOC limit for trunk interior coating would be less stringent 

than any VOC limits for coatings in the SCM that might be used as a 

coating for trunk interiors. The coating category in the SCM that will most 

likely be used as a trunk interior coating is single-staged coating. 

Comment #22 Repackaging labels may be too large to fit on a small container. Can the 

label be referenced to a website instead of trying to fit it on the container? 

Placer County APCD asked CARB about this issue and CARB agreed to 

allow it as an alternative. 

Response: The proposed amendments requires repackaging labels for coatings to 

include only applicable use categories, and the actual and regulatory 

VOC content of the coating. For solvents, the proposed amendments 

only require the VOC content. Staff believes that the required information 

is reasonable on a label of any size container. These labeling 

requirements are consistent with the SCM and Placer County APCD. 

 Placer County APCD requires that product information be provided to the 

purchaser of automotive coatings or solvents on a product data sheet or 

other medium such as electronic copies or web media format. The 

proposed amendments to Rule 459 specify the information that must be 

included on product data sheets but do not set requirements on how the 

data sheets are to be provided. The proposed amendments require that 

the facility using automotive coatings and solvents maintain the product 

data sheets on site. 

Comment #23 Regarding the stripper VOC limit in Rule 459, can the District allow for a 

low use exemption for stripper exceeding the 200 g/l limit? For products 

that meet the EPA’s NESHAP (6H), these products have higher limits 

than the 200 g/l limit. 

Response: The 200 g/l VOC limit for strippers is contained in the current, SIPapproved version of Rule 459. This requirement has been in place since 

1997, and adding a low use exemption would be a relaxation to the rule 

requirements. Staff is not proposing to add a low usage exemption for 

strippers. Facilities using strippers that contain methylene chloride must 

also comply with the NESHAP (40CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHHHH) as 

appropriate. 

Written Comments from EPA 

Comment #24 In Sections 504.2 and 504.3, please include the full title and date of the 

ASTM methods being specified. 

Response: Full titles and dates were added to all ASTM methods referenced in the 

rule, including the ASTM methods in Sections 504.2 and 504.3. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-7 

Written Comments from LyondellBasell 

Comment #25 We support the exemption of TBAc in Rule 459 for automotive coatings. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. 

Comment #26 We request that AQMD extend the exemption of TBAc for automotive 

cleaners. This will greatly reduce the flammability risks and emissions 

associated with cleaning and gun-flushing with acetone-based cleaners. 

Response: Staff performed a health risk assessment for using TBAc and determined 

that emissions of TBAc in a spray booth will not adversely impact nearby 

receptors. Emissions of TBAc used at a facility and not within a spray 

booth have the potential to exceed a cancer risk of 10 in a million, the 

threshold of significance, to nearby receptors. Because of the potential 

adverse impacts, Staff is not proposing to exempt TBAc for automotive 

cleaners. 

 In regards to the flammability risks of using acetone or acetone-based 

cleaners, see response to Comment #16. 

Written Comments from Sherwin-Williams 

Comment #27 The addition of trunk interior coating category is unnecessary. This type 

of application is covered by multiple categories such as underbody 

coating, single-stage coating, or color coating. We recommend that this 

coating category be removed from the proposal. 

Response: See response to Comment #21. 

Comment #28 While washing a vehicle with soap and water will remove most of the dirt 

and water-soluble contaminants, it does not remove grease and oil. To 

properly remove grease and oil, slow evaporating solvents work best. 

Products that meet the 25 grams per liter limit, while feasible through the 

use of acetone or other exempt solvents, do not result in very good 

products. We request that the limit for solvent cleaning be increased to 

160 grams per liter. This will allow for cleaning to be properly done, 

which may possibly result in a greater reduction of VOC emissions by 

eliminating the need to redo paint jobs because of using ineffective 

cleaning solvents. 

Response: Staff has found several products in the current market that meet the 25 

grams per liter limit and are specifically designed to effectively remove 

grease or oil. Since there are compliant products on the market, Staff is 

not proposing to increase the solvent cleaning limit for surface 

preparation. 

