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 after 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 the 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 defined 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 include 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 modify 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 labels 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 date 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 section 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 defined 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 41 (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 Retardant 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 incorporated 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 

removed the limits for Specialty Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters.

July 16, 2014 – Public Workshop Comments

Question #1: Who adopts the amendments to the Rule, the 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 VOC 

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 District 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 Propylene 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 For 

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 statements 

“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 that 

the following California Air Districts have adopted the 2007 California Air Resources 

Board Suggested Control Measures for Architectural Coatings (CARB 2007 SCM) and 

included all four IM and Zinc Rich Primer labeling statements: San Joaquin, Ventura, 

Imperial, Eastern Kern, Placer, Mojave, 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 Undercoater 

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 not 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.

July 21, 2014 – Various Coatings Manufacturers

All comments were the same from each.

Comment #1: We 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.