# STAFF REPORT

Rule 3. 15 : Architectural Coatings

Date of Release: July 3 , 201 4

Schedule of Meetings

Rule Changes Workshop: July 16 , 20 14

Public Hearing: August 4 , 2014

### STAFF REPORT

Dat e of Release: July 3 , 2014

Scheduled Date of FRAQMD Adoption: August 4, 2014

Feather River AQMD, 1007 Live Oak Blvd, Suite B

- 3,

Yuba City, California 95991

Contents Page



## 1. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ....................... 1



## 2. Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 1



## 3. Legal Mandate

................................ ................................ ............................... 2



## 4. Propo sed Rule Requirements

................................ ................................ ........ 3



## 5. Socioeconomic Impact

................................ ................................ ................... 4



## 6. Impacts of the Pro posed Rule

................................ ................................ ........ 4



## 7. Estimated Cost Impact

................................ ................................ ................... 5



## 8. Environmental Review and Compliance

................................ ......................... 6



## 9. Required Findings

................................ ................................ .......................... 8



## 10. Rule Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ 9



## 11. References

................................ ................................ ................................ . 10

### 1



### 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Feather River Air Quality Management District (District) is a Bi

- County agency that administer s

local, state

, and federal air quality management program s for Yuba and Sutter Counties.

Because portions of the District have been designated as nonattainment for failure to meet the

federal 8

- hour ground

- level ozone standard, the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) requires the District to implement measures to reduce ozone p recursors. The District

makes its commitment to reduce pollution through the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP

is federally enforceable through the EPA and the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA).

Ozone is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOC s ) re act with nitrogen oxides (NOx) in

the presence of sun light, and is one component of smog

. It is a strong irritant that attacks the

respiratory system and leads to the damage of lung tissues. Exposure to ozone aggravates

asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory diseases, as w ell as cardiovascular diseases. VOC

r e ductions are necessary to attain and maintain the state ambient air quality standard s for

ozone.

Under the provisions of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988, Yuba County and the

north ern portion of Sutter County have also been designated as “nonattainment

- transitional” for

failing to meet the state ozone standard. The southern portion of Sutter County is designated as

“severe” nonattainment for failing to meet the state ozone standard.

The intent of the amendments to Rule 3.15 is to reduce VOC emissions from coatings used in

the painting of buildings and other structures. The District expects the proposed amendments to

Rule 3.15 will reduce VOC emissions by approximately 1.095 tons per year. The estimated

1.095 tons per year emission reduction is in addition to the emission reduction s already

achieved by the existing Rule 3.15 which established limits on the VOC content of architectural

coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, or manufactured for

use within the District. Under the proposed amendments to the Rule, stores can sell existing

Rule 3.15

- compliant coatings up to three years after the amendments to Rule 3.15 become

effective. Staff proposes to lower architectural coating VOC content limits for consistency with

the California Air Resources Board Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Architectural

Coatings (adopted October 26, 2007), which other air districts have adopted and implemented

.

2.0 BACKGROUND

Ozone

Reducing VOC emissions is p art of the District’s strategy for reducing ozone formation. Ozone

is not directly emitted from polluting sources and is classified as a secondary pollutant. It forms

in the atmosphere through complex chemical reactions between VOCs and NOx with the

presence of a catalyst

, such as sunlight. Ozone is a highly reactive gas that can be harmful to

public health when it is in high concentrations at ground level. High concentrations can irritate

the nose and throat and can aggravate respiratory conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, and

emphysema.

### 2



### Regulations

The EPA and ARB have adopted ambient air quality standards to determine outdoor pollutant

levels considered s afe for the public. The standards are health

- based and designed to provide

protection for the most sensitive groups.

The CAA requires air districts in nonattainment for the ozone standards to prepare a plan

describing how the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) will be met. The southern

portion of Sutter County is part of the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area (SFNA) for

ozone 1 

### . The SFNA was designated as severe nonattainment for the 1997 8

- hour Ozone

NAAQS and the 2008 revision to the 8

- hour Ozone NAAQS. The District commit ted as part of

the 2009 Sacramento Regional 8

- Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress

Plan ( 2009 Ozone Plan) to reduce VOC from Architectural Coatings in order to assist in

achieving attainment and to demonstrate actual VOC emission reductions 2



### . On the state level,

t he California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires the District to develop a plan to a chieve attainment

with the state ozone standard.

FRAQMD Rule 3.15

District Rule 3.15, Architectural Coatings was adopted in June of 1991

, amended in May of

1996 and amended again on November 13, 2002. For the 2014 amendments, the District will

propose to adopt the California Air Resource Board (CARB) 2007 Suggested Control Measure

(SCM) for Architectural Coatings as a template for Rule 3.15.

