Air Pollution Control Board Greg Cox District 1

Dianne Jacob District 2

Pam Slater District 3

Ron Roberts District 4

Bill Horn District 5

Air Pollution Control District

R. J. Sommerville Director

9150 Chesapeake Drive – San Diego – California 9212 3-1096 – (858) 650-4700 FAX (858) 650-4659 – Smoking Vehicle Hotline – 1-80 0-28-SMOKE DATE: December 12, 2001

TO: San Diego County Air Pollution Control Board

SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS

(District: All)

SUMMARY:

Overview Rule 67.0 was first adopted in 1977 to regulate vo latile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. The rule ap plies to the manufacture, sale, and use of architectural coating, which include a varie ty of residential, commercial, and industrial paints, stains, varnishes, and other coa tings.

In an effort to develop an architectural coatings r ule that could be implemented by all air districts in the state, a Suggested Control Measure (SCM) was developed by the districts, through the California Air Pollution Control Office rs Association (CAPCOA), and the Air Resources Board (ARB) staff over a two-year per iod. The ARB adopted the SCM in

June 2000. The SCM is based on work related to a s imilar rule adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

The proposed amendments also implement a state-mand ated requirement for all feasible control measures, necessary because the Di strict is not yet in attainment of the state ambient air quality standard for ozone. The 2001 Regional Air Quality Strategy Update adopted by the Air Pollution Control Board o n August 8, 2001 (APCB #1), includes a commitment to adopt these revisions.

As part of this effort, the District utilized many of the analyses and documents prepared by ARB in support of the SCM after finding that the se materials were applicable to San Diego. The proposed changes are consistent with th e SCM provisions to provide for:

consistent definitions and VOC limits to facilitate coating manufacturers’ ability to comply, an optional, statewide VOC emissions averag ing program, and avoiding possible litigation that might be brought by certai n industry groups opposed to more stringent rules.

Similar rules have been adopted by other California air pollution control districts, including South Coast, Sacramento, Bay Area, Ventur a, Santa Barbara, and th e San Joaquin Valley. South Coast was sued over its more stringent rule. South Coast prevailed in the trial court, but the case is still on appeal. Sacramento, the first air districtSUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS (District: All)

- 2 - to adopt ARB’s SCM in May of this year, was not sue d over its rule. Coating manufacturer representatives will likely attend the Rule 67.0 hearing to comment on the proposed amendments.

Nineteen (19) new coating categories have been adde d; the allowable VOC content limits for 18 coating categories decrease on Januar y 1, 2003, and one coating category on January 1, 2004; container labeling specificatio ns (e.g. date of manufacture code, VOC content, thinning recommendations) and manufact urer reporting requirements for selected coating categories have been added; an d various definitions and test methods updated. Manufacturers may use a temporary emissions averaging program, operated statewide by the ARB, to comply with the n ew VOC content limits from January 2003 through 2005.

The amendments will reduce VOC emissions by approxi mately 1.5 tons per day (approximately 500 tons per year) when fully implem ented in 2005. The estimated cost-effectiveness of the rule is $3.28 per pound o f VOC emissions reduced, comparable to the cost-effectiveness of other District VOC reg ulations and control measures identified in the Regional Air Quality Strategy. O verall, adopting the amended rule is not expected to pose significant economic impacts o n affected industry in San Diego County. Neither of two local architectural coating manufacturers objected to the

amendments.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Ac t (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared evaluating the pot ential environmental consequences resulting from the proposed amendments . No significant adverse

environmental effects were identified. The Board m ust review and consider the information in the EIR and certify that the EIR ref lects the Board’s independent judgment and analysis of potential environmental co nsequences resulting from adopting the proposed amendments.

A public workshop was held on September 6, 2001. T he workshop report is provided

in Attachment VIII.

Issues

Two primary issues were raised by industry. Severa l manufacturers requested that the 2005 sunset provision contained in the VOC averagin g program be deleted to ensure availability of the averaging provisions if coating technology does not evolve in time to allow the future VOC limits to be met. They als o expressed concern that EPA might disapprove a future repeal or extension of th e sunset date as a relaxation of the

federal SIP.

The averaging provisions must sunset in 2005 to ens ure that certain air districts (not San Diego) meet their 2005 SIP commitments. Since the averaging program will be aSUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS (District: All)

- 3 - statewide program, implemented by ARB, consistency among the California air districts is important. Consequently, it is not re commended that the sunset date for the averaging provision be extended at this time.