Comment #29 We request the VOC limit on gun and equipment cleaners be set at 160 

grams per liter. This will allow for the proper cleaning of applications 

equipment and eliminate the expenses of frequent replacements from 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-8 

cleaning with acetone. We believe the actual emitted VOC of gun and 

equipment cleaners will be very low since shops are required to carry out 

gun and equipment cleaning operations in a closed system. 

Response: The District has adopted the 25 grams per liter limit for application 

equipment cleaning in other District coatings rules and had not heard of 

any issues with using low VOC cleaners. In addition, Staff has visited 

automotive refinishing facilities that have switched to acetone, and they 

have not encountered the need to replace their application equipment. 

Also, other air districts have adopted similar requirements. In particular, 

South Coast AQMD has had this requirement in effect since 2003, and 

sources there have largely used acetone to comply, with no known 

damage to application equipment. 

 The use of an enclosed gun cleaner may limit the VOC emissions from 

the cleaning process; however the amount of VOC release has not been 

quantified and may still be significant, To quantify and limit the VOC 

emissions from this process, Staff is proposing a 25 gram per liter limit for 

cleaning application equipment. Enclosed gun cleaners are no longer 

required to be used, although the District still encourages the use of 

enclosed gun cleaners. 

 

Comment #30 We request the wording in the Section 309, Prohibition of Possession, be 

amended so this requirements only affects end user. 

Response: Staff has moved the statement, “This section shall apply only to end 

users (e.g. automotive coating facilities)” to the end of the section. As a 

result, Section 309 is only applicable to end users. 

Comment #31 The requirements of Sections 402.1(f) and 402.2(f) are unnecessary in 

determining compliance with rule requirements because the data 

required for compliance is already listed in Section 402.1(d) and 402.2(d) 

and the exact amount of TBAc can be found on the MSDS. We request 

the Sections 402.1(f) and 402.1(f) be removed from the proposal. 

Response: The requirements of Sections 402.1(f) and 402.2(f) are necessary to 

assist the end user to comply with the federal requirements for the TBAc 

exemption in 40 CFR 51.100(s)(1). TBAc is exempt as a VOC for the 

purpose of complying with VOC content limit, but it is a VOC for the 

purpose of recordkeeping. 

Comment #32 Requiring TBAc on labels in Section 403 is impractical because it would 

require coating manufacturers to label products specifically for 

Sacramento County. Coating manufacturers will also incur significant 

cost to comply with this labeling requirement. The content of TBAc is 

already listed on the MSDS. We request that the labeling requirement for 

TBAc be removed from Section 403. 

Response: See response to Comment #5. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-9 

Comment #33 The recordkeeping requirements specific to TBAc in Section 502.6(d) are 

overly burdensome to end user and should be removed. The end user 

does not have a means of gathering and reporting the information 

required using coatings containing TBAc. 

Response: The recordkeeping requirement is a federal requirement in 40 CFR 

51.100(s)(1). To ease the burden on the end user, Staff is requiring that 

manufacturer include the actual content of TBAc for coatings containing 

TBAc on product data sheets or MSDS. The information on TBAc content 

will be readily available to end users and maintained with their facility 

records. 

Comment #34 The labeling requirement in Section 403 needs to be redrafted to 

eliminate confusion. The label should include applicable use category 

and should not include the coating components such as reducers and 

hardeners. 

Response: Staff has separated Section 403 into subsections 403.1 and 403.2 to 

clarify the labeling requirements. Subsection 403.1 is the labeling 

requirements for coatings and coating components. The labeling of 

coating components such as reducers and hardeners are necessary to 

help determine compliance with the VOC limits for specific coatings. 

Subsection 403.2 is the labeling requirement for solvent removers 

(strippers) and solvents. This format is consistent with the SCM. 

Comment #35 The monthly purchase records requirement to identify coating type 

creates an unnecessary burden. 

