STAFF REPORT FOR PROPOSED RULE REVISIONS 

RULE 214: PHASE I VAPOR RECOVERY REQUIREMENTS 

RULE 215: PHASE II VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS 

RULE 228: SURFACE COATING OF METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS 

Prepared by Northern Sierra AQMD Staff, December, 2009 

Date for Public Hearing: February 22, 2010 

Date for Rule Adoption: February 22, 2010 (Unless comments received at public 

hearing necessitate significant modification) 

INTRODUCTION 

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

214, 215 and 228 in fulfillment of requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology 

(RACT) under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). 

BACKGROUND 

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

non-attainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Accordingly, the CAA mandates that western Nevada County develop and 

implement an attainment plan in order to attain the NAAQS by the earliest practicable date. One 

of the requirements in the CAA is that ozone non-attainment areas must adopt Reasonably 

Available Control Measures for ozone precursors including, at a minimum, RACT for specific 

categories of sources within their jurisdiction. Ozone precursors are oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 

and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The proposed rule revisions address VOC emissions. 

EPA has published numerous RACT guidance documents. Most importantly, EPA issues 

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) documents for specific source categories. These CTGs 

establish EPA’s interpretation of minimum RACT. Section 182(b)(2)(A) requires areas that 

have been designated as federal ozone non-attainment areas to adopt rules meeting RACT for 

VOC control. Based on federal guidance and communications with EPA, the NSAQMD 

believes the proposed rules satisfy federal requirements for RACT for the subject emission 

source categories. 

All three of the rules proposed for revision were identified by EPA as failing to fully meet 

RACT, and are being revised in order to meet federal requirements for inclusion in California’s 

State Implementation Plan (SIP), as required under the CAA. Failure to adopt rules meeting 

RACT can result in federal sanctions including withholding of federal highway dollars and 

increased emission offset requirements for local, major emission sources. 

Staff Report for Amendments to Rules 214, 215 and 228 Page 1 
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RULE REVISIONS, INCLUDING POTENTIAL IMPACTS 

TO AFFECTED SOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT 

RULE 214: PHASE I VAPOR RECOVERY REQUIREMENTS

Phase I requirements apply to gasoline delivery and storage tanks at gas stations. The existing 

Rule 214 (adopted 12-15-1988 and amended 3-26-2007) was reviewed by EPA and some 

shortcomings were identified. Specifically, EPA communicated to the NSAQMD that the rule 

should contain a “definitions” paragraph; a requirement for daily inspection of vapor recovery 

equipment for defects; a reference to the specific section of the California Code of Regulations 

that lists defects; a requirement for initial and annual verifications of equipment via performance 

tests; a list of test methods; and a 2-year recordkeeping provision for performance tests and 

gasoline throughput. EPA indicated that although the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

has issued Executive Orders that may include such provisions, these Orders are not in the State 

SIP, which means that they need to be included in the CAA-required rules for individual air 

districts. EPA recommended using Sacramento’s vapor recovery rule as a model, which is what 

the NSAQMD has done in the proposed Rule. The proposed rule revision addresses the issues 

identified by EPA in order to meet RACT requirements. A draft of the Rule was reviewed by 

ARB and EPA, and comments from these agencies were incorporated. Further, the Rule has 

been reorganized in order to be more easily understood.

RULE 215: PHASE II VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

Phase II requirements apply to vehicle fueling at gas stations. The existing Rule 215 (adopted 

12-15-1988 and amended 3-26-2007) was reviewed by EPA and some shortcomings were 

identified. Specifically, EPA communicated to the NSAQMD that the rule should contain a 

requirement for daily inspection of vapor recovery equipment for defects; a reference to the 

specific section of the California Code of Regulations that lists defects; a requirement for initial 

and annual verifications of equipment via performance tests; a list of test methods; and a 2-year 

recordkeeping provision for performance tests and gasoline throughput. EPA indicated that 

although the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has issued Executive Orders that may 

include such provisions, these Orders are not in the State SIP, which means that they need to be 

included in the CAA-required rules for individual air districts. EPA recommended using 

Sacramento’s vapor recovery rule as a model, which is what the NSAQMD has done in the 

proposed Rule. The proposed rule revision addresses the issues identified by EPA in order to 

meet RACT requirements. A draft of the Rule was reviewed by ARB and EPA, and comments 

from these agencies were incorporated. Further, the Rule has been reorganized in order to be 

more easily understood.

