PLACER COUNTY

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

STAFF REPORT

RULE 234

AUTOMOTIVE REFINISHING OPERATIONS

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS

October 14, 2010
Staff Report – Revision to Rule 234

October 14, 2010

Page 2

BACKGROUND

Rule 234, AUTOMOTIVE REFINISHING OPERATIONS, limits the volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from automotive refinishing operations in the Placer County Air Pollution Control 

District (District). The rule was last amended by the District on April 9, 1998.

The District is proposing amendments to Rule 234 based on a “Suggested Control Measure for 

Automotive Coatings” (SCM) issued on October 20, 2005, by the California Air Resources Board. 

The SCM provides VOC limits for coating categories that are more stringent than those in current 

Rule 234. The SCM is intended for Districts, like Placer County, which need VOC emission 

reductions for attainment of State and Federal ozone standards. The SCM is considered Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology, which is part of the District’s plan to meet ozone reduction 

requirements as required under California Health and Safety Code Section 40919; and meets the 

District’s requirement under California Health and Safety Code Section 40914 to implement “every 

feasible measure”.

This Staff Report addresses amendments that are proposed to Rule 234 based on the SCM. This 

is an early meeting of the SIP commitment to adopt the SCM’s provisions by 2015.

The SCM has been, or is currently being, adopted by the following local air districts:

• Yolo-Solano : Rule 2.26, revised 12/08

• San Joaquin : Rule 4612, revised 09/07

• Sacramento : Rule 459, last revised 10/97, currently under revision

• Bay Area : Regulation 8, Rule 45, revised 12/08

There are twenty-eight (28) separate automotive refinishing shops operations under twenty-six 

(26) separate owners that operate and are affected by Rule 234 and its proposed revision.

The amended rule is proposed to be effective July 1, 2011.

DISCUSSION

Rule amendments, in underline/strikeout format, are shown in Attachment #1. Specific changes 

to the Rule include:

Section 100. General

Section 102. Applicability. The Rule has been expanded to apply to the entire District, 

including the Mountain Counties and Lake Tahoe Air Basins. The Rule previously was 

limited to the Sacramento Air Basin.

Section 103. Severability. A provision has been added that retains Rule requirements if 

part is determined to be invalid.

Section 104 – 107, 110. Exemptions. Exemptions for touchup, graphic design, military 

vehicles, and radiators, and small production/utility bodies, have been deleted.

Section 105 and 106. Exemptions. Exemptions have been added for small quantity 

users (<0.5 ounce containers), and assembly line operations.

Section 200. Definitions

Changes to definitions are made based on coating categories reclassifications:
Staff Report – Revision to Rule 234

October 14, 2010

Page 3

Definitions that were eliminated include: Antiglare/safety coating, Camouflage 

coating, Finishing, Grams of VOC per liter of coating excluding waste and exempt 

compounds, Grams of VOC per liter of material, Ground support equipment, 

Group I vehicles, Group II vehicles, Large/heavy duty truck, Light and medium 

duty truck or van, Multi-stage topcoat system, Precoat, Primer sufacer, 

Refinishing, Specialty coating, Topcoat, Touchup, Utility body

Definitions that have been added include: Assembly line, Associated parts and 

components, Automotive coating, Automotive coating components, Automotive 

refinishing facility, Clear coating, Color coating, Emission control system, Motor 

vehicle, Multi-color coating, Single-stage coating, Solvent, Spot repair, Tuck bed 

liner coating, Underbody coating, Uniform finish coating

Section 300. Standards

Section 301. VOC Content Limits. VOC coating categories and limits in the current Rule 

have been removed, and replaced with VOC coating categories and limits from the SCM.

Section 302. Most Restrictive VOC Limits. A provision has been added which requires 

compliance with the lowest VOC limit if multiple category limits are applicable.

Section 302. Operation and Maintenance Plan. This section has been moved under 

Section 304.

Section 303. Application Requirements. This section’s title has been changed from 

Transfer Efficiency to Application Requirements. Application methods which have been 

added or modified, include: brush, dip, roller, spray guns that meet high volume low 

pressure, and any other method that has demonstrated and been approved to provide 

equivalent transfer efficiency to those listed. The requirement for alternative application 

methods to have transfer efficiency of at least 65% has been removed.

Section 304. Emission Control System. The allowance for use of a VOC control system 

as an alternative to coating content limits was moved to this new location.

Section 305. Solvent Limits and Evaporative Loss Minimization. This section’s title has 

been changed from Surface Preparation and Solvent Loss Minimization. Provisions have 

been added and clarified for work practices to minimize evaporation loss. The solvent 

cleaning VOC content limit has been changed to 25 g/l, with an exception for bug and tar 

remover with a limit specified under the California Consumer Products Regulation 

(California Code of Regulations Section 94507 et seq.).

