June 14, 1996
Proposed Revision to Rule 102 – Definitions Proposed Revision to Rule 323 – Architectural Coatings
Thursday, July 18, 1996 – Approximately 2:00 pm Board of Supervisors Hearing Room 511 East Lakeside Parkway, Santa Maria
The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Board will hold a public hearing to accept comments and consider adopting proposed revisions to Rule 102 – Definitions, and Rule 323 – Architectural Coatings. The revision to Rule 102 will change the definition of ?Reactive Organic Compound? (ROC) to exempt acetone, ethane, parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF), volatile methyl siloxanes (VMS), five halocarbons and four classes of perfluorocarbons. The changes are being made for consistency with federal and state definitions. Rule 323 will be revised to rely on the new definition of ROC.
Who is affected: APCD rules apply to sources of air pollution located in Santa Barbara County and offshore within 28 miles. The rule revisions will affect the oil and gas industry; manufacturers and users of paints, coatings, and solvents; and the aerospace, electronic, wood furniture, automobile refinishing, paper coating, and foam manufacturing industries.
About the proposed revisions: The U.S. EPA and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) have changed their definitions of Volatile Organic Compound to exclude the above compounds, based on technical findings that show these compounds are negligibly photochemically reactive. The proposed revisions provide consistency with EPA?s and ARB?s definition.
Notice of Completion of Proposed Negative Declaration: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the APCD has released for review and comment an Initial Study/ Proposed Negative Declaration for revisions to Rule 102 – Definitions and Rule 323 – Architectural Coatings. The Initial Study examined the potential adverse impacts of the proposed rule revisions. Potential impacts were limited to air quality, fire, and risk of upset. Based on the Initial Study, the APCD has determined that there are no significantly adverse impacts associated with the proposed rule revisions and the project does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Therefore, the APCD has issued a Proposed Negative Declaration.
Copies of the proposed rule revisions and the Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration may be reviewed at the following locations:
|Santa Barbara County APCD26 Castilian Drive, B-23Goleta, CA 93117||Santa Barbara County APCD240 East Highway 246, Ste. 207 Buellton, CA 93427|
|County Clerk?s Office401 East Cypress, Ste. 101Lompoc, CA 93436||County Clerk/Recorder511 East Lakeside Pkwy, Ste. 115Santa Maria, CA 93455|
For more information or to comment on the proposed rule revisions, please contact Bette Easton, Rule Development Section, APCD, 26 Castilian Drive, B-23, Goleta, CA 93117, (805) 961-8898. You may also comment at the July 18 hearing in Santa Maria.
For more information or to comment on the Proposed Negative Declaration, please contact Vijaya Jammalamadaka, Planning and Community Assistance Section, same address, (805) 961-8893. Comments on the Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration must be written, limited to environmental issues, and received by 5:00 p.m. on July 8, 1996.
Published Friday, June 14, 1996.