3.0 LEGAL MANDATE

Federal Mandates

T he EPA’s final 8

- hour ozone implementation rule 3 

### (pursuant to section 172(c)(1) of the Clean

Air Act) requires “a SIP revision demonstrating that it has adopted all reasonably available

control measures (RACM) necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable

an d to meet any reasonable further progress requirements.” EPA’s RACM policy 4 

### indicates that

areas should consider all candidate measures that are potentially reasonably available. The

District committed to adopting amendments to Rule 3.15 in the 2009 Ozone Plan.

State Mandates

The California Clean Air Act requires areas designated as nonattainment for ozone to develop a

plan, in accordance with s ection 40913 of Cal ifornia Health and Safety Code , to achieve

California’s ambient air quality standard by the earliest practical date by adopting cost

- effective

control measures.

The SFNA portion of Sutter County is designated as “severe” nonattainment for the st ate ozone

standard. CH&S Code, s ection 40920 requires the District to adopt a control measure that will

1 

### Map of nonattainment area: http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/1997standards/areamaps/Sacra mento.pdf

2 

### Sacramento Regional 8

- Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan

– 2009

http://airquality.org/plans/federal/ozone/8hr1997/2009AandRFP/index.shtml

3 

### “Final Rule to Implement the 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

– Phase 2” (Federal Register,

November 29, 2005, p. 71659

- 71661).

4 

### “Guidance on the RACM Requirements and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas” (EPA, December 1999)

### 3



### use Best Available Ret rofit Control Technology (BARCT) for all exi sting stationary sources in

this area. BARCT, as defined in the CH&S, is as “an emission limitation that is based on the

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

econo mic impacts by each class or category of source.

Yuba County and the northern area of Sutter County are designated as “non attainment

transitional” for the state ozone standard. CH&S Code, section 40925.5 requires the District to

adopt a control measure that will use Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for all

ex isting stationary sources in these areas. RACT is defined as “ the lowest emission limitation

that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology tha t is

reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.”

All Feasible Measures Requirements

California Health and Safety Code

, s ection 40914 requires the District’s plan to demonstrate

that the plan includes “every feasible measure" to co ntrol emissions. All feasible control

measures are those which have the most effective regulatory emissions standards

demonstrated in California’s air districts.

The District has evaluated the standards in the rule against similar requirements rece ntly

adopted by other districts. The District has determined that the standards a re feasible and have

been achieved in practice.

4 .0 PROPOSED RULE REQUIRMENTS

This control measure regulates the volatile organic compound (VOC) content in coatings applied

to stationary structures and their appurtenances (e.g., general use flats, general use non

- flats,

and specialty coatings such as industrial maintenance coatings, lacquers, floor coatings, roof

coatings, stains, etc.). The strategy also regulates th e sale of coatings within the district by

prohibiting manufacturers and suppliers of coatings from selling coatings that do not comply with

the strategy. The existing Rule 3.15

- Architectural Coatings was adopted in June, 1991 and

subsequently amended on Ma y 6, 1996 and November 13, 2002. The amendment in November

2002 adopted CARB’s 2000 SCM for this category. On October 25, 2007, CARB adopted a new

SCM for Architectural Coatings that established lower VOC limits for some coating categories.

The table below shows a comparison between the VOC limits in the current Rule 3.15 and the

new SCM; coating categories that do not have lower VOC limits are not included.

Table 1

– Volatile Organic Compound Limits

C a t e gory 2002 R u l e 3.15 Proposed 2014 R u l e 3.15

(g/l) (g/l)

F la t Coati ng 100 50

Nonf l a t Coati ng 150 100

Nonf l at

- Hi gh Gloss 250 150

Anten na C o at i ng 530 250

Antifou l in g C o a t ings 400 250

Bitumi n ou s R o o f Coati n gs 300 50

Clea r Wo o d C oati n gs:

680 275

Clea r B r ush i n g Lacq u er

Lac q uer s (in c l u di ng lac q ue r s a nd i n g s e alers) 550

### 4 San d in g S ea lers (othe r tha n l acq u e r sa n di ng 350

sea l ers)

Varni s hes 350

Conc r ete/Mas o n r y S ea l e r ( w as W aterproofi ng 400 100

Conc r ete/Mas o n r y S ea l er

Reacti v e Pe n etratin g S e a l er 400 350

D r y F o g C oat in gs 400 150

F ir e Retar d an t Coat i ngs:

