Feather River Air Quality Management District

Rule 3.15 Workshop & Written Comments Received

June 13, 2014

– ARB Comments:

Comments reference draft version of the rule.

Comment #1: General : The effective date of the rule the same as the date of adoption. This will not allow industry time to comply with new labeling, administrative, and VOC limit requirements. It is recommended that the effective date of the rule be at least six

months af ter the date of adoption. Response #1: The District has incorporated the suggested changes.

Comment #2: Sections B.23 and B.32 : These sections should be deleted. Response #2: The District has incorporated the suggested change.

Comment #3: Section B.53 : The definition of “Specialty Primer, Sealer, and Undercoater” is no longer necessary as the limit for this category is 100 grams per liter effective January 1, 2012, which is the same as the limit for the Primer, Sealer, and Undercoater category. Since January 1, 2012, the Specialty Primer, Sealer, and Undercoater category has been combined with the Primer, Sealer, and Undercoater category. The district can either delete this definition or leave it if they feel it is necessary to the understanding of t he proposed rule. Response #3 : The District has decided to remove the definition from the rule

.

Comment #4: We recommend this section be modified as follows:

VOC CONTENT : The weight of VOC per volume of coating. VOC Content is VOC Regulatory, as define d in subsection B. 66 65 , for all coatings except those in the Low Solids category. For coatings in the Low Solids category, the VOC Content is VOC Actual, as defined in

subsection B. 64 63 . If the coating is a multi

- component product, the VOC content is VOC Regulatory as mixed or catalyzed. If the coating contains silanes, siloxanes, or other ingredients that generate ethanol or other VOCs during the curing process, the VOC content

must inc lude the VOCs emitted during curing. Response #4 : The District has incorporated the suggested change.

Comment #5: Please modify this section as follows:

COATINGS NOT LISTED IN TABLE 1: For any coating that does not meet any of the definitions for the specialty coatings categories listed in Table 1, the VOC content limit shall be determined by classifying the coating as a Flat, Nonflat, or Nonflat

– High Gloss coating, based on its gloss, as defined in subsections B. 21 20 , B. 36

35 , and B. 37 36 , and the corresponding Flat, Nonflat, or Nonflat

– High Gloss VOC limit in Table 1 shall apply. Response #5 : The District has incorporated the suggested change.Feather River Air Quality Management District

Comment #6: Section D.1.c : Please mo dify the last sentence to read: “VOC Content

shall be determined as defined in subsections B. 64 63 , B. 65 64 , and B. 66 65 ." Response #6 : The District has incorporated the suggested change.

Comment #7: Section D.1.d : Please modify to as follows:

Faux Finishing Coatings: Effective August 4, 2014 (enter “six months from the date of adoption”, or choose a date that will be at least six months from the date of adoption, or simply remove all

reference to a timeframe and start the sentence with “The lab els of all...) the labels of all clear topcoat Faux Finishing coatings shall prominently display the statement “This product can only be sold or used as part of a Faux Finishing coating system”. Response #7 : The District has deleted all reference to date and set the effective date to January 1, 2015 for all coatings.

Comment #8 : Sections D.1.e,D.1.h,D.1.i,D.1.k, and D.1.l : Change wording on affective

date as shown in Comment 7. Response #8 : The District has deleted all reference to date and set the effective da te to January 1, 2015 for all coatings.

Comment #9 : Section D.1.g : Delete this subsection as the special labeling requirements for Specialty Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters was only in effect until January 1, 2012. Response #9 : This sectio n has been deleted.

Comment #10 : Section F.1 : Modify this section to read as follows:

CALCULATION OF VOC CONTENT: For the purpose of determining compliance with the VOC content limits in Table 1, the VOC content of a coating shall be determined as defin ed in

subsection B. 64 63 , B. 65 64 , or B. 66 65

. Response #10 : The District has incorporated the suggested change.

Comment #11 : Section F.2 : Modify this section as follows:

VOC CONTENT OF COATING: To determine the physical properties of a coating in order to perform the calculations in subsection B. 64 63

or B. 66 65 , the reference method for VOC content is U.S. EPA Method 24, incorporated by reference in subsection F.5.i, except as provided in subsections F.3 and F.4. An alternative method to

determine the VOC content of coatings is SCAQMD Method 304

- 91 (Revised 1996), incorporated by reference in subsection F.5.j. The exempt compounds content shall be determined by SCAQMD

Method 303

- 91 (Revised 1993), BAAQMD Method 43 (Revised 1996), or BAAQMD Method 4 1 (Revised 1995), as applicable, incorporated by reference in subsections F.5. f h , F.5. g f , and F.5. h g

, respectively. Response #11 : The District has incorporated the suggested change

.Feather River Air Quality Management District

Comment #12 : Section F.5.a : Effective January 1, 2010 the Fire Retar dant category was eliminated and coatings with fire retardant properties are now subject to the VOC limit of their primary category (e.g., Flat, Nonflat, etc.). This test method is no longer necessary and can be deleted. Response #12 : The District has inc orporated the suggested change

.