Response: Staff’s proposal to require monthly purchase records to identify the 

coating type is consistent with the SCM. Nine other air districts have also 

adopted similar requirements. In particular, SCAQMD has had this 

requirement in place since January 1, 2008. For consistency with SCM 

and other air districts, Staff is not proposing any changes to this 

requirement. 

Written Comments from AkzoNobel 

Comment #36 AkzoNobel supports the comments made by Sherwin-Williams regarding 

the proposed changes to Rule 459. 

Response: See responses to Comments #27-35. 

Comment #37 Section 309 should be modified to make it clear that this prohibition does 

not apply to wholesalers, retailers, or other distributors. 

Response: This section was modified to apply to only end users. See response to 

Comment #30. 

Comment #38 Section 502.6(a) requires purchase records to show the coating type. 

This requirement would involve significant changes to the enterprise 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-10 

management systems used by manufacturers or wholesalers to create 

invoices and shipping documents with this additional information. Since 

there is no regulation limiting the amount of material in a given coating 

category that can be purchased by a facility, there is no valid reason to 

require this information. 

Response: See response to Comment #35. Monthly purchase records are 

necessary to determine the compliance with the requirements of the rule 

and permit. It is also necessary to determine the total emissions from 

this source category when actual usage records are not available. 

Comment #39 Section 502.6(c) should not include a requirement to record that a noncompliant coating was not use in a given day. A no entry on a given day 

should be sufficient to indicate that none was used. 

Response: Staff has removed this requirement since the rule prohibits the 

possession and use of non-compliant coatings, coating removers, and 

solvents. 

Comment #40 Regarding Section 502.6(d), there is no need for any recordkeeping 

requirements related to the TBAc content of coatings used. 

Response: See responses to Comment #31 and Comment #33. 

Comment #41 AkzoNobel questions why TBAc, exempt as a VOC for this rule, is treated 

differently than other similar compounds that are exempt as a VOC. 

Response: See response to Comment #5. When EPA exempted TBAc as a VOC, 

EPA added restriction to the exemption that required additional 

monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. This restriction only applied 

to TBAc, and therefore, TBAc is treated differently than other exempt 

compounds. Local requirements have to be as stringent as federal 

requirements. As such, Staff has proposed additional recordkeeping 

requirements for TBAc, which is the only requirement applicable to end 

users. 

Comment #42 Both the SCAQMD and YSQMD allow the use of aerosol surface 

cleaners, up to 160 fluid ounces per day. Therefore, we request that this 

limited use of aerosol surface cleaner be adopted in Rule 459. 

Response: SCAQMD and YSAQMD each have a solvent cleaning rule separate from 

their automotive coating rule. The solvent cleaning rule applies generally 

to all types of operations, including automotive coating operations. The 

SCM does not have a limited use exemption for aerosol surface cleaners. 

To be consistent with the SCM, Staff is not proposing to add a limited use 

exemption for aerosol cleaner in Rule 459. 

Comment #43 TBAc has been fully exempt as a VOC by the U.S. EPA and in 

SJVAPCD, SBAPCD, and YSAQMD. We suggest that the exemption for 

TBAC should be moved from Rule 459 to Rule 101 in order to clarify that 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-11 

TBAC is exempt and would eliminate the need for any further tracking of 

use. 

Response: EPA exempted TBAc with specific provisions that TBAc is not a VOC for 

the purpose of meeting VOC emission limits or VOC content limits, but it 

is VOC for recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion 

modeling, and inventory requirements. To comply with the federal 

requirements, recordkeeping for TBAc is necessary. 

Because TBAc is a potential carcinogen, CARB recommended that the air 

districts determine whether the use of TBAc in certain products would 

pose an unacceptable exposure. As recommended by CARB, Staff will 

evaluate TBAc on a case-by-case basis. Staff is not proposing a full 

exemption for TBAc unless Staff is confident that it will not adversely 

impact human health. For inclusion in Rule 459, Staff is proposing that 

TBAc is only exempt as a VOC when used in coatings that are applied in 

a spray booth because it is unlikely to cause a significant adverse impact 

to nearby receptors. 