650 350

Clear

Opaq ue 350

F loo r C o atings 250 100

F l o w C o atings 420 250

Masti c T extur e Coati n gs 300 100

Primers

, Sea ler s

, an d Un d er c oaters 200 100

Quic k D r y E nam els 250 150

Quic k D r y Pri m ers

, Sealers , U nder c oaters 200 100

Roo f C o ati n gs 250 50

Rus t Preventa t iv e C o atings 400 250

Spec i al t y P r i m ers

, Sealers

, U nder c oaters 350 100

T emperature

- Indi c ato r Safe t y Coati ng 550 420

T r affi c Markin g Coati n gs 150 100



### 5.0 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT

Yuba and Sutter C ounties have a combined population of less than 500,000 persons. The

Required Assessment in subsection (d) of the Ca lifornia Health and Safety Code (Section

40728.5) states

, “T his section does not apply to any district with a population of less than

500,000 persons .” A s ocioeconomic impact analysis is not required.

6.0 EMISSION IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

The baseline for determining emission reductions is the 2004 data from ARB’s

survey 5 

### . For architectural coatings, the 95 tons per day ( tpd ) of statewide VOC emissions are

apportioned to districts based on population. Districts outside of the South Coast

AQMD represent 56 percent of the State’s population which equates to 53 tpd of

VOC emissions, including small containers. This does not inclu de VOC

emissions from cleanup solvents, thinners, or additives.

As shown in Table 2, the proposed SCM is expected to achieve 15.2 tpd in VOC

emission reductions outside of the South Coast AQMD. This represents a

28 percent overall emission s reduction. Tab le 2 only lists categories for which

staff is proposing lower VOC limits. Although there are emission reductions from

19 categories, 95 percent of the emission reductions are from nine categories,

which account for 80 percent of the emissions. These nine c ategories are

highlighted in boldface in Table 2.

5 

### Staff Report for Proposed Amendments to the Suggested Cont rol Measure for Architectural Coatings, September,

2007.

### 5



### Table 2

– VOC Emission Reductions For Categories with Proposed Lower VOC Limits

(Large containers only, excluding the South Coast AQMD)

Coating Category Existing

VOC Limit

(g/l) Proposed

VOC Limit

(g/l) Compl y ing

Marketshare

( % ) Emission

Reductions

(excluding

SCAQMD)

(tons/da y

)

Aluminum Roof 500 400 31 0.19

Bituminous Roof 300 50 90 0.17

Concrete/Masonry Sealer 250

- 400 1 100 41 0.54

Driveway Sealer 100 50 100 0.00

Dry Fog 400 150 42 0.31

Flat 100 50 7 3.12

Floor 250 100 85 0.07

Mastic Texture 300 100 79 0.10

Nonflat

- High Gloss 250 150 28 0.91

Nonflat 150 100 28 2.77 2

Primers

, Sealers

, and

Undercoaters 200 100 36 1.12

Reactive Penetrating Sealer 250

- 400 1 350 93 0.00

Roof 250 50 83 0.07

Rust Pre v entati v e 400 250 3 1.57

Specialt y Primers

, Sealers, and

Undercoaters 350 100 22 2.62

Traffic Marking 150 100 74 0.09

Waterproofing Membranes 250

- 40 0 1 250 68 0.09

Wood Coatings 250

- 680 1 275 50 1.41

Zinc

- Rich Primer 500 340 54 0.01

Total 15.2

1. This is a proposed new category that includes coatings from various categories in the 2000 SCM. The

“Existing VOC Limit” for this category represents the range of VOC limits for the coatings that w ere

combined into this new categor y

. 2. Upon the effective date of this rule, the Fire Retardant coating categories are eliminated and coatings

w ith fire retardant properties w ill be subject to the V O C limit of their primary category (e.g., Flat, Nonflat,

etc.). To estimate emission reductions, it w as assumed that Fire Retardant w ould be classified as

Nonflat w ith a VOC limit of 100 g/l, because the majority of the reported coatings w ere nonflat.

3. Boldface indicates the nine categories that account for 95 percent of the VOC emission reductions.



### 7.0 ESTIMATED COST IMPACT

CH&SC Section 40703 requires the District, in the process of the adoption of any rule or

regulation, to consider and make public its findings related to the cost effectiveness of the rule.

Cost effectiveness for rulemaking purposes is calculated by dividing the cost of air pollution

controls required by the rule by the amount of air pollution reduced.

