STAFF REPORT FOR PROPOSED RULE REVISIONS 

Rule 213: Storage of Gasoline Products (Repeal) 

Rule 214: Phase I Vapor Recovery System Requirements (Amend) 

Rule 228: Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products (Amend) 

Prepared by Northern Sierra AQMD Staff, March, 2011

Date for Public Hearing: April 25, 2011 (alternatively May 23, 2011 in case 

of April meeting cancellation) 

Date for Rule Adoption: Same as Public Hearing (Unless comments received 

necessitate significant modification) 

INTRODUCTION 

The Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD) is proposing to 

combine Rules 213 and 214, and to amend Rule 228 in partial fulfillment of requirements 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended 1990. Rule 213 is proposed to be repealed at 

the time its requirements are incorporated into Rule 214. 

Effective June 15, 2004, Western Nevada County was designated under the CAA as a 

Basic Non-attainment area for the national 1997 8-hour ozone ambient air quality 

standard. The Basic classification was subsequently remanded nationwide, and EPA has 

indicated that in May, 2011, Western Nevada County will be proposed for reclassification 

as a Moderate Non-attainment area. 

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has submitted to EPA a request for a Clean 

Data Finding for Western Nevada County (based on monitors indicating ozone 

concentrations below the federal standard). The NSAQMD anticipates that EPA will 

approve the Clean Data Finding, which would suspend some of the planning 

requirements in the CAA, but would not suspend requirements for Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for ozone precursors. 

The RACT requirement is meant to ensure that ozone non-attainment areas are taking 

reasonable steps to minimize the emission of ozone precursors, which are oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In order to assist areas in 

identifying and implementing RACT, EPA issues Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) 

for specific source categories. These serve to define RACT, and each non-attainment 

area must implement measures laid out in the CTGs, or the equivalent, if there are 

sources in the area to which they apply. The rule changes are being proposed in order to 

meet federal requirements for inclusion in California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), 

as required under the CAA. Failure to adopt rules fully satisfying RACT can result in 

federal sanctions including withholding of federal highway dollars and increased 

emission offset requirements for local, major emission sources. 

The NSAQMD has worked with EPA and ARB in the development of the proposed rule 

changes, and both agencies have preliminarily approved the changes. 
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES 

Rule 213: Storage of Gasoline Products (Repeal) 

In 2010, EPA reviewed Rule 213, which was submitted for inclusion in the SIP, and 

concluded that it lacks adequate testing and recordkeeping requirements for full approval 

of the Rule into the SIP. Rule 214, however, has adequate testing and recordkeeping 

requirements, and applies to the same types of sources (those subject to Phase I Vapor 

Recovery). Thus, the NSAQMD proposes to simply move all provisions of Rule 213 into 

Rule 214, at EPA’s suggestion, and to repeal Rule 213. 

Rule 213 History: 

Adopted November 11, 1991; amended March 26, 2007. 

Rule 214: Phase I Vapor Recovery Requirements (Amend) 

In 2010, EPA reviewed Rule 214, which was submitted for inclusion in the SIP. Along 

with the suggestion of moving the requirements of Rule 213 into Rule 214 (discussed 

above), EPA suggested the following additional modifications to Rule 214, which have 

been included in the proposed rule amendment. 

EPA recommended merging the definitions of “Vapor Recovery Equipment Defects 

List” and “VRED List.” Accordingly, the definition of the former was deleted and the 

VRED List definition was modified to read, “VRED List: Vapor Recovery Equipment 

Defects List. A list of defects that CARB has identified as substantially impairing the 

efficiency of the vapor recovery system, incorporated by reference in Title 17 CCR 

Section 94006, pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 41960.2(c).” 

EPA recommended adding the following to Rule 214, at the end of Section 3.1: “...and 

the transfer vehicle is CARB certified to be compatible with the Phase I stationary 

storage tank CARB certification.” 

EPA reviewed the proposed changes and sent the NSAQMD an e-mail stating that they 

seemed fine. ARB reviewed the proposed changes and had no comment. None of the 

changes have any effect on emissions. 

Rule 214 History: 

Adopted December 15, 1988; amended March 26, 2007; amended February 22, 2010. 