Written Comments from PPG Industries 

Comment #44 PPG requests to eliminate the trunk interior coating definition and VOC 

limit in Rule 459 and merge trunk interior coating with the underbody 

coating definition and VOC limit. 

Response: See response to Comment #21. 

Comment #45 PPG has recently changed labels to meet the SCM labeling requirements 

and would be hesitant to again change labels to meet a new, unique 

labeling requirement set in Rule 459. PPG proposes that the Section 403 

label requirements to show TBAc content be withdrawn as the same 

requirement for product data sheets is sufficient. 

Response: Staff has removed the labeling requirement to include the content of 

TBAc. Also see response to Comment #5. 

Comment #46 PPG proposes that the District consider following Bay Area AQMD’s 

practical approach to applicator cleaners, setting no limit but requiring 

efficient devices that minimize vapor releases. 

Response: The use of efficient devices that minimize vapor releases, such as 

enclosed gun cleaners, may limit the VOC emissions from the cleaning 

process; however the amount of VOC release has not been quantified 

and may still be significant. To quantify and limit the VOC emissions 

from this process, Staff is proposing a 25 gram per liter limit for cleaning 

application equipment. This limit for cleaning solvents is consistent with 

the SCM. 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-12 

Written Comments from Colors on Parade 

Comment #47 We request that SMAQMD include a permit for mobile operators with a 

nominal fee. 

Response: The proposed amendments to Rule 459 established requirements for the 

coating operation of automotive, mobile equipment and its associated 

parts and components to be consistent with the SCM. The proposed 

amendments do not establish permit requirements or permit fees for 

these coating operations. Permit requirements are established in Rule 

201, General Permit Requirements, and permit fees are established in 

Rule 301, Stationary Source Permit Fees. For this proposal, Staff is not 

amending Rules 201 and 301. 

Comment #48 We request that SMAQMD include requirements for equipment used by 

mobile operators to be in line with the national “6H” rule. 

Response: The NESHAP for Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating 

Operations at Area Sources (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHHHH) 

exempts coating operations that use spray equipment with a cup size 

capacity equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces. This exemption applies 

primarily to small operations that do only spot repairs and touchups like 

mobile refinishing operations. In the proposed amendments to Rule 459, 

there is no requirement or exemption specific for mobile operations, and 

they are not treated differently from stationary automotive coating 

facilities. Both mobile and stationary operations are subject to the same 

requirements in the proposed amendments to Rule 459. Therefore, it is 

not necessary to add additional restrictions to mobile operators. 

Comment #49 We request that SMAQMD include an allowance for a “touch-up kit” 

which may include extra-small quantities of non-compliant paint and 

chemicals for the purpose of stone-chip and small scratch repair. 

Response: The proposed amendments do not have a specific exemption for a 

“touch-up kit”. However, the proposed amendments will allow the use of 

touch-up paint in a container of 0.5 fluid ounces or less which is intended 

for repairing tiny surface imperfections. 

Written Comments from DuPont (Letter dated September 17, 2010) 

Comment #50 Revise the definition of Aerosol Coating Product to remove the statement 

“...or for use in specialized equipment for ground traffic/marking 

applications.” 

Response: The definition of “Aerosol Coating Product” is consistent with the SCM. 

Therefore, no changes were made. 

Comment #51 We request that the definition of Spot Repair be modified to be more 

reflective of the process, and propose the following, taken from BAAQMD 

Rule 8-45-236: Spot Repair: Repair of an area on a motor vehicle, piece 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-13 

or mobile equipment, or associated parts or components of less than an 

entire panel. 

Response: The term “spot repair” is used in the definition of “uniform finish coatings” 

and is used to determine when the end user can use a uniform finish 

coating. BAAQMD developed a definition of “spot repair” which is 

different from the SCM. BAAQMD also required that end-user limit the 

usage of uniform finish coating, adhesion promoter and multi-color 

coating to not exceed 5.0 percent of all topcoats applied. To enforce this 

requirement, BAAQMD required end user to track the usage percentage 

of these specific coatings. 