Section 305, 306, and 307. Provisions have been deleted for usage limits for specialty 

coatings, temporary protective coatings, and pre-coat.

Section 306. Toxic Air Contaminant. A provision has been added which restricts the use 

of coatings which contain cadmium or hexavalent chromium. This is consistent with 

existing State law.

Section 400. Administrative Requirements

Section 401. Prohibition of Possession. A new provision has been added prohibiting 

possession of non-compliant products at the automotive refinishing facility.

Section 405. Labeling. A new provision has been added for labeling requirements.

Section 500. Monitoring and Records
Staff Report – Revision to Rule 234

October 14, 2010

Page 4

Section 503. Sales Records. New record keeping requirements have been added for 

sales transactions.

Section 505. Burden of Proof. A new provision has been added for recordkeeping 

requirements for exempt sources.

Section 506. Maintenance of Records. A new section has been added requiring the 

reporting requirements to be retained for 3 years, or 5 years for sources subject to Rule 

507.

Section 507. Test Methods. Reference has been added to numerous additional test 

methods, and minor changes made to references of methods in the existing Rule.

Miscellaneous

Additional miscellaneous changes were made for readability and conformance with the 

SCM which have no impact on the compliance requirements of the Rule.

ANALYSIS

The following Analysis and the subsequent Findings are intended to address the requirements set 

forth in the Health and Safety Code relating to adoption of a new or amended District Rule, as well as 

other State statutes referenced herein.

1. Cost-Effectiveness of a Control Measure

California Health & Safety Code (H&S) Section 40703 requires a District to consider and 

make public “the cost-effectiveness of a control measure”. The cost effectiveness has been 

estimated at $0.40 per lb of VOC reduced.

2. Socioeconomic Impact

H&S Section 40728, in relevant part, requires the Board to consider the socioeconomic 

impact of any new or amended rule if air quality or emission limits are significantly affected. 

There are twenty six (26) auto refinishing shops that operate under District permit. The 

average annual cost of compliance with the rule amendment based on the CARB SCM is 

estimated to be $800 per individual shop operation, based on recent estimates by the Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District. Note that numerous existing shop operations are 

already operating in compliance with the amended rule standards.

3. Environmental Review and Compliance

California Public Resources Code Section 21159 requires an environmental analysis of 

the reasonably foreseeable methods of compliance should be conducted. Compliance of 

the proposed rule amendment is expected to be achieved by the replacement of current 

coating products with compliant compounds. Application of these compliant compounds 

will generally result in less VOC emissions from the coating activities. Therefore, the 

proposed rule amendment will reduce emissions from sources and will not cause any 

significant adverse effects on the environment. Staff has concluded that no adverse 

environmental impacts will be caused by compliance with the proposed rule amendment.

According to the above conclusion, Staff finds that the proposed rule amendment is 

exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because (1) it can be seen 

with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant 

adverse effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)) and (2) it is as an 
Staff Report – Revision to Rule 234

October 14, 2010

Page 5

action by a regulatory agency for protection of the environment (Class 8 Categorical 

Exemption, CEQA Guidelines §15308).

FINDINGS

A. Necessity: The adoption of proposed amended Rule satisfies the objective of the District 

to implement “Suggested Control Measures” for the reduction of VOCs to achieve

attainment with ambient air standards for ozone, and meets the District’s requirements to 

implement “every feasible measure” and “Best Available Retrofit Control Technology” as 

required under California Health and Safety Code Sections 40919 and 40914.

B. Authority: California Health and Safety Code, Sections 40000, 40001, 40701, 40702, 

40716, 41010, and 41013, are provisions of law that provide the District with the authority 

to adopt this proposed amended Rule.

C. Clarity: There is no indication, at this time, that the proposed amended Rule is written in 

such a manner that persons affected by the Rule cannot easily understand them.

D. Consistency: The proposed amended Rule is in harmony with, and not in conflict with or 

contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions, or state or federal regulations.

E. Non-duplication: The proposed amended Rule does not impose the same requirements 

as an existing state or federal regulation.

F. Reference: All statutes, court decisions, and other provisions of law used by the District in 

interpreting this proposed amended Rule are incorporated into this analysis and this 

finding by reference.

SUMMARY

Rule 234, AUTOMOTIVE REFINISHING OPERATIONS, has been amended to address the 

“Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings” which was issued on October 20, 2005, by 

the California Air Resources Board.

Attachment 1: Proposed Rule 236 Amendments.
ATTACHMENT #1

Subject:

Amended Rule 234, Automotive Refinishing Operations