UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document

For EPA ’ s Proposed Rulemaking

For the California State Implementation Plan Ventura County Air Pollution Control District , Rule 74.18 , Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations

Prepared by: Adrianne Borgia Reviewed by: Andrew Steckel

Octo ber , 201 2- 2

-

Agency: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District ( VCAPCD )

SIP Approved Rule: Rule 74.18

- Mot or Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations
A dopt ed – J anuary 2 8 , 19 92 Amended – September 10 , 199 6 Submitted
– March 3, 1997 EPA Approval – April 19 , 200 1 (6 6 FR 20122 ) Prior Proposed Action: Rule 74.18

- Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations Amended – November 11, 2008 Submitted
– March 17 , 2009 EPA Limited Approval

- Limited Disapproval – December 29, 2009 ( 74 FR 68759 ) Subject of this TSD: Rule 74.18

- Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations
A mend ed – November 11 , 20 08 Submitted
– March 17 , 20 09

RULE SUMMARY

- VCAPCD Rule 74.18 , Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations , is a rule designed to limit reactive organic compound ( R OC)
emission s from the coatings and solvents associated with the refinishing of motor vehicles, mobile equipment and their associated parts and components. Section B , Requirements

, includes a table that lists R OC limitations for coating s , primers, promoters and sealers prior to and effective on 1 /1/20 10 with a provisio n for using the lowest limit if a coating meets the definition of more than one category

. This section also describes alternative compliance with add

- on controls, application methods , prohibition of specification , prohibition of sales and possession ,- 3

-

manufacturer’s or re

- packager’s compliance requirements , storage requirements and other requirements regarding toxins, spray and prep booths, labels and Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) standards. Section C , Exemptions

, list s types of coat ing exempt from the R OC limits , including aerosol coatings, coatings sold in small quantities, color coatings manufactured before January 1, 2009 until July 1, 2009, surface preparation solvents and cleaners solely for glass

. Coating operations exempt from required practices include forgoing the use of spray booths for vehicles that don’t fit, touch

- ups, engine compartment coating, vehicle interior coating, agricultural automotive coating operation s and labeling of coating manu factured prior to July 1, 2008. Section D , Recordkeeping Requirements

, documents requirement s for recordkeeping of coatings and solvents , including maintenance of lists of all coatings at a site and monthly purchase records of coatings with R OC limits and monthly recycling or disposal records of cleaning solvents

. In addition, this section has require ment s for daily recording of key system operating and maintenance procedures where emissions control systems are used. Section E , Test Methods , include s approved test methods for R OC content, exempt compound content , acid content, metallic content, hexavalent chromium content, lead or cadmium content, control and capture efficiency, transfer efficiency and high

- volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray applicatio n equivalency. Section F , Violations

, indicate s that any violation of any provision of the rule is a violation of the rule. Section G , Definitions , define s all the relevant terms used in the rule.

Changes from the approved SIP rule include:
1. In section A , Applicability and Purpose, the rule’s p urpose was added : to limit ROC emissions from coatings and solvents used in the automotive coating facilities. 2. In section B , Requirements , the following major changes were made:

a. Group I and II vehicle categories were discontinued . The R OC limits , listed by the new coating categories , closely correspond to those in- 4

- the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Suggested Control Measure (SCM) For Automotive Coatings 1 in the Requirements section

. b. A clarification that the mos t restrictive limit be applied if a coa ting meets the definition of mul tiple categories was added.

c. The requirement of a detailed log of the sale of noncompliant coatings was added

. d. Alternate coating applications are now subject to approval by the APCO and the 65% required transfer efficiency was re plac ed with “transfer efficiency equivalent to, or higher than, one of the application methods listed in subsections B

. 4

. a , B.4 .b, B.4 .c and B.4 .d

. ”

e. The compliance statement requirements were expanded to include

s pecific requirements for coating components, coating mixtures and cleaning solvents. f. The solvent limit, as of January 1, 2010 was set at 25 grams per liter.
g. The enforcement provision , prohibiting possession , was added. h. The air toxic control measure, prohi biting the use of hexavalent chromium or cadmium in coatings , was added. i. A new requirement , applying OSHA standards for spray coating , was added. 3. S ection C , Exemptions, was expanded to include exemptions of the sale of small containers of automotive coating , the use of certified “clean air solvents,” the use of non - aerosol glass cleaners, agricultural sources of air pollution, the possession, use, sale, supply or offer for sale through July 1, 2009 of colored coatings manuf actured befor e January 1, 2009 and the use of sur face preparation cleaners. T he required labeling of coating was exempted for coatings manufactured prior to July 1, 2008. The new