Comment #13 : Section F.5.b : Revise this subsection to read as follows:

Fire Resistance Rating: The fire resistance rating of a fire

- resistive coating shall be determined by ASTM E 119

- 07, “Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building and Construction Materials” (see
section B, Fire

- Resistive Coating). Response #13 : The District has incorporated the suggested change

.

Comment #14 : Section F.5.m : This test method is no longer needed and can be

deleted. Response #14 : The District has incorporated the suggested change

.

Comment #15 : Table 1 : Please enter “(six months from the date of adoption)” under the word “Effective” in the right hand column of this table, or choose a specific date that is at least six months from the date of adoption. The district may opt to delete the limit for Specialty Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters” as these coatings are now considered Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters. The district can also choose to leave this limit in the table if it is deemed necessary to the clarity of the rule. Response #15 : The District has set the effective date to January 1, 2015 and

remove d the limits for Specialty Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters.

July 16, 2014

– Public Workshop Comments

Question # 1: Who ad opts the amendments to the Rule, t he APCO or the Board of

Directors? Response #1: The Board of Directors.

Question #2 : The FRAQMD should amend the implementation date of the new VOC limits and definitions to January 1, 2015. This would give time to manufacturers to update their computer systems. Response #2: The District has incorporated the suggested change.

Question #3 : Between the effective date of the new VOC limits and definitions, and the sell through provision date, there is a transitional period where coatings that are labeled
with old definitions will be sold. FRAQMD should not delete the old definitions and V OC limits until after the sell through provision date, or keep the old version of the Rule posted, so consumers and others purchasing coatings will be able to verify it is compliant. Response #3: District Staff will post 2002 version of Rule 3.15 on Distri ct website for the duration of the three year sell

- through provision.Feather River Air Quality Management District

Question #4 : The sell through provision creates a loophole in which it says that coatings manufactured prior to the effective date of the rule may be sold for three years.

It does not require that they ever met the old standard. He recommended including language that specifies that the coating was manufactured in compliance with the VOC limit at the time. He will follow up with suggested language. Response #4: District Staff has added language closing the loophole by keeping the 2002 version of Rule 3.15 VOC Limits in effect until the January 1, 2015 effective date.

Question # 5 : Does the FRAQMD definition of exempt compounds include the following:

Tert

- butyl acetate

, Dimethyl carbonate , and P ropylene carbonate Response #5 : District Staff has changed the Exempt Compounds definition to the US

EPA 40 CFR 51.100.

July 21, 2014

– EPA Comments:

No Comment Letter

July 21 , 2014

– American Coatings Association (ACA)

Same as July 16, 2014 workshop comments above . Only those comments not addressed in the workshop are listed.

Comment #1 : Industrial Maintenance and Zinc Rich Primer Labeling Requirements

- The current Feather River AIM rule includes four IM labeling statements: “Not F or Residential Use,” “Not Intended For Residential Use,” “For Industrial Use Only,” and “For Professional Use only.” Changing product labels is very expensive. To reduce the regulatory burden for those coatings manufacturers that use the IM label statement s “Not For Residential Use,” or “Not Intended For Residential Use,” ACA urges Feather River to retain all four IM statements in Rule 3.15. In addition, ACA suggests that

Feather River include all four statements for Zinc

- Rich Primers as well. Please note t hat the following California Air Districts have adopted the 2007 California Air Resources Board Suggested Control Measures for Architectural Coatings (CARB 2007 SCM) and included all four IM and Zinc Rich Primer labeling statements: San Joaquin, Ventura,

I mperial, Eastern Kern, Placer, Mojave, Antelope Valley, and Santa Barbara. Response #1 : The District has incorporated the suggested change

.

Comment #2: ACA suggests that the District include transitional language for the coatings categories that are being deleted. Response #2: District Staff will post 2002 version of Rule 3.15 on District website for the duration of the three year sell

- through provision.

Comment #3: ACA suggests the District have two Tables of Standards to make it easier to refer back to the pre

- amended definitions and VOC limits. Response #3: Same as Response #2.Feather River Air Quality Management District

Comment #4: ACA suggests changes to the Specialty Primer, Sealer and Und ercoater

Definition. Response #4: All reference to Specialty Primer, Sealer and Undercoater has been

removed.

Comment #5: ACA suggests using the San Joaquin Most Restrictive VOC Limit Language. Response #5: Already in rule. The suggested effective dates n ot necessary, all new

VOC limits effective on the same date.

Comment #6: ACA suggests the District include an early compliance provision to allow the newly added categories and limits to take effective immediately after adoption of this

rule. Response #6 : District Staff has added Section C.7 with suggested language.

Comment #7: ACA suggests transitional language for deletion of Clear Brushing Lacquers/Quick Dry Enamels Labeling Requirements. Response #7: Same as Response #2.

Jul y 21, 2014

– Various Coatings Manufacturers

All comments were the same from each.

Comment #1 : W e believe that the effective date of the amended rule should be no earlier than January 1, 2015. This would allow paint manufacturers sufficient time to make the changes that will be necessary for products manufactured on and after the effective date, and to ensure that only complying products are distributed in the District. Response #1 : The District has incorporated the suggested change

.