In San Diego, evolving technology can be addressed in two ways. First, ARB intends to reassess coating technologies prior to the effec tive dates of the future limits. ARB and the South Coast Air Quality Management District will be working jointly to identify any problems industry may have in meeting the proposed limits, which

become effective in South Coast six months earlier than the effective date in Rule 67.0. The District will follow these efforts and, if necessary, recommend appropriate changes prior to the effective date of the future s tandards. Second, there is the flexibility to make future amendments because EPA w ill not be able to disapprove any such changes since the amended rule will not be sub mitted to EPA as part of the SIP. The amended rule reflects more stringent emission s tandards than required by federal regulations, and is not needed to attain the one-ho ur federal ozone standard. Were the amended rule included in the SIP, EPA could object to any necessary future rule changes.

Also, several coating manufacturers requested that EPA’s National Architectural Coating Rule limits be used as the ceiling (upper) limits for the proposed VOC averaging program. This proposal is unacceptable b ecause it would relax VOC

content limits that have been in effect in Californ ia for over ten years.

Recommendation(s)

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER 1. Consider the Final Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) and adopt the associated Resolution: (a) finding that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and that t he Report reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Board; and (b) certifying the Final EIR as a true and complete statement of environmental i mpacts of adopting the proposed amendments to Rule 67.0 and making finding s that there is no

substantial evidence in the entire record before th e Board that the proposed amendments will have a significant adverse effect o n the environment; and (c) finding that there is no evidence that adopting the proposed amendments will have potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resourc es or the habitat on which the wildlife depends, and, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the presumption of adverse effect in California Code of Regulations , Title 14, Section 753.5(d) has

been rebutted.

2. Approve the Certificate of Fee Exemption for De Minimis Impact Finding exempting the District from payment of fees to the California Department of Fish and Game. (ii) that an analysis of existing require ments applicable to the source or category is not required by Section 40727 .2 of the Health and Safety Code because the proposed amendments do not impose new or more stringentSUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS (District: All)

- 4 - requirements;

3. After adopting the Resolution approving the Fina l Environmental Impact Report and Certificate of Fee Exemption, adopt the resolut ion adopting amended Rule 67.0 into the District Rules and Regulations and ma ke appropriate findings:

(i) of necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, non-duplication and reference as required by Section 40727 of the State Health and S afety Code;

(ii) that adopting amended Rule 67.0 will alleviate a problem and will promote attainment of ambient air quality standards (Sectio n 40001 of the State Health and Safety Code);

(iii) that an assessment of the socioeconomic impac ts of the proposed amendments has been prepared and that the socioecon omic impacts of the proposed new rule have been actively considered and the District has made a good faith effort to minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts; and

(iv) that an analysis of the effectiveness of the p roposed amended rule, including an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the potent ial control options, has been prepared pursuant to Health and Safety Code Se ction 40920.6, and that the proposed rule emission limits represent cost-ef fective options.

Fiscal Impact The recommended action will have no fiscal impact on the District.

Business Impact Statement The proposed amendments are consistent with state guidance and adoption is mandated by state law. The regulated business comm unity will be affected by more stringent VOC content limits for some architectural coatings. There are only two architectural coating manufacturers located in San Diego County. One company specializing in house paints already manufactures c ompliant coatings. The other company manufactures some specialty coatings subjec t to the rule and is in the process of reformulating their coatings to comply with the proposed standards. Neither company raised any objections to the proposed amend ments.

Advisory Board Statement The Air Pollution Control Advisory Committee recom mended adopting amended Rule 67.0 at its November 14, 2001, meeting.

BACKGROUND: Attachment I contains background information, infor mation on compliance with Board policy on adopting new rules, and information on complianc e with the California Environmental Quality Act and Health and Safety Code Sections 407 27.2 and 40920.6.SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS (District: All)

- 5 - Additional Information: Attachment II contains the Resolution adopting the Environmental Impact Report.

Attachment III contains the Environmental Impact Re port prepared for the proposed

amendments to Rule 67.0.

Attachment IV contains the Resolution and Change Co py adopting amended Rule 67.0 into the District's Rules and Regulations.

Attachment V contains the Socioeconomic Impact Asse ssment of Rule 67.0 prepared pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 40728.5.

Attachment VI contains the Comparative Analysis of Rule 67.0 prepared pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 40727.2.