1 . CARB SCM For Automotive Coatings as approved by the Board on October 20, 2005- 5

- exemption for preparation cleaning solvent in subsection C.12 exempts a compound containing 780 grams/liter R OC. However, this is limited to 20 gallons per year which is below the allowable exemption of 55 gallons per year of high

- Volatile Organic Compounds ( VOC ) coatings 2

. 4. The Recordkeeping section , D , was changed from requiring dail y usage records to requiring monthly purchase records

. Monthly records for solvent disposal or recycling was added. A listing , which is maintained and available at all times , now includes the R OC Regulatory and Actual data for coatings used. 5. Several metho ds in Test Method section E were changed: The ASTM method for deter mining ROC content was deleted , solvent pressure testing was deleted, spray gun cleaning solvent loss testing was deleted, and the following testing was added: tests for exempt ROC content, tests for cadmium and h exavalent chromium content, control and capture efficiency determination testing, HVLP equivalency testing and the use of alternate test methods if approved by the APCO, CARB and EPA. 6. I n section G , Definitions , s ome unnecessary def initions were del e ted. S everal new definitions were added including those for: aerosol coating, associated parts and components, automotive coating, automotive coating component, CARB, cleaning operations, clear coating, color coating, cured coating, electrostatic spray application, emission control system, EPA , janitorial cleaning, mobile equipment, multi

- color coating, pretreatment coating, single

- stage coating, solvent, spot repair, temporary protective coating, truck bed liner coating, underbody c oating, uniform finish coating, VOC, VOC Actual for coatings, VOC Regulatory for coatings and water

- reducible electrophoretic brake compo nent coating. S everal definitions were revised for clarification including : adhesion promoter, coating, exempt organic

2 . G.T. Helms memo on Exemption for Low

- Use Coatings, August 10, 1990- 6

- compounds, high

- voltage, low

- pressure application, mobile equipment, motor vehicle, primer and primer sealer. EPA EVALUATION

- The following criteria were used to evaluate the submitted
rule : 1. Enforceability

- The Bluebook ( Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations , EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook ( Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used to evaluate compliance with the CAA §110(a)(2)(A ) requirement for enforceability

. 2. Stringency
– EPA’s Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) for , “ Reduction for Volatile O rganic Compound Emissions from Automobile Refinishing ” ( EPA

45 0 / 3

- 88

- 00 9 ) , dated Octo ber 19 88 , Alternate Control Techn iques ( ACT)
Document : “ Automotive Refinishing ” (EPA

- 453/R

- 94

- 031) dated April 1994, CARB’s Air Toxic Control Measure (ACTM) 17 CA ADC § 93112,

“ Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Airborne T oxic Measure – Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coatings ” , CARB’s SCM for Automotive Coatings (approved by the board on October, 2005) and other state and local rules for this category were used to help evaluate the RACT requirements of CAA § 182( c )( 1 ).
3. Relaxation – We have evaluated this SIP revision to determine whether it would interfer e with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the
Act ( CAA §110(l) ) or modify, in a nonattainment area, any SIP

- approved control requirement in effect before November 1 5, 1990 (CAA §193 )

.

Enforceability

- The revised recordkeeping requirem ents reduce coating us age reporting from daily reporting of coatings used to a monthly coating purchase report. A lthough this is a change from the previous rule, we feel that e nforceability is generally enhanced by the following changes to this rule:- 7

-

1. The mix ratios of the new water

- born color coatings are inherently more exact that previous coating mixes. 2. The arbitrary averaging of clear and color coating R OC’s in the recordkeep ing procedures has been eliminated. 3. R OC’s

- actual and regulatory – are clearly defined with accurate calculations shown. All ROC limits have compliance dates.
4. The “Most Restrictive R OC Limit” statement in subsection B

. 2 precludes the arbitrary assignment of limits to coatings which may be assigned to more than one category. 5. The alternative control systems and plans are subject to approval by the Air Pollution Control Officer, the position of which is defined. Addition ally, the control efficiency is required to be at least 85%. 6. The new illegal possession provision in subsection B.10. increases enforceability.
7. The usage of all exempt surface preparation cleaners is enforced by a compliance plan which has detailed guideli nes including lists of cleaners, labelling, VOC per container and vendor of cleaner. In addition, the usage is based on purchase records, which is a conservative approach. 8. The rule exemptions have been clarified to pre vent uncertainty. 9. Recordkeeping requir ements for solvents and coatings are clear and unambiguous, with clear and allowable recording timeframes. 10. There are recommended test methods for twelve different coating factors and
most non - EPA methods have full titles and approved version dates which i mproves enforceability

. 11. Rule violations are clearly defined as a failure to comply with any portion of the rule. 12. Definitions of various coatings like “metallic/iridescent topcoat” and “pretreatment coating” and operations, such as “mobile automotive coating- 8

- touch

- up operations” and “spot repair” serve to clearly eliminate uncertainty about terms used in the limits ta ble and to define exemptions. 13. Monthly reporting of solvent usage has been added to the rul e.