RULE 228: SURFACE COATING OF METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS 

This proposed Rule revision applies to businesses that coat (with paint or other coatings) metal 

parts and products. The existing Rule 228 (adopted 11-27-06 and submitted to EPA in June, 

2007) was based on EPA’s 1978 CTG for Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products. 

However, in 2008 EPA issued a CTG titled “Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings,” 

which covers the same types of sources as the 1978 CTG plus additional types of sources, 

contains more stringent requirements than the 1978 CTG, applies to a wider range of coatings, 

and also addresses solvent usage. 

Staff Report for Amendments to Rules 214, 215 and 228 Page 2 
Existing Rule 228 was reviewed by EPA in July, 2009. EPA identified several inadequacies in 

the Rule based on the 2008 CTG and communicated these to the NSAQMD, stating that the rule 

could be granted partial approval and entered into the SIP as inadequate (meaning that changes 

would still have to be made and submitted as a RACT Revision before the RACT SIP could be 

approved), or that the NSAQMD could correct the identified rule deficiencies and submit it to 

EPA in order to avoid the partial approval. This second option is preferred by the NSAQMD 

because various demonstrations would have to be made and more paperwork done to revise a 

rule that has received partial federal approval, complicating the process. Thus, the proposed rule 

revision here addresses the issues identified by EPA in order to meet RACT requirements. 

The only business in the District that this rule is anticipated to affect is Serra Corporation, off of 

Bitney Springs Road. The NSAQMD consulted with Serra Corporation during the process of 

revising this Rule. Most of the coatings Serra currently uses comply with the standards in the 

proposed revision. Serra would have to change a few coatings. Coating suppliers and 

manufacturers in California and other parts of the nation have already developed, and continue to 

develop, adequate substitutes largely in response to ozone nonattainment requirements. The 

revision would provide for an annual emission reduction of approximately 1/4 ton per year of 

VOCs. Also, any future metal parts and products coating businesses with VOC emissions of 2.7 

tons per year or more in the non-attainment area would be subject to the rule. 

Numerous minor changes were made in revising Rule 228 in the interest of clarity, simplicity 

and usability. In addition, the following substantial changes were made. 

The revised Rule includes alternative methods of compliance in the event that a source chooses 

to install VOC capture and control equipment. Specifically, the revised Rule includes a table 

based on VOC (mass) to solids (volume) ratios and an option of using capture and control 

technologies to achieve an overall control efficiency of at least 90%. 

The revised Rule uses an annual applicability threshold with a monthly recordkeeping 

requirement (a system currently in use by Serra) rather than a daily threshold as in the original 

Rule, consistent with EPA guidance, with the result being a simpler applicability determination 

system and recordkeeping requirements that achieve the same results (therefore being no less 

stringent). Requiring daily recordkeeping of all VOC-containing substance usage is an 

unnecessary burden on sources. 

VOC content limits for some categories of coatings were lowered and VOC content requirements 

for solvents are established in the revised Rule, as required to meet RACT. ARB provided input 

on a draft version of the revised Rule. In addition to suggested definition changes (which were 

incorporated with corrected spelling), ARB’s analysis essentially supplements the federal CTG’s 

determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology by lowering VOC content limits of 

certain coating categories based on available, in-use coatings and rules adopted by other air 

districts. The proposed revision follows the State’s RACT interpretation for some of these 

coating categories (which are not currently in use by the NSAQMD’s single source that is 

subject to the Rule), except for cases in which ARB’s analysis is incorrect. ARB erroneously 

stated that Yolo-Solano’s and Sacramento’s rules include lower limits for “general use, onecomponent” and both categories of “prefabricated architectural” coatings, whereas those 

Staff Report for Amendments to Rules 214, 215 and 228 Page 3 
districts’ rules in fact incorporate the same limits as the proposed revision and the CTG; these 

have been retained in the final draft revision. Also, ARB stated that Yolo-Solano has 

implemented a VOC content limit of 25 grams/liter for cleaning solvents. In fact, Yolo-Solano’s 

applicable rule incorporates a limit of 50 grams/liter along with responsible work practices until 

2011, at which time it drops to 25 grams/liter and the rule, including required work practices, 

ceases to apply, potentially resulting in increased VOC emissions. The NSAQMD believes this 

approach is inconsistent with RACT, and was possibly a rule development oversight. 