Attachment VII contains the Incremental Cost-Effect iveness Analysis of Rule 67.0 prepared pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 40920.6.

Attachment VIII contains the report on the public w orkshop held on September 6,

2001.

Attachment IX contains the Comments and Responses d ocument addressing rule feasibility comments received during the Draft EIR public comment period.

ROBERT R. COPPER Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Respectfully submitted,

R. J. SOMMERVILLE

Air Pollution Control OfficerSUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS (District: All)

-6-

AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION SHEET

CONCURRENCE(S)

COUNTY COUNSEL REVIEW [X] Yes Written disclosure per County Charter Section 1000.1 required [ ] Yes [X] No

GROUP/AGENCY FINANCE DIRECTOR [ ] Yes [X ] N/A

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER [ ] Yes [X] N/A Requires Four Votes [ ] Yes [X] No

GROUP/AGENCY INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR [ ] Yes [X] N/A

CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER [ ] Yes [X] N/A

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES [ ] Yes [X] N/A

Other Concurrence(s): N/A

ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Air Pollution Control District, County of San Diego

CONTACT PERSON(S):

R. J. Sommerville

Name (858) 650-4500

Phone (858) 650-4657

Fax
O176

Mail Station rsommeha@co.san-diego.ca.us

E-mail

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE:
R. J. Sommerville, Air Pollution Control OfficerSUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS (District: All)

-7-

AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION SHEET

(continued)

PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS : August 8, 2001 (APCB #1) Approved adoption of 2001 RAQS Update. May 15, 1996 (APCB #2) Approved adoption of amended Rule 67.0.

BOARD POLICIES APPLICABLE : N/A

BOARD POLICY STATEMENTS : N/A

CONTRACT NUMBER(S) : N/ASUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS (District: All)

- 1 -

ATTACHMENT I

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Rule 67.0 regulates volatile organic compounds (VOC - ozone precursors) emissions from the manufacture, sale, and use of architectural coating s which include a variety of residential, commercial, and industrial paints, stains, varnishe s, and other coatings. The California Clean Air Act requires the District adopt all feasible measur es for reducing emissions at all existing stationary sources. The 2001 Regional Air Quality Strategy Update adopted by the Air Pollution Control Board on August 8, 2001 (APCB #1), includes a commitment to adopt these revisions.

Over the last two years, ARB, in cooperation with t he California Air Pollution Control Officers Association's Architectural Coating Work Group and the architectural coatings industry, has been re-evaluating the 1989 Suggested Control Measure (S CM) for architectural coatings. The

decision to revisit the control measure arose becau se of advances in coating technology and the

need for additional emission reductions to attain t he state’s ozone standard in many areas of California. As a result, a new SCM has been develo ped to serve as a model for local architectural coating rules. The District particip ated on the Architectural Coatings Working Group during the development of the SCM.

The amendments are consistent with the SCM approved by the Air Resources Board on June 22, 2000. The District utilized many of the analyses an d documents prepared by ARB in support of the SCM, including analyses of environmental and socioe conomic impacts, after finding that these materials were applicable to San Diego. Consistenc y with the SCM is important because consistent definitions and VOC limits facilitate coating manuf acturers’ ability to comply, the rule amendments include an optional, statewide VOC emissions averag ing program, and the District is seeking to avoid litigation that might be brought by certain i ndustry groups opposed to more stringent rules.

Similar rules have been adopted by several other Ca lifornia air pollution control districts, including South Coast, Sacramento, Bay Area, Ventura, Santa B arbara, and the San Joaquin Valley. South Coast was sued over its more stringent rule by memb ers of the coating industry. South Coast prevailed in the trial court, but the case is still on appeal. The Sacramento air district was the fi rst district to adopt ARB’s SCM, which it did in late M ay of this year, and was not sued over its rule. Coating manufacturing representatives will likely a ttend the Rule 67.0 public hearing to make comments similar to those made at the public hearin gs held by other air districts, however.