Monitoring criteria is not explicitly addressed, although it is inferred that obtaining the
R OC limits and transfer efficiency requires monitoring. Recordkeeping is overall analogous to that prescribed in CARB’s SCM and the EPA CTG.

Stringency
– Since Ventura County is a nonattainment area for ozone, the district is required to adopt all feasible measures to incorporate RACT requirements and to show progress in achieving these standards. We believe Rule 74.18 fulfills RACT requirements because the VOC limits are generally more stringent than the CTG for, “Reduction for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Automobile Refinishing” and are equivalen t to the limits set forth in CARB’s SCM for Automotive Coatings.
Rule 74.18 also places prohibitions and restrictions on the air toxic compounds Hexavalent chromium and C admium that were previously not regulated by this rule. We note that t
- butyl acetate (TBAc) is defined as a n exempt organic compound in sub section G.16

. Although the recordkeeping/reporting of TBAc remains a requirement pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51.100 (s)(5) , EPA does not consider the lack of recordkeeping/reporting an obstacle to approving the rule because the recordkeeping provision is to determine if usage of TBAc is significantly increasing as a result of its exemption as opposed to being used to determin e a facility's compl iance with the rule's specific R OC limits. Further, t he State will continue to have a recordkeeping/reporting obligation for TBAc unless and until EPA completes a rulemaking to revoke the requirement in 40 CFR 51.100(s), which we have b een petitioned to do.

SIP Relaxation

- T he R OC limits for the new categories represent more stringent limits than the previous ( September 10, 1996) version of the rule

.- 9

-

The adoption of the CARB 2001 Air borne Toxic Control Meas ure (ATCM 2001)
which restricts the use of H exavalent chromium and C admium is also viewed as advancement for this rule. In addition, s olvents for preparation and cleaning are limited to 25 grams/liter R OC content. Although exemption s for automotive coatings sold in 0.5 fluid ounce containers , for “clean air solvents,” non - aerosol glass cleaners , agricultural pollution, preparation cleaning solvents and coatings manufactured prior to January 1, 2009 w ere added, they are likely to have limited emissions impact in Ventura County

. VCAPCD projects emission reduction from the proposed new standards for coating and solvents to be 73 tons per year. Therefore , we propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would comply with CAA §110 (l) and §193 because the submitted SIP rule ensures VOC emissions equivalent to or greater than th o se of the applicable SIP rule for the
area, VCAPCD Rule 74.18 as amended in 1999.

EPA’s PREVIOUS PROPOSED ACTION

- O n December 29, 2009 (see 69 FR 69298) , we proposed a limited approval

limited disapproval of this rule because we determined that while it largely fulfilled the relevant CAA requirements regarding RACT, enfo rceability and rule relaxations, one rule deficiency was identified

- the exclusion o f recordkeeping or reporting for TBAc, as required by 40 CFR 51.100(s)(5). However, we no longer believe that omitting the requirement for recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory requirements

on the exempt compou nd TBAc is sufficient basis to disapprove this rule

. As discussed in the previous section, “...TBAc will not be VOC for purpos es of VOC emissions limitations or VOC content requirements ” 3
, which are the basis for compliance with this rule by a facility

. In addition, the State will continue to assume the responsibility for the reporting, modeling and inventory requirements.

3 . 40 CFR 51.100(s)(5)- 10

-

In response to this prior proposed limited disapproval action, Lyondell Chemical Company commented that they encouraged the EPA to recons ider the limited disapproval of this rule because the TBAc reporting and recordkeeping requirements “are burdensome, arbitrary, contrary to the goals of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and
should be rescinded. ” 4 Lyondell, as the developer and producer of TBAc , also indicated that it has and continues to provide TBAc sales data to the EPA and that other reported emissions data would be inaccurate. The arguments were convincing enough to engage EPA in a discussion of the merits of this provision and to

reverse o ur proposed decision on this rule. 40 CFR 51.100(s)(5) , to date, remains unchanged but we no longer consider it an adequate justification for disapproval of VCAPCD Rule 74.18

