AGENDA NO. 33

BOARD MEETING DATE: December 7, 1995

PROPOSAL:     Rescind:               Rule 1129 - Aerosol Coatings               

              Amend:                 Rule 1106.1 - Pleasure Craft Coating       
                                     Operations                                 

                                     Rule 1107 - Coating of Metal Parts and     
                                     Products                                   

                                     Rule 1128 - Paper, Fabric, and Film        
                                     Coating Operations                         

                                     Rule 1130 - Graphic Arts                   

                                     Rule 1145 - Plastic, Rubber, and Glass     
                                     Coatings                                   

                                     Rule 1151 - Motor Vehicle and Mobile       
                                     Equipment                                  

                                     Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations       

SYNOPSIS: The rescinding of Rule 1129 and proposed amendment of the other coating rules are necessary to make AQMD rules consistent with Section 41712 of the state Health and Safety Code which prohibits local districts from enforcing or regulating volatile organic compound (VOC) limits on aerosol coatings. In addition, the proposed amendment of the definition of "exempt compounds" in each rule will reference Rule 102 - Definition of Terms, to provide a consistent definition between rules.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. Approve the Notice of Exemption for Rules 1106.1, 1107, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1145, and 1151.

2. Rescind Rule 1129 - Aerosol Coatings.

3. Amend Rules 1106.1, 1107, 1128, 1130, 1145, and 1151.

James M. Lents, Ph.D.

Executive Officer

PL:JB:MLK:AHB

(i:\stream\1129\bdletx2.doc)

Background

Rule 1129 - Aerosol Coatings, and associated coating rule amendments were adopted November 2, 1990, to reduce VOC emissions from aerosol coatings. Subsequently, Dunn Edwards Corporation and two groups of aerosol paint manufacturers each filed a lawsuit challenging the Rule 1129 adoption and other amendments on numerous grounds. While the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in July of 1991, suspending Rule 1129 and the associated amendments, the AQMD prevailed in its appeal in May of 1993, allowing the reinstatement.

In October of 1993, the state legislature adopted amendments to the State Health and Safety Code Section 41712, requiring the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt an aerosol paint regulation and prohibiting local districts from adopting and enforcing local aerosol paint regulations. Subsequently, CARB adopted a statewide Aerosol Coating Products Rule on March 23, 1995.

Proposal

To be consistent with state law, staff proposes to rescind Rule 1129 and to amend Rules 1106.1, 1107, 1128, 1130, 1145 and 1151 to exempt aerosol coating products (aerosol coating products do not include aerosol adhesives.) Additionally, staff is proposing language to adopt the CARB definition of "aerosol coating products" in order to provide rule consistency with the recently-adopted CARB Aerosol Coating Products Rule. Finally, staff proposes to amend the definition of "exempt compounds" in each rule to reference its definition in Rule 102 - Definition of Terms, which already controls in the event of a conflict in the rules.

AQMP

The proposed amendments have no impact on emissions, and are consistent with the AQMP.

CEQA & Socioeconomic Analysis

AQMD Staff has reviewed the proposed project pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines Section 15002(k)(1). The proposed recission implements currently existing state law over which the AQMD has no discretionary authority. Therefore, the project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines Section 15268. In addition, the project does not have the potential to adversely impact the environment and is exempt pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).

Due to the limited nature of the amendments, no socioeconomic assessment is required. The amendments will not have any effect on the cost of compliance with the amended rules.

Staff has reviewed the proposed rescinding of Rule 1129 and the proposed amendments to Rules 1106.1, 1107, 1128, 1130, 1145, and 1151, and has determined that they are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(1) and (b)(3). Therefore, a Notice of Exemption will be prepared for the proposed amendments and will be filed with the county clerks immediately following the adoption of the proposed amendments.

Attachments

Summary of Proposed Amendments

Rule Development Flow Chart

Resolution

Notice of Exemption from CEQA

Rule Language

Staff Report