Yolo

- Solano Air Quality Management District

1947 Galileo Court, Suite 103

Davis, CA 95616

(530)757

- 3650

www.ysaqmd.org

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO

RULE 1.1, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS

FINAL STAFF REPORT

June 2 2 , 20 15

Prepared by: Paul Hensleigh

phensleigh@ysaqmd.orgTable of Contents Page

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

A. BACKGROUND

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

II. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED RULE 1.1 AMENDMENTS

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

III. COMPARISON TO OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

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

IV. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

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

V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF METHODS OF COMPLIANCE

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

VI. REGULATORY FINDINGS

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

VII. PUBLI C COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES

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

VIII. REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 7

ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 1. 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND

DEFINITIONS ; STRIKE

- OUT UNDERLINE VERSION

ATTACHMENT B NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA GUIDELINES

ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION NO. 1 5

- 06Final Staff Report

– Rule 1.1 June 2 2 , 2015

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On July 8 , 20 1 5 , the Yolo

- Solano Air Quality Management District (District) Board of Director = s will

consider the proposed amendment to Rule 1.1 , G ENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS

. Rule 1.1 contains the basic framework by which the District is able to execute the powers and duties

granted to and imposed upon it by the California Health and Safety Code and other statutory provisions.

Rule 1.1 was originally adopted by the District as Regulation I, on October 1, 1971, and has been

amended several times since. The District is proposing to update the definition of exempt compound

to include organic compounds the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has

determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity. These compounds are listed in Title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations Part 51.100 (4 0 CFR 51.100).

Rule 1.1 will be revised to update the list of exempt compounds in section 219, c onsistent with

c ompounds exempted by the US EPA . The following compounds will be added to the list of exempt

compounds :

1

. 

### 2,3,3,3

- tetr afluoropropene (HFO

- 1234yf);

2. Trans

- 1

- chloro

- 3,3,3

- trifluoroprop

- 1

- ene (HFO

- 1233zd(E)); and

3. 2

- Amino

- 2

- methyl

- 1

- propanol (AMP);

The proposed amendment s will have neither a significant n or a detrimental effect on the environment.

Therefore, staff prep ared a Notice of Exemption to satisfy the requirements of the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The notice states that the revisions to Rule 1.1 are exempt from

the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection

of the Environment.

A. BACKGROUND

History

Rule 1.1 was originally adopted by the District as Regulation I, on October 1, 1971. Minor

amendments were made to Regulation I, in 1974, 1980, 1985, 1986, and 1988. These amendments

primarily a dded or changed definitions contained in Rule 1.2. In 1988, Rule 1.8, concerning

administrative penalty settlements, was added to the Regulation.

In 1993, Regulation I was completely revised. The District was required to amend the rule at this time

due to changes in federal law, and a change in the District = s name. In addition, the District amended

the definitions and changed the format of the Rule. Rule 1.1, G ENERAL PROVISIONS AND

DEFINITIONS replaced Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, & 1.6, previously separate rules.

The rule was amended again in 1997 to change the definition of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) to

be consistent with California Air Resources Board (ARB) and US EPA policy. The rule was amended

in 2005 to reorder and add some exempt compounds (methyl acetate, methyl formate,

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)

, Hyrdrofluorocarbons(HFCs) , and Hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) )

and correct a few definitions (hearing board, nonreactive organic compounds, and standard

temperature). The rule was amended in 2008 to add a few definitions ( Air Pollution Control Officer,

American Society of Testing Methods, California Air Resources Board, and United States

Environmental Protecti on Agency )

. The rule was amended in 2013 to add 8 more exempt compounds

to the definition of VOC.

Page 3Final Staff Report

– Rule 1.1 June 2 2 , 2015

Overview of source category

As this rule applies to all the rules and regulations of the District, there is no one source category that is

affected by this rule. The proposed amendments to the rule can affect any source or potential source

using or intending to use compounds considered by the US EPA to be exempt as a VOC, that are not yet

considered to be exempt by District Rule 1.1.

District Rule 1.1 defin es VOC as any compound containing carbon except exempt compounds as

defined in Section 214. By this definition, compounds are considered a VOC until they are

specifically excluded. Therefore it is necessary to update Rule 1.1 when new compounds have been

sufficiently studied and determined to be exempt.

VOCs are significant to air quality because they are considered a precursor to ozone. The potential

contribution that each VOC makes to ozone formation depends on its photochemical reactivity.

Photochem ical reactivity measures a compound ’ s tendency to participate in photochemical reactions in

the atmosphere in ways that contribute to ozone formation.

The US EPA defines VOC in 40 CFR 51.100 to include any compound of carbon participating in

atmospheric p hotochemical reactions that is not specifically exempted. The regulations include a list

of compound s explicitly exempted from regulation as VOCs. There is a short list of compounds such

as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, which have not historically been regulated as VOCs, as well as

a longer list of compounds that the EPA has classified as A negligibly reactive @

. These are compounds

that

, based on studies

, have been demonstrated to not contribute significantly to ozone formation. This

list is establ ished and modified by regulation.

II. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED RULE 1.1 AMENDMENTS

The proposed amendments to Rule 1.1 are as follows:

Section 200 Definitions

The definition of exempt compound has been amended. Three compounds (listed above) are being

added to the list consistent with compounds the US EPA have determined to be exempt as listed in 40

CFR 51.100.

III. COMPARISON WITH OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

Health and Safety Code Section 40727.2 requires districts to prepare a wri tten analysis (usually in the

form of a matrix) that identifies all existing federal air pollution control requirements, including, but not

limited to

, emission control standards constituting best available control technology (BACT) that appl y

to the same equipment or source type as the rule or regulation proposed for adoption or modification by

the District. In addition, the analysis shall identify any other District rule or regulation that applies to

the same equipment or source type. This amendments pr oposed are administrative in nature, so the

specified elements (e.g. averaging provisions, operating parameters, monitoring, etc...) are not

applicable.

IV. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Emissions Impacts

This is an administrative rule and does not have a direct impact on emissions.

Page 4Final Staff Report

– Rule 1.1 June 2 2 , 2015

Cost Effectiveness

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 effectiven ess for rulemaking purposes is calculated by dividing the cost of air pollution controls required by the rule

by the amount of air pollution reduced. The amendments to this rule will not directly impact emissions

and therefore cost effectiveness calculati ons cannot be performed.

Socioeconomic Impacts

California Health and Safety Code Section 40728.5 (a) requires the District, in the process of the

adoption of any rule or regulation, to consider the socioeconomic impact if air quality or emission limits

m ay be significantly affected. However, districts with a population of less than 500,000 persons are

exempt from the provisions of Section 40728.5 (a). The District = s population is estimated to be

approximately 310,000 and well below the 500,000 person threshold. Therefore, a socioeconomic

analysis for this rulemaking is not required.

Incremental Cost Effectiveness

CH&SC Section 40920.6 requires an assessment of th e incremental cost

- effectiveness for proposed

regulations relative to ozone, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Oxides (SOx), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx),

and their precursors. Incremental cost

- effectiveness is defined as the difference in control costs

divided by th e difference in emission reductions between two potential control options that can achieve

the same emission reduction goal of a regulation. The proposed amendments are for an administrative

rule and therefore, no incremental cost

- effectiveness analysis c an be done.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF METHODS OF COMPLIANCE

California Public Resource Code Section 21159 requires the District to perform an environmental

analysis of the reasonably foreseeable methods of compliance. The analysis must include the

following information:

1. An analysis of the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the methods of

compliance.

2. An analysis of the reasonably foreseeable mitigation measures.

3. An analysis of the reasonably foreseeable alternative means of c ompliance with the rule or

regulation.

This is an administrative rule and does not have direct impact on emissions. Therefore, an evaluation

under this section cannot be performed.

This rule is an administrative rule and the proposed amendments will hav e neither a significant nor a

detrimental effect on the environment or humans due to unusual circumstances. In addition, the

proposed amendment is considered to be an action taken to maintain and protect the environment.

Therefore, staff has determined t hat the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory

Agencies for Protection of the Environment. Staff prepared a Notice of Exemption (NOE) to mee t the

CEQA Guidelines (Attachment B).

Page 5Final Staff Report

– Rule 1.1 June 2 2 , 2015

VI. REGULATORY FINDINGS

Section 40727(a) of the California Health & Safety Code (H&SC) requires that prior to adopting or

amending a rule or regulation, an air district = s board make findings of necessity, authority, clarity,

consistency, nonduplication, and reference. The findings must be based on the following:

1. Information presented in the District = s written analysis, prepared pursuant to H&SC Section

40727.2;

2. Information contained in the rulemaking records pursuant to H&SC Section 40728; and

3. Relevant information presented at the Board = s hearing for adoption of the rule.

The required findings are:

Necessity: The rule amendment is necessary in order to be consistent with US EPA = s definitions of

compounds exempt as VOCs. The amendment will prevent unnecessary permitting and control costs

for sources, poten tial sources

, and the District.

Authority: The District is authorized to adopt rules and regulations by California Health and Safety

Code, Sections 40001, 40702, 40716, 41010 and 41013. (H&SC Section 40727 (b)(2)).

Clarity: District staff have reviewed the proposed rule and determined that it can be easily understood

by the affected industry. In addition, the record contains n o evidence that the persons directly affected

by the rule cannot understand the rule. (H&SC Section 40727(b)(3)).

Consistency: The proposed rule does not conflict with

, and is not contradictory to, existing statutes,

court decisions, or state or federal r egulations. (H&SC Section 40727(b)(4)).

Non

- Duplication: The proposed rule does not duplicate any state laws or regulations regarding the

attainment and maintenance of state and federal air quality limits. (H&SC Section 40727(b)(5)).

Reference : Th is rule revision implements the provisions of 40 CFR 51.100

.

VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES

S ince the revisions to this rule are very minor, and not controversial, the District did not hold a public

workshop to discuss revisions to the rule. The District will hold a public hearing on July 8 , 20 1 5 , to

consider adoption of the proposed amendment to Rule 1.1. Notification w as sent to surrounding Air

Districts, City Managers within the District, building/plannin g/community development departments

within the YSAQMD, all city and county libraries within the District, and all Board members. The

public hearing notice w as published in the Vacaville Reporter, Woodland Democrat, and the Davis

Enterprise on June 5, 2015

.

The District received a letter of support for this revision from the American Coatings Association and a

‘no comment’ letter from US EPA.

A copy of the public hearing notice, the final staff report, and final rule language, were posted on the

District = s web page prior to the public hearing

.

Page 6Final Staff Report

– Rule 1.1 June 2 2 , 2015

VIII. REFERENCES

Federal Code of Regulations, Title 40, Part 51.100.

Page 7ATTACHMENT A

PROPOSED RULE 1.1, GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS

STRIKE

- OUT UNDERLINE VERSIONATTACHMENT B

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA GUIDELINESNotice of Exemption

To: G Office of Planning and Research

1400 Tenth Street, Room 121

Sacramento, CA 95814

 County Clerk G County Clerk

County of Yolo Solano County

625 Court Street Room 105 600 Texas Street

Woodland, CA 95695 Fairfield, CA 94533

From: Yolo

- Solano Air Quality Management District

1947 Galileo Court, Suite 103

Davis, CA 95618

Project Title: Revision of Rule 1.1

- G ENERAL P ROVISIONS AND D EFINITIONS

Project Location: Yolo

- Solano Air Quality Management District

Project description: The District is proposing to amend Rule 1.1, G ENERAL P ROVISIONS AND D EFINITIONS

. The District is proposing to update the definition of exempt compound to include

organic compounds the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has

determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity. These comp ounds are listed in

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51.100 (40 CFR 51.100).

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: Yolo

- Solano Air Quality Management District

Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Yolo

- Solano Air Quality Manage ment District

Exempt Status:

G Ministerial

G Emergency Project

 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Action by Regulatory Agency for

Protection of the Environment)

G Statutory Exemption

Reason why project is exempt: The revision of Rule 1.1 is an action taken to maintain and protect the

environment and is therefore exempt from CEQA because it

constitutes a Class 8 categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA

Guidelines 15308.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Mat Ehrhardt, Air Pollution Control Offi cer

Telephone Number: (530) 757

- 3650

Signature: Date: Title:Notice of Exemption

To: G Office of Planning and Research

1400 Tenth Street, Room 121

Sacramento, C A 95814

G County Clerk  County Clerk

County of Yolo Solano County

625 Court Street Room 105 600 Texas Street

Woodland, CA 95695 Fairfield, CA 94533

From: Yolo

- Solano Air Quality Management District

1947 Galileo Court, Suite 103

Davis, CA 95618

Project Title: Revision of Rule 1.1

- G ENERAL P ROVISIONS AND D EFINITIONS

Project Location: Yolo

- Solano Air Quality Management District

Project description: The District is proposing to amend Rule 1.1, G ENERAL P ROVISIONS AND D EFINITIONS

. The District is proposing to update the definition of exempt compound to include

organic compounds the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has

determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity. These compounds are listed in

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51.100 (40 CFR 51.100).