There are two architectural coating manufacturers l ocated in San Diego County. One specializes in house paints that already comply with the propos ed new VOC limits. This company should incur few, if any, costs. The other manufacturer i s owned by a national paint company which will likely absorb most of the reformulation costs, though they will be somewhat impacted by possible higher costs of raw materials. Neither of the two local coating manufacturers objected to the proposed amendments. Overall, adopting the amended rule is not expected to pose significant economic impacts on the affected indust ry sectors in San Diego County.SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS (District: All)

- 2 - The proposed amendments will add 19 new coating cat egories that reflect the specialized nature of certain architectural coating applications. For 18 new and existing coating categories, the

allowable VOC content limits will be decreased effe ctive January 1, 2003. For one existing category, industrial maintenance coatings, the allo wable VOC content limit will be decreased effective January 1, 2004. Table 1 of this attachm ent lists the new coating categories and the proposed changes to VOC content limits. The propos ed amendments also add specific container labeling requirements (e.g. a code identifying the date of manufacture, the VOC content, and thinning recommendations). Various definitions and test methods are also updated.

A temporary (until January 1, 2005) compliance opti on has been added allowing manufacturers to average the VOC contents of specified coating ca tegories to provide equivalent or lower emissions. This is important to coating manufactur ers as a transition to fully compliant coating products across all categories. The rule requires sales reporting associated with the statewide averaging compliance option as well as for certain specialty coatings to allow ARB and the districts to monitor usage, emissions, and complian ce progress.

The amendments will reduce VOC emissions in San Die go County by approximately 1.5 tons per day (approximately 500 tons per year) when fully im plemented in 2005. The estimated costeffectiveness of the amended rule is $3.28 per poun d of VOC emissions reduced, comparable to the cost-effectiveness of other District VOC regulation s and control measures identified in the Regional Air Quality Strategy.

Current Rule 67.0 has been approved as part of the federal State Implementation Plan (SIP). The amended rule is not being recommended to be include d in the SIP because it reflects more stringent emission standards than required by feder al regulations and is not needed to attain the one-hour federal ozone standard. This will give th e District greater flexibility to make future rule changes should problems arise with coating technolo gy development.

ISSUES The following were the two primary issues raised du ring the public workshop on the proposed

Rule 67.0 amendments. Other comments at the worksh op were directed at specific specialty coating categories or sought clarification of rule requirements. These latter comments were addressed in the workshop report and in the propose d amendments.

Several coating manufacturers requested that the Di strict delete the 2005 sunset provision in the VOC averaging program. They were concerned that if coating technology did not evolve to

allow the VOC limits contained in the rule to be me t, and compliance could only be achieved by using an averaging program, districts would need to repeal the sunset provisions prior to the sunset date. If EPA disapproved this repeal as a r elaxation of the federal SIP, coating

manufacturers could be in violation of the rule.

The averaging provisions must sunset in 2005 to be consistent with the SCM and ensure that certain air districts (not San Diego) meet their 20 05 SIP commitments. Since the averaging program will be a statewide program, implemented by ARB, consistency among the CaliforniaSUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS (District: All)

- 3 - air districts is important. Consequently, it is no t recommended that the sunset date for the averaging provision be extended at this time.

In San Diego, evolving technology can be addressed in two ways. First, ARB plans to conduct technology assessments for each coating category wi th a more stringent future VOC limit prior to the effective dates (2003 or 2004). In addition, A RB and the South Coast Air Quality Management District will jointly be identifying any problems industry may have in meeting the

South Coast’s VOC limits which become effective six months earlier than the effective date in

Rule 67.0. The District will follow these efforts and, as necessary, recommend appropriate changes to Rule 67.0 prior to the effective date of the future standards. Second, there is the flexibility for the District to make future amendme nts because EPA will not be able to disapprove changes since the amended rule will not be submitted as part of the SIP.

Also, several coating manufacturers requested EPA’s National Architectural Coating Rule limits be used as the ceiling (upper) VOC limits for the p roposed VOC averaging program. This proposal is unacceptable because it would relax VOC content limits that have been in effect in California for over ten years. These limits preven t high VOC coating formulations, new or old, from being marketed in San Diego County.

Socioeconomic Impact Assessment A Socioeconomic Impact Assessment was prepared to e valuate the effects of proposed amended Rule 67.0. The amendments would potentially impact paint, varnish, enamel, allied products manufacturers, users of architectural coatings, sup pliers, sellers, and solicitors of architectural coatings. The cost of compliance was evaluated bas ed on studies performed by ARB and SCAQMD. The District reviewed these studies and fo und they are applicable to San Diego County. The economic factors affecting architectur al coating manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and painting contractors are similar to those in other areas of California.

