STAFF REPORT

Rule 3.15: Architectural Coatings

Date of Release: July 3, 2014

Schedule of Meetings

Rule Changes Workshop: July 16, 2014

Public Hearing: August 4, 2014
STAFF REPORT 

Date 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. Proposed Rule Requirements........................................................................ 3

5. Socioeconomic Impact................................................................................... 4

6. Impacts of the Proposed 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 administers

local, state, and federal air quality management programs 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 precursors. 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 (VOCs) react with nitrogen oxides (NOx) in 

the presence of sunlight, 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 well as cardiovascular diseases. VOC 

reductions are necessary to attain and maintain the state ambient air quality standards for 

ozone.

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

northern 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 reductions 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 part 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 safe 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 

ozone1. 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 committed 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 reductions2. On the state level, 

the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires the District to develop a plan to achieve 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

The EPA’s final 8-hour ozone implementation rule3(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 

and to meet any reasonable further progress requirements.” EPA’s RACM policy4indicates 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 section 40913 of California 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 state ozone 

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

 

1 Map of nonattainment area: http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/1997standards/areamaps/Sacramento.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 Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for all existing 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 

economic impacts by each class or category of source.

Yuba County and the northern area of Sutter County are designated as “nonattainmenttransitional” 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 

existing 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 that is 

reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.”

All Feasible Measures Requirements

California Health and Safety Code, section 40914 requires the District’s plan to demonstrate 

that the plan includes “every feasible measure" to control 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 recently 

adopted by other districts. The District has determined that the standards are 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 the 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 May 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

Category 2002 Rule 3.15 Proposed 2014 Rule 3.15

(g/l) (g/l)

Flat Coating 100 50

Nonflat Coating 150 100

Nonflat-High Gloss 250 150

Antenna Coating 530 250

Antifouling Coatings 400 250

Bituminous Roof Coatings 300 50

Clear Wood Coatings:

680

275

Clear Brushing Lacquer

Lacquers (including lacquer sanding sealers) 550
4

Sanding Sealers (other than lacquer sanding 350

sealers)

Varnishes 350

Concrete/Masonry Sealer (was Waterproofing 400 100

Concrete/Masonry Sealer

Reactive Penetrating Sealer 400 350

Dry Fog Coatings 400 150

Fire Retardant Coatings:

650

350

Clear

Opaque 350

Floor Coatings 250 100

Flow Coatings 420 250

Mastic Texture Coatings 300 100

Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters 200 100

Quick Dry Enamels 250 150

Quick Dry Primers, Sealers, Undercoaters 200 100

Roof Coatings 250 50

Rust Preventative Coatings 400 250

Specialty Primers, Sealers, Undercoaters 350 100

Temperature-Indicator Safety Coating 550 420

Traffic Marking Coatings 150 100

5.0 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT 

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

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

40728.5) states, “This section does not apply to any district with a population of less than 

500,000 persons.” A socioeconomic 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

survey5. 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 include 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 emissions reduction. Table 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 categories are

highlighted in boldface in Table 2.

 

5

Staff Report for Proposed Amendments to the Suggested Control 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)

Complying 

Marketshare 

(%)

Emission 

Reductions 

(excluding 

SCAQMD)

(tons/day)

Aluminum Roof 500 400 31 0.19

Bituminous Roof 300 50 90 0.17

Concrete/Masonry Sealer 250-4001100 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 2.772

Primers, Sealers, and 

Undercoaters

200 100 36 1.12

Reactive Penetrating Sealer 250-4001350 93 0.00

Roof 250 50 83 0.07

Rust Preventative 400 250 3 1.57

Specialty Primers, Sealers, and

Undercoaters

350 100 22 2.62

Traffic Marking 150 100 74 0.09

Waterproofing Membranes 250-400

1

250 68 0.09

Wood Coatings 250-6801275 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 were

combined into this new category.

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

with fire retardant properties will be subject to the VOC limit of their primary category (e.g., Flat, Nonflat,

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

Nonflat with a VOC limit of 100 g/l, because the majority of the reported coatings were 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” relatively 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 costeffectiveness 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 already 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 proposed 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

Individual CostEffectiveness for 

Each Limit (Dollars 

per Pound VOC 

Reduced)

Calculated Cost per 

Gallon to Consumers

1

(Dollars per Gallon)

Cost Increase Per 

Gallon to Consumers 

(Dollars per 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

Rust 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-Effectiveness 

($ Per Lb VOC 

Reduced)

Cost per Gallon 

($ Per Gallon)

Cost Increase 

($ Per Gallon)

$1.12 $19.20 $1.21

1. Costs per gallon were 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 environmental 

impacts will be caused 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 Maintenance 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 avoid 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 evaluated 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 addition, 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 Brushing 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, because 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.

Consistency 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.

NonDuplicationThe rule does not 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 impose 

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-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, March 

26, 2009

Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further 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 Architectural Coatings, (ARB, September 2007)

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

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