In this analysis, each proposed limit was analyzed as a separate, stand

- alone regulation. This

means the annual costs and the cost

- effectiveness of each limit is calculated. ARB staff

believes treating each proposed limit as a separate regulation is appropriate since this approach

prevents very cost

- effective limits (e.g., those with large emission reductions coupled with low

### 6



### costs) from “masking” rel atively cost

- ineffective limits. The total cost of the proposed limits is

estimated to be 12.3 million dollars per year in 2007 dollars. As shown in Table 3 , the cost

effectiveness of individual limits ranges from a net savings to a net cost of $13.90 per pound of

VOC reduced. The $13.90 per pound value for Floor Coatings is due to the fact that a large

number of noncomplying products are sold in small volumes. Because the complying market

share for Floor Coatings is 85 percent, many manufacturers have alre ady reformulated their

coatings to meet the proposed VOC limit. Therefore, staff believes that it is appropriate for the

remaining manufacturers to reformulate their products to meet the proposed limit. The overall

average cost

- effectiveness of the propose d limits is estimated to be $1.12 per pound of VOC

reduced. This compares favorably with the cost effectiveness of similar regulations.

Table 3 Cost

- Effectiveness and Maximum Per

- Gallon Cost Increases

Coating Category Indi v idua l Cost

Effecti v eness for

Each Li mi t (Dollars

per Pound VOC

Reduced) Calculated Cost per

Gallo n to Consumers

1 (Dollar s pe r Gallon) Cost Increase Per

Gallo n t o Consumers

(Dollar s pe r Gallon)

Aluminum Roof $0.41 $14.63 $1.16

Bituminous Roof $1.02 $11.84 $6.43

Concrete Masonry Sealer

- $0.36 $14.09

- $0.88

Dry Fog

- $0.52 $34.86

- $3.96

Flat

- $0.69 $17.81

- $0.33

Floor $13.90 $16.96 $27.30

Mastic Texture $2.38 $17.72 $8.61

Non Flat $7.03 $19.44 $4.40

Non Flat High Gloss

- $1.38 $23.96

- $3.39

PSU $2.73 $16.90 $2.51

Roof $1.38 $29.94 $1.95

Rus t Preventative

- $0.46 $30.30

- $2.51

Specialty PSU

- $0.71 $25.19

- $6.32

Traffic Marking $4.76 $14.18 $4.00

Waterproofing Membrane $6.55 $33.38 $17.00

Wood Coatings

- $1.13 $38.70

- $6.34

OVERALL RESULTS Cost

- Effecti v eness ($ Per Lb VOC

Reduced) Cost per Gallon

( $ Pe r Gallon) Cost Increase

( $ Pe r Gallon)

$1.12 $19.20 $1.21

1. Costs per gallon w ere calculated based on raw material costs, and do not necessarily reflect actual retail

prices.



### 8 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE

The amendments to rule 3.15 are categorically exempt from the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15307 and 15308 of the State CEQA Guidelines and no

exceptions to these exemptions apply. This exemption is allowed when the rule will help

improve air quality in Yuba and Sutter County. California Public Resources Code (Section

21159) requires an environmental analysis of the reasonably foreseeable methods of

### 7



### compliance. The District has concluded that no reasonably foreseeable adverse e nvironmental

impacts will be c aused by adoption of the proposed rule.

The proposed Rule 3.15 includes several other requirements which are similar to those found in

existing district architectural coatings rules. These requirements include the following:

 container labeling requirements regarding the date of manufacture, VOC content,

thinning recommendations, and labeling specific to selected coating categories;

 a “painting practices” provision designed to limit VOC emissions from open paint

containers;

 a thinning provision specifying allowable thinning practices; and

 a “sell

- through” provision allowing three years to sell products manufactured prior to the

effective date of a VOC limit

The proposed SCM deletes several provisions included in the 2002 Rule 3.15. They include:

 The 2002 Rule 3.15 specifically prohibited the use of Rust Preventative Coatings for

industrial use, unless they complied with the 250 g/l VOC limit for Industrial Maintenance

Coatings. Since Rust Preventative and Industrial Maintenanc e Coatings have the same

proposed VOC limit, it is no longer necessary to maintain the prohibition provision and it

is proposed for elimination.

 The 2002 Rule 3.15 contained a special provision for Lacquers where a person could

add VOC to a lacquer to avoi d blushing of the finish, if certain conditions were met. In

the proposed SCM, products that were formerly classified as Lacquers would be

included in the new Wood Coatings category and the VOC limit was lowered from 550

g/l to 275 g/l. ARB staff has evalu ated formulations and manufacturer information for

Lacquers that comply with the proposed 275 g/l limit and staff has determined that the

lacquer blushing provision is no longer necessary. Therefore, it has been proposed for

elimination.