ARB concluded the cost of complying with the propos ed VOC limits will not have a significant impact on employment or business creation, eliminat ion, or expansion. ARB also concluded that the new standards would not adversely impact the co mpetitiveness of California-based

businesses. These conclusions are based on ARB’s a nalysis of coating manufacturers’ increased costs to reformulate coatings. ARB calculated that the financial impact on the coating manufacturers’ profitability will be small; therefo re, the manufacturers will likely absorb most if not all of the increased costs so that their produc ts will remain competitive with already available compliant coatings.

ARB has estimated that architectural coating manufa cturers, most of which are located outside San Diego County, will spend approximately $43 mill ion to reformulate coatings to comply with the SCM’s VOC limits, based on California sale volu mes. The annualized cost to provide county customers with architectural coatings that comply w ith the proposed Rule 67.0 VOC limits will be about $3.6 million. ARB has estimated that the increased costs due to reformulation, and other one-time costs required to comply with the Ru le 67.0 amendments and other similar rules throughout the state, would range from zero to $7.9 0 per gallon of coating depending on the coating category. For consumers using flat and non -flat house paints, there should be little priceSUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS (District: All)

- 4 - increase since there are already many compliant pai nts available. As a worst case, ARB has estimated that consumers may see increases of up to 20 percent in the retail price of non-flat coatings, primers, sealers, and stains. Again, suc h price increases are unlikely since compliant coatings are already available and the competition among suppliers will likely constrain price

increases.

Costs of specialty coatings used for industrial mai ntenance and other specialized, commercial coating uses could increase by up to an average of 12 percent. This may represent a worst case since there are already some compliant coatings ava ilable in many of the specialty coating categories. Even if coating manufacturers pass on a majority of these increased costs, they likely represent a small percentage of overall painting pr oject costs, especially compared to labor costs.

ARB’s economic analysis estimates the average chang e in the Return on Owners Equity (a standard for measuring profitability) for coating m anufacturers will decline by an average 1.1 percent. This represents a minor change in the ave rage profitability of coating manufacturers. ARB, EPA, and other government agencies typically u se a predicted reduction of more than ten percent to indicate the potential for significant a dverse economic impacts. Since overall profitability will decline only slightly, most manu facturing companies will absorb some or all of their increased costs in order to remain competitiv e with coatings already complying with the lower VOC content limits. Moreover, the option for coating manufacturers to use the temporary alternative averaging program in amended Rule 67.0 will afford manufacturers additional flexibility to moderate their costs.

There are two architectural coating manufacturers l ocated in San Diego County. One specializes in house paints that already comply with the propos ed new VOC limits. This company should incur few, if any, costs. The other manufacturer i s owned by a national paint company which will likely absorb most of the reformulation costs, though they will be somewhat impacted by possible higher costs of raw materials. Neither of the two local coating manufacturers objected to the proposed amendments. Overall, adopting the amended rule is not expected to pose significant economic impacts on the affected indust ry sectors in San Diego County.

The VOC emission reductions are estimated to be 1.5 tons per day. The estimated costeffectiveness of the proposed amendments is $3.28 p er pound of VOC emissions reduced, comparable to the cost-effectiveness of other Distr ict VOC regulations.

The Socioeconomic Impact Assessment is presented in Attachment V.

Compliance with Board Policy on Adopting New Rules On February 2, 1993, the Board directed that, with the exception of a regulation requested by business or a regulation for which a socioeconomic impact assessment is not required, no new or

revised regulation shall be implemented unless spec ifically required by federal or state law. The adoption of amended Rule 67.0 is required by state law and is, therefore, consistent with this

Board directive.SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS (District: All)

- 5 - California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Ac t (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared evaluating the potential en vironmental consequences resulting from the proposed amendments to Rule 67.0. No significant a dverse environmental effects were identified. Pursuant to CEQA, the Board must certi fy that it reviewed and considered the

information in the EIR and that the EIR reflects th e Board’s independent judgment and analysis of potential environmental consequences resulting f rom implementing the proposed amendments.

A Certificate of Fee Exemption for De Minimis Impac t Finding has been prepared pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 7 53.5(c). The District will be exempted from payment of fees to the California Department of Fis h and Game for reviewing the EIR if, after considering the record as a whole, the Board finds that there is no evidence that adopting the amendments to Rule 67.0 will have potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends, and the Boar d finds, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the presumption of adverse effect in Californi a Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5(d) has been rebutted. No significant adverse environmental effects were identified in the

EIR.

The EIR is presented in Attachment III.

Comments were received during the Draft EIR comment period. The comments pertained to technical and feasibility aspects of the proposed a mendments to Rule 67.0, but not to the environmental analyses contained in the EIR. The c omments have been considered, and responses are provided in Attachment IX. No change s to the EIR are warranted.