.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT RULE REVISION

– The following revis ions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are recommended or required for th e next time the rule is amended:
1. In Section A , Applicability and Purpose, please include “ specifies ” as an acti vity to which this rule applies: “The provisions of this rule apply to any
perso n who manufactures, distributes, supplies, sells, offers for sale, applies, solicits the use of or specifies automotive coatings for motor vehicles...” This is stated in subsection B.5

. but was inadvertently removed from this s ection. 2. In Section B , Requirements , please consider making the following changes:

a. In s ubsection B. 6 .a. , please correct the acronym APC O

. b. In subsection B.11. , please consider adding the reference to the Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) (Title 17 CA ADC § 93112) for
Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Airborne Toxic Measure from Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coatings.

4 . January 27, 2010 letter Re: Comments on the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Pollution Con trol District (EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0754, sent by Dan Pourreau, Project Manager of Lyondell Chemical Company to EPA

.- 11

- c. In s ubsection B

. 14

. , please define the acronym OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and this first reference to CCR (Calif ornia Code of Regulation) and remove that same definition from sub section C.2. 3. In Section C:

a. The agriculture exemption in subsection C.10 is not in the SIP

approved version of the rule. Moreover, this exemption is not included in the SCM, San Joaquin Valley Rule 4612 or South Coast Rule 1151. Please remove this exemption or justify why treatment o f agricultural sources differently from other potentially affected sources is appropriate and complies with CAA § 110(l).
b. T he VOC content of the surface preparation in subsection C.12.c is 6.51 lb. per gal which is equivalent to 780 grams per liter. Consider using a solvent with a VOC of 200 grams per liter or less as recommended by CARB.
4. In section D, please provide a separate daily recordkeeping schedule for the surface preparation cleaner described in subsection C.12 as there is a yearly
cap on thi s solvent, as prescribed in subsection C.12.b. Also, similar to Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) rule 1151, consider specific recordkeeping for methylene chloride (MeCl) in response to 40 CFR 63 Subpart HHHHHH
– National Emission St andards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources.
5. To aid tracking and inspection, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 8, Rule 45, Motor Vehicle and Mobile E quip m ent Coating Operations , requires any person for whom mobile refinishing operation s are conducted at least five times in any one

- year period or for which 25 vehicles were refinished in any one

- year period to keep records indicating the following: t he name, address, phone number, retail tax license- 12

- number, and valid District registration number of each mobile refinishing operator utilized; t he date(s) each mobile refinisher engaged in mobile refinishing operations; and t he number(s) of vehicles refin ished by each mobile refinisher on the date(s). Please consider a similar provision to strengthen the enforceability of Rule 74.18

. 6. For consistency, p lease consider the following revisions to section E:

a. In subsection E.4 , please add the date of the EPA app roved version of SCAQMD method 311

- 91, “ Determination of Weight Percent Elemental Metal in Coatings by Spectrographic Method ” , June 1, 1991

. b. Th e ASTM reference in subsection E.5 should indicate the date (2010) and the title: “Standard Test Method for Low Concentrations of Chromium by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy.”

c. Th e ASTM reference in subsection E.6 should indicate the date (2010) and the title: “Standard Test Method for Low Concentr ations of Lead, Cadmium, and Cobalt in Paint by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy.”

EPA ACTION

- Rule 74.18 fulfills the relevant CAA §110 and part D requirements. Therefore, EPA staff recommends a full approval of Rule 74.18 pursuant to CAA §110(k ) ( 3 ) and §301(a)

. This analysis and recommendation replaces the TSD prepared in support of our 12/29/09 proposed action ( 74 FR 68759 ).

ATTACHMENT S

- 1. VCAPCD 74.18 , Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations , as

a mend ed on September 10 , 199 6

.- 13

-

2. VCAPCD 74.18, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations, as submitted on March 17, 2009.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

– 1. EPA’s Control Technique Guidelines (CTG), “ Control Technique Guidelines for Emissions from Automobile Refinishing ” (EPA

- 45 0 / 3

- 88

- 0 09 ), Octo ber 19 88

. 2. Alternative Control Techniques (A CT) Document, “ Automotive Refinishing ” (EPA

- 453/R

- 94

- 031), April 2004.
3. Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) (Title 17 CA ADC § 93112) for
Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Airborne Toxic Measure from Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coatings.
4. AVAQMD) rule 1151, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations , amended June 19, 2012.
5. CARB Suggested Control Measure (SCM) f or “ Automotive Coatings ” as approved by the Board on October 20, 2005. 6. “ Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, ” (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988

. 7. “ Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, ” (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, Augu st 21, 2001

.