 The 2002 Rule 3.15 contained an averaging compliance option, which expired in 2005

and was administered by ARB staff. Based on staff’s experience with the averaging

program, we believe that many districts do not have sufficient resources to manage an

averaging program. In a ddition, while averaging is a viable option for a few large

businesses, it is difficult for small businesses to participate because they have fewer

products. Therefore, ARB staff does not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to

include an averaging program in the proposed SCM. ARB staff has worked extensively

with stakeholders to develop categories and VOC limits that are technologically feasible,

without the need for an averaging program.

 Annual reports have been deleted for the following: Clear Bru shing Lacquers; Rust

Preventative Coatings; Specialty Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters; Toxic Exempt

Compounds (perchloroethylene and methylene chloride); Recycled Coatings;

Bituminous Roof Coatings; and Bituminous Roof Primers.

 In the proposed SCM, the test method has been deleted for determining drying times,

because the Quick Dry categories have been proposed for elimination and there is no

need to verify drying times. In addition, the test method for determining surface

chalkiness has been deleted, be cause chalkiness has been removed from the criteria in

the Specialty Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters category.

### 8



### 9 .0 REQUIRED FINDINGS

The California Health and Safety Code, 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 has

been revised through legislative mandate to contain 6 findings that the District must make when

developing, amending, or repealing a rule. These findings and their definitions are listed in the

following table.

Table 4: Required Findings

FINDING DEFINITION REFERENCE

Authority A district shall adopt rules and

regulations and do such acts as may

be necessary or proper to execute the

powers and duties granted to, and

imposed upon, the district by this

division and other statutory provisions California Health and Safety Code,

Sections 40000, 40001, and 40702 are

provisions of law that provide air

districts with the authority to adopt these

proposed rules.

Necessity The District has demonstrated that a

need for the rule, or for rule

amendment or repeal. It is necessary for districts to adopt

these amendments to comply with state

law and to ensure consistency with

neighboring air districts.

Clarity The rule is written or displayed so that

its meaning can easily be understood

by the persons directly affected by it There is no indication, at this time, that

the proposed rules are written in such a

manner that it cannot be easily

understood by persons affected by the

rule.

C onsistency This rule is in harmony with, and not

in conflict with or contradictory to,

existing statutes, court decisions, or

State or federal regulations. These rules are consistent with

applicable statutory requirements.

Non

Duplication The rule does no t impose the same

requirements as an existing State or

federal regulation, unless the District

finds that the requirements are

necessary and proper to execute the

powers and duties granted to, and

imposed upon, the district The proposed rule does not impos e

requirements that duplicate existing

laws or regulations.

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. The proposed rule has been developed

to meet the requirements of the 2003

State Implementation Plan.

### 9



### 10.0 Rule Analysis



## California Health & Safety Code, section 40727.2 requires a written analysis comparing

the proposed rules with existing federal regulations, state regulation, and any other

AQMD existing or proposed rules and regulations that apply to the same source type.

Comparison of Proposed Rule 3.15 and

Feather River AQMD Rules and Regulations

District Rules and Regulations Does proposed

rule conflict or

contradict any

provisions?

Regulation 1

– General Provisions No

Regulation 2

– Open Burning No

Regulation 3

– Prohibition

– Stationary Emission Sources No

Regulation 4

– Stationary Emission Sources Permit System

and Registration No

Regulation 5

– Hearing Board Procedures No

Regulation 6

– Variances No

Regulation 7

– Fees No

Regulation 8

– Penalties and Abatement No

Regulation 9

– Enforcement Procedures No

Regulation 10

– New Source Review No

Regulation 11

– State Airborne Toxic Control Measure No

Comparison of Proposed Rules and other Federal and State Regulations

There are no existing federal or state regulations regarding the use of architectural

coatings that would be in conflict with or are contradictory to the proposed rules. The

proposed rule is adopting the same definitions and VOC limits as the Suggested Control

Measure adopted by the Air Resources Board on October 26, 2007.

### 10



### 11.0 REFERENCES

Sacramento Regional 8

- H our Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, M arch

26, 2009

Sacramento Regional 8

- Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Furt her Progress Plan

Appendices (With Errata Sheets and 2011 SIP Revisions Incorporated), November 10, 2011

Santa Barbara AQMD, Project Description Summary, Rule 323.1, March 7, 2014

Air Resources Board, Staff Report for Proposed Amendments to the Suggested Control

Measure for Ar chitectural Coatings, (ARB, September 2007)

Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document for Proposed Amendments to the

Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings, (ARB, September 2007)