310 CMR 7.00: AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

November 2005 
INTRODUCTION 

In accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. chapter 30A, public hearings were held at the 

Springfield and Boston offices of the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) on 

February 11 and 12, 2004, respectively, to receive testimony on proposed amendments to the 

Department's Air Pollution Control Regulations at 310 CMR 7.00. The public comment period 

remained open until 5 p.m. on February 20, 2004. This document provides a response to the 

comments presented during the public comment period. 

BACKGROUND 

Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 111, Sections 142A-142N is the enabling legislation that 

gives the Department the authority to adopt regulations to prevent, control or abate conditions of 

air pollution, and to protect public health and welfare. The Commonwealth's regulations for the 

control of air pollution are promulgated at 310 CMR 7.00 "Air Pollution Control" and 310 CMR 

60 "Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance". The amendments, which the Department is 

adopting and submitting to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a State 

Implementation Plan (SEP) revision, are part of the effort to attain and maintain the health and 

welfare based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants. Most of 

the amendments update citations, correct typographical errors, modify text to clarify intent, or 

reorganize subparagraphs and add headings for easier readability. Several amendments delete 

unnecessary definitions, expired regulations or duplicative requirements. For example, the 

Department is deleting the outdated definitions of the Inspection and Maintenance Program, now 

located at 310 CMR 60.02; eliminating Table 1 at 310 CMR 7.02 since it causes confusion; and 

deleting 310 CMR 7.03(14) Dry Cleaning Operations, and 310 CMR 7.03 (20) Printers as 

redundant. The key amendments in the package address the impacts of federal regulations on 

Massachusetts. Specific changes include: 

• Require that any facility with an operating permit file a Limited Plan Application as 

required by 310 CMR 7.02(4)(a). 

• Allow manufacturers of other spray gun technologies to be approved as equivalent to 

high volume low pressure or electrostatic spray guns. 

• Requirements for new and existing automotive refmish facilities 

• Amendments to incorporate current US EPA NESHAP requirements for testing 

materials for Asbestos 

• Adoption of 310 CMR 7.54 U Large Combustion Units in response to amendments to 

EPA's PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21). 

• Appendix C modifications. 

The February 2004 hearing package included revisions to 310 CMR 7.06(l)(c) (Opacity). Due 

to substantial revisions, the opacity regulation will be reissued for public comment. 

2 
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS: 

The Department held public hearings on proposed amendments to the air pollution control 

regulations at 310 CMR 7.00. In addition to the substantive comments detailed below, other 

comments were received that pointed out typographical errors, and suggested clarifying changes. 

Since these changes are not substantive, the Department is not including a response to these 

comments in this document. 

LIST OF COMMENTERS 

Oral and Written Commenters: 

1. US EPA Region I David Conroy 

2. Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) Robert Rio 

3. Harvard University Miles Walker 

4. Mass Chemistry & Technology Alliance (MCTA) R. R. Bushnell 

5. Environmental League of Massachusetts (ELM) Megan Amundson 

6. Calpine Donald Neal 

7. Solutia Roy P. Hart 

8. NRG Cynthia L. Karlic 

9. Fox River Paper Co. Stephan A. Graham 

10. Robert Machaver 

11. Polaroid Corporation John P. Le Febvre 

12. Earth Tech George S. Lipka 

13. General Electric (GE) Rubin & Rudman, 

by Keren Schlomy 

Comments and responses have been grouped according to the following categories and issues: 

A. Plan Approvals 

B. Limited Plan Application 

C. Large Combustion Units 

D. Section 7.03 and Reasonably Available Control Technology (VOC) 

E. Operating Permits 

F. Other Comments 

A. Plan Approvals 

Comment A. 1. : The commenters are concerned with striking the language "The calculation 

can consider proposed limitation or restrictions on operating rate or short and long term 

emissions provided that these conditions become federally enforceable upon plan approval" from 

310 CMR 7.02(4)(b). The concern is that the presumptive approval will not be federally 

enforceable. (AIM, Polaroid) 

Response A. 1.: The presumptive approval is not being adopted (see comment B.l.). Rather 

than delete the referenced sentence, it is being amended to make it clear that limitations must be 

enforceable as a practical matter (i.e. terms and conditions of a plan approval expressed in the 

3 
shortest averaging time that can be used as a practical matter. See definition of federal potential 

emissions) if they are to be made federally enforceable. 

By contrast, the definition of potential emissions allows, but does not require, a facility's 

potential emissions to be restricted by keeping records for changes in emissions less than one ton 

per year. These limitations through record keeping are not federally enforceable. 

Comment A.2.: A commenter noted a conflict between 310 CMR 7.02(2)(a) and 7.02(2)(f) 

with regard to contradicting vs. contravening the provisions of plan approval. (Polaroid) 

Response A. 2.: The language has been amended to resolve this conflict so that both of the 

above sections use consistent language. 

Comment A. 3.: It is not clear whether the one ton per year increase in emissions for fuel 

utilization facilities, referenced in 310 CMR 7.02(4)(a)2., applies to one pollutant, or the sum of 

all pollutants. (Machaver) 

Response A. 3.: The reference is to an individual air contaminant or pollutant. The language 

has been modified to make this clear. 

Comment A. 4.: The commenter opposes adding language to 7.02(2)(f) stating that record 

keeping, monitoring, testing or reporting requirