Proposal:
Rescind Rule 1129 - Aerosol Coatings and Amend
Rules 1106.1 - Pleasure Craft Coating Operations,
Rule 1107 - Coating of Metal Parts and Products,
Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings,
Rule 1128 - Paper, Fabric, and Film Coating Operations,
Rule 1130 - Graphic Arts,
Rule 1145 - Plastic, Rubber, and Glass Coatings, and
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.
Committee:
Stationary Source, February 16, 1996, Recommended for Approval
Recommended Action:
James M. Lents, Ph.D.
Executive Officer
PL:JPB:MLK:AHB
Attachments
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, 1113, 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.
The architectural coating industry has asked that the proposed
amendments to Rule
1113 - Architectural Coatings include an exemption for small containers
of one quart and smaller. Staff proposes to include such an amendment
with other amendments to Rule 1113 scheduled later this year.
The quart container exemption can not be considered by the Board
at the March 8, 1996 Board meeting because, unlike the proposed
amendments, it has emission impacts that would have to be evaluated
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommends
that the Board rescind Rule 1129 and adopt the clarifying amendments
to the other coating rules now, to ensure public understanding
of applicable requirements.
Additionally, on August 21, 1990, the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County entered a judgment in the case Dunn-Edwards Corporation,
et al. v. SCAQMD. The judgment denied in part and granted
in part the petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn certain
amendments to Rule 1113 adopted on February 2, 1990. As a result,
the AQMD was prevented from enforcing the amendments relating
to industrial maintenance coatings, lacquers, quick-dry enamels,
and quick-dry primers, sealers and undercoaters. Other amendments
adopted in February 1990 and prior rule provisions remain in effect
as specified in the attached Rule 1113 Notice.
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, 1113, 1128, 1130, 1145,
and 1151, and has determined that they are exempt from the requirements
of 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
Rule 1113 Notice
Staff Report
(i:\stream\1129\bdletx3.doc)