Rule 228: Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products (Amend) 

In 2010, EPA reviewed Rule 228, which was submitted for inclusion in the SIP. EPA 

determined that the Rule was not fully approvable into the SIP, mainly because it 
contained a reference to another rule (Rule 229) which has not been submitted for 

inclusion in the SIP. A number of additional changes were recommended. 

Rule 228 is being revised to remove the existing reference to Rule 229 in subsection 

3.4.2.d., which reads, “d. Remote reservoir cold cleaner operated in conformance with 

Rule 229.” In the proposed revision, this subsection was merely removed and the Rule 

does not address remote reservoir cold cleaner operation. The only existing facility in the 

NSAQMD that coats metal parts or products and is subject to the provisions of Rule 228 

(due to emissions greater than 15 lbs./day of VOCs) is Serra Corporation, on Bitney 

Springs Road. The NSAQMD contacted Serra Corporation and confirmed that the 

facility does not use a remote reservoir cold cleaner, so the proposed revision will have 

no effect on the company’s current or planned operations. Likewise, this change has no 

effect on emissions. 

Other changes in the proposed rule revision (at EPA’s formal recommendation in order to 

make the Rule approvable into the SIP) include a new effective date of July 1, 2011; 

improvements to the Definitions section; minor changes to improve enforceability; the 

addition and update of full test method titles; and the addition of “etching fillers” to the 

acid content measurement section (5.5). None of these changes have any effect on 

emissions. 

Rule History: 

Originally adopted November 27, 2006; amended February 22, 2010. 

AUTHORITY AND RULE ADOPTION REQUIREMENTS

The District is authorized to regulate sources of air pollutants under the California Health 

and Safety Code (HSC) §40001 and §40702. HSC §41508 allows local air districts to 

adopt stricter standards than the State, but not more relaxed standards. 

HSC §40728.5 requires a socioeconomic analysis for proposed rules in districts having a 

population greater than 500,000 persons. The NSAQMD’s population is approximately 

120,000 so this requirement does not apply. 

California Health and Safety Code (HSC) §40703 requires that all air quality districts 

consider and make public findings relating to the cost effectiveness of implementing an 

emission control measure. No cost is associated with implementing the proposed rule 

changes. 

These rules are exempt from the requirements of CEQA per Class 8 (§15308) of the 

CEQA guidelines. 

The California Health and Safety Code requires air districts to comply with a rule 

adoption protocol as set forth in §40727 of the Code. There are six findings the District 

must make when developing, amending or repealing a rule: 
FINDINGS DEFINITION REFERENCE 

Authority A provision of law or of a state or 

federal regulation permits or requires 

the regional agency to adopt, amend, 

or repeal the regulation. 

HSC Sections 40001, 40702, and 

41511. 

Necessity A need exists for the regulation, or 

its amendment, or appeal, as 

demonstrated by the record or rule 

making authority. 

It is necessary for the NSAQMD to 

revise these rules in order to 

comply with the Clean Air Act and 

thereby avoid federal sanctions. 

Further, the source categories to 

which they apply exist in the nonattainment area. 

Clarity The regulation is written or 

displayed so that its meaning can be 

easily understood by the persons 

directly affected by it. 

The proposed rules are written in 

such a manner that they can be 

easily understood by affected 

sources, and their subsections are 

descriptively titled. 

Consistency The regulation is in harmony with, 

and not in conflict with or 

contradictory to, existing statutes, 

court decisions, or state or federal 

regulation. 

The NSAQMD has determined 

these rules are consistent with State 

and federal regulations and do not 

conflict with existing statutes or 

court decisions. 

Nonduplication A regulation does not impose the 

same requirements as an existing 

state or federal regulation unless a 

district finds that the requirements 

are necessary or proper to execute 

the powers and duties granted to, and 

imposed upon, a district. 

The NSAQMD has evaluated the 

proposed rule revisions in light of 

existing rules and has found no 

duplication. 

Reference Any statute, court decision, or other 

provision of law that the district 

implements, interprets, or makes 

specific by adopting, amending, or 

repealing a regulation. 

These rule revisions are being 

proposed consistent with the 

requirements of CAA Title 1, Part 

D, Section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 

Part 51.912(c). 

RECOMMENDATION 

Approval by the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District Board of Directors of 

the proposed rule revisions and findings herein.