Staff did not proposed BAAQMD’s approach because Staff did not want 

to add additional recordkeeping requirements for the end user. 

Furthermore, the proposed definition is also consistent with the SCM, 

where this definition has been adopted by nine other air districts. 

Therefore, Staff is not proposing any changes to the definition of “spot 

repair.” 

Comment #52 The coating category of trunk interior coating is unnecessary and serves 

to complicate labeling requirements for manufacturers. 

Response: See response to Comment #21. 

Comment #53 The prohibition of possession in Section 309 should be applicable only to 

end-users and not applicable to product distributors that may serve 

customers outside of the District. 

Response: See response to Comment #30. 

Comment #54 The 25 grams per liter is ineffective for surface preparation. We request 

it be increased to 160 grams per liter. 

Response: Generally, surface preparation cleaning products that meet the 25 grams 

per liter VOC limit, such as soap and water or solvent containing exempt 

compounds, are effective in cleaning most of the contaminants on a 

substrate. For more challenging cleaning tasks, there are cleaning 

products that are formulated for a specific purpose and meet the 25 

grams per liter limit. The lone exception is the limit for bug and tar 

remover, where the proposed amendments allow the use of products 

labeled as bug and tar remover and regulated by the state Consumer 

Products Regulation in lieu of complying with the 25 grams per liter limit. 

Also, see response to Comment #28. 

Comment #55 For bug and tar removal, we request the District include provisions in line 

with BAAQMD Rule 8-45-308.5. 

Response: BAAQMD adopted a higher limit (340 grams per liter) for bug and tar 

remover than suggested in the SCM because the higher limit was 

equivalent to the requirement for bug and tar remover in the CARB’s 
Staff Report 

Rule 459 

July 25, 2011, Page F-14 

Consumer Products Regulation. Staff has proposed that in lieu of using 

solvent meeting the 25 grams per liter, the end user may elect to use a 

product labeled as bug and tar remover and regulated by the Consumer 

Products Regulation. The current proposal will allow the use of a higher 

limit solvent for bug and tar. Therefore, Staff is not proposing to change 

the VOC limit for bug and tar removers. 

Written Comments from DuPont (Letter dated January 11, 2011) 

Comment #56 The definition of “Spot Repair” limits the damaged area, and does not 

take into consideration the variety of vehicles requiring this process. The 

rule is applicable to all types of vehicles and mobile equipment; some of 

which are larger than others. We would request that the SMAQMD use 

the definition of “Spot Repair” from BAAQMD Rule 8-45 in SMAQMD 

Rule 459. 

Response: See response to Comment #51. 

Comment #57 We would request that the District consider the legitimate need for a 

higher VOC limit for more challenging cleaning tasks, such as the 

removal of road tar, grease and bugs. Low VOC cleaning solvents are 

not effective in the removal of road tar, grease and bugs. Our cleaning 

products are not targeted to the consumer segments and are designed 

for industrial use. We would request that the District consider a volume 

use restriction for this higher VOC material similar to the requirements 

implemented in BAAQMD. 

Response: See responses to Comments #28, #54, and #55. 

Comment #58 Manufacturers have already made required changes to product labels 

and data sheets at a relatively significant cost from earlier implementation 

of the SCM in other air districts. The labeling and product data sheet 

requirements in the proposed revision would require additional changes 

at additional costs. In addition, since this requirement will be unique to 

Sac Metro Air District, manufacturers would have to create a supply chain 

management process to segregate materials destined to Sac Metro. 

Response: See response to Comment #5. 

Comment #59 To pass the tracking requirement for TBAc on to the end users is 

unnecessarily burdensome. If the District is interested in tracking the 

disclosable amount of TBAc in products, why not conduct a survey with 

product manufacturers? 

Response: See responses to Comment #31 and #33. The amount of TBAc in 

products reported by product manufacturers does not reflect the actual 

TBAc emissions emitted from the products containing TBAc and will not 

meet the federal requirements.