Comparative Analysis of Existing Requirements Prior to adopting, amending, or repealing a rule or regulation, California Health and Safety Code Section 40727 requires findings of necessity, autho rity, clarity, consistency, non-duplication, and reference. As part of the consistency finding to e nsure proposed rule requirements do not

conflict with or contradict other District or feder al regulations, Health and Safety Code Section 40727.2 requires the District to perform a written analysis comparing the air pollution control standards and other provisions of proposed amended Rule 67.0 with existing or proposed District rules and guidelines, and with existing federal rul es, requirements, and guidelines applying to the

same source category.

The requirements of amended Rule 67.0 have been com pared to the requirements of the federal National Architectural Coating Rule and the state S uggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings. Rule 67.0 is consistent with the Suggest ed Control Measure and is more stringent but

does not contradict the National Architectural Coat ing Rule. The analysis is presented in

Attachment VI.

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness AnalysisSUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS (District: All)

- 6 - Health and Safety Code Section 40920.6 requires the District to identify one or more potential control options which achieve the emission reductio n objectives for the regulation, calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness for the potential co ntrol options, and consider and review in a public meeting the effectiveness of the proposed co ntrol option and the incremental costeffectiveness between the potential control options . This analysis has been done.

One control option is to make no amendments to Rule 67.0. This would forego 1.5 tons per day of additional VOC emission reductions needed as par t of efforts to comply with the state ambient air quality standard for ozone. Another control op tion is to adopt even more stringent VOC control requirements for architectural coatings sim ilar to those in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1113. This could result in greater emission reductions if all VOC limits prove to be technologically feasible. Howev er, the incremental cost-effectiveness of this option versus the recommended amendments is more th an $10 per additional pound of VOC emissions reduced. This is significantly greater t han other VOC control measures adopted by the Board and, considering the uncertainty that the mor e stringent South Coast VOC limits will be achievable, is not recommended.

The analysis is presented in Attachment VII.SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATI NGS (District: All)

- 7 - 

### Table 1
New and Revised Rule 67.0 Coating Categories and VO C Content Limits 1

Current

Rule 67.0 Effective

Upon Adoption Effective

1/1/2003 Effective

1/1/2004 Coating Categories New (N) or Existing (E) 2 (g/l) (g/l) (g/l) (g/l)
Antenna Coatings N 250 530 Antifouling Coatings N 250 400 Bituminous Roof Coatings N 300 300

Bituminous Roof Primers N 350 350 Clear Wood Coatings: Clear Brushing Lacquer N 680 680 Lacquers E 680 680 550 Sanding Sealers E 550 550 350 Faux Finishing Coatings N 250 350 Fire Resistive Coatings N 350 350 Flat Coatings N 250 250 100 Floor Coatings N 250 400 250 Flow Coatings N 250 420 High Temperature Coatings E 650 650 420 Industrial Maintenance Coatings E 420 420 250 Low-Solids Coatings 3 N 250 120 Nonflat Coatings N 250 250 150 Nonflat Coatings – High Gloss N 250 250 Magnesite Cement Coatings E 600 600 450 Multi-Color Coatings E 580 580 250

Pre-Treatment Wash Primers E 780 780 420 Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters E 350 350 200 Quick-Dry Enamels E 400 400 250 Quick-Dry Primers, Sealers, Undercoaters E 525 525 200 Recycled Coatings N 250 250 Roof Coatings E 300 300 250 Rust Preventative Coatings (Previously Industrial Maintenance Coating) N 420 400 Specialty Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters N 350 350

Stains E 350 350 250 Swimming Pool Coatings E 650 650 340
Swimming Pool Repair & Maintenance Coatings E 650 650 340 Temperature-Indicator Safety Coatings N 250 550 Traffic Marking Coatings E 250 250 150 Waterproofing Sealers E 400 400 250 Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers N 250 400

Wood Preservatives (Below Ground Wood Preservative deleted) E 350 ( 600 ) 350

1. VOC content limits expressed in grams VOC per l iter of coating, as applied, less water and exempt compounds. 2. Coatings in newly added categories previously w ere regulated as general coatings with a VOC conten t limit of 250 gm/liter or were included in an existing specialty coating category. 3. VOC content limits expressed in grams of VOC pe r liter of coating, as applied, including water and exempt compounds.