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: Yolo

- Solano Air Quality Management District

Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Yolo

- Solano Air Quality Management District

Exempt Status:

G Ministerial

G Emergency Project

 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Action by Regulatory Agency for

Protection of the Environment)

G Statutory Exemption

Reason why project is exempt: The revision of Rule 1.1 is an action taken to maint ain and protect the

environment and is therefore exempt from CEQA because it

constitutes a Class 8 categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA

Guidelines 15308.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Mat Ehrhardt, Air Pollution Control Officer

Telephone Number: (530) 7 57

- 3650

Signature: Date: Title:ATTACHMENT C

RESOLUTION NO. 1 5

- 06RESOLUTION NO. 1 5

- 06

RESOLUTION AMENDING YOLO

- SOLANO AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RULE 1.1

WHEREAS , California Health and Safety Code section 40702 provides that an air quality

management district shall adopt rules and regulations as may be necessary or proper to execute the powers and

duties granted to, and imposed upon, the distric t by Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code; and

WHEREAS , Health and Safety Code section 40727 provides that before adopting, amending, or

repealing a rule or regulation, a district board shall make findings of necessity, authority, clarity, consistenc y,

nonduplication, and reference, based upon information developed pursuant to section 40727.2, information in

the rulemaking record maintained pursuant to section 40728, and relevant information presented at the public

hearing required by section 40725; a nd

WHEREAS , section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that actions taken by regulatory agencies

as authorized by state law to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of the environment where the

regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment, are categorically exempt from CEQA

review (Class 8 Categorical Exemption); and

WHEREAS , District staff identified definitions within Rule 1.1, General Provision and Definitions

which required updating for consistency with fe deral and state policy.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Yolo

- Solano Air

Quality Management District hereby finds, authorizes, directs and declares as follows:

1. The Board of Directors has considered an d hereby adopts by reference the staff report prepared

in this matter.

2. The Board of Directors makes the following findings pursuant to Health and Safety Code

section 40727:

a. Necessity: Information in the District = s rulemaking reco rd maintained pursuant to

Health and Safety Code section 40728 demonstrates a need for amending District Rule

1.1;

b. Authority: Health and Safety Code section 40702 permits the District to amend District

Rule 1.1;

c. Clarity: District Rule 1.1 as amended is written so that its meaning can be easily

understood by the persons directly affected by it;

d. Consistency: District Rule 1.1 as amended is in harmony with, and not in conflict with

or contradictory to, existi ng statutes, court decisions, or state or federal regulations;

e. Nonduplication: District Rule 1.1 as amended does not impose the same requirementsas an existing state or federal regulation;

f. Reference: By adopting District Rule 1.1, the District implements the provisions of 40

CFR 51.100

.

3. The Board of Directors finds that the District has complied with the procedural requirements

set forth in Chapters 6 and 6.5 of Part 3 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code.

4. The Board of Directors finds that amending District Rule 1.1 is an action taken by a regulatory

agency as authorized by state law to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of the

environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the

environment, and is therefore categorically exempt from CEQA review as a Class 8

Categorical Exemption.

5. The Board of Directors hereby amends District Rule 1.1, General Provisions and Definitions,

as se t forth in Exhibit 1 (Attachment A of the Staff Report), which is attached and incorporated

by reference. The amendment is effective July 8 , 20 1 5

.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Yolo

- Solano Air Quality Management

District this 8 th da y of July , 201 5 , by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

____________________________________ Harold Anderson , Chair

Board of Directors

Yolo

- Solano Air Quality Management District

Attest: Approved as to Form:

__________________________ ______________________________ Denise Almaguer , Clerk Hope Welton, District Counsel

Board of Directors