Consequently, the proposed revision requires responsible work practices in addition to the 

federally recommended 25 grams/liter VOC content limit for solvents. The proposed revision 

also includes limits from the CTG for “extreme performance” coatings, whereas the Sacramento 

and Yolo-Solano air districts’ rules include limits that are less stringent than those in the CTG, 

making the proposed revision more stringent than Sacramento’s and Yolo-Solano’s rules in this 

respect. 

An exemption for up to 55 gallons per year of non-compliant coatings was added in revising the 

Rule, consistent with federal guidance contained in an August 10, 1990 EPA memorandum from 

G.T. Helms, Chief of EPA’s Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch to Chief, Air Branch, 

Regions I-X on the subject, “Exemption for Low-Use Coatings.” 

In revising Rule 228, the “Prohibition of Sale” subsection was removed because it was confusing 

and unenforceable. Formerly, it stated, “3.6 Prohibition of Sale: No person shall offer for sale 

or sell within the District any coating if such product is prohibited by any provisions of this Rule. 

This prohibition shall apply to sale of any coating to be applied at any physical location within 

the District.” Since the Rule only applies (aside from recordkeeping requirements) to sources 

emitting 2.7 tons or more of VOC per year, the only way a product that is prohibited by the rule 

could be sold would be if it were sold to a source emitting at least that threshold quantity, and it 

would be both unreasonable and unenforceable to specify that certain products which are 

available for general sale to the public cannot be sold to certain individuals or businesses. 

The method for determining capture and control efficiency has been updated in the proposed 

Rule, in order to rely on a more widely known and accepted test method. Measurements obtained 

via the proposed method and the previous method are expected to be essentially the same. 

The test method for determining acid content was updated from the 1985 ASTM D1613 to the 

2006 ASTM D1613. The metallic/iridescent topcoat quantification method was also revised to 

reflect a more current method. 

Negative Declaration for Coating of Plastic Parts and New Heavier Vehicles 

The 2008 CTG addresses coating of plastic parts and new “heavier vehicles” (as defined in 

40CFR Section 63.3176) as well as coating of metal parts and products. However, the 

NSAQMD does not have any sources that coat plastic parts or heavier vehicles and approach or 

exceed the CTG’s recommended applicability thresholds (15 pounds per day VOC emissions, 2.7 

tons per rolling 12-month period or approximately two gallons of solvent evaporation per day). 

This determination was made based on interviews with sources and an examination of the 

emissions inventory. Therefore, these types of sources are not addressed in the proposed Rule 

Staff Report for Amendments to Rules 214, 215 and 228 Page 4 
amendment. If, in the future, such sources locate in the District, the Rule will be modified in 

accordance with the CTG, pursuant to federal RACT requirements. 

AUTHORITY AND RULE ADOPTION REQUIREMENTS

The District is authorized to regulate sources of air pollutants by 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 rules, with the possible 

exception that Serra Corporation may have to change some of the coatings it uses on metal parts 

and products. The NSAQMD has discussed this with Serra Corporation. It is not known if the 

new coatings will cost more or less than the coatings currently in use. There may be some time 

involved in finding and switching to appropriate alternative coatings. However, since the major 

coating suppliers in California are familiar with low VOC emission standards throughout the 

State (many of which are lower than the standards in the proposed rule because of historical nonattainment reclassifications), it is not anticipated that finding suitable alternatives will be 

difficult. 

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

guidelines. 

The California Health and Safety Code requires the District 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 non-attainment area. 

Clarity The regulation is written or displayed so 

that its meaning can be easily 

The proposed rules are written in such 

a manner that they can be easily 

Staff Report for Amendments to Rules 214, 215 and 228 Page 5 
understood by the persons directly 

affected by it. 

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. 

Staff Report for Amendments to Rules 214, 215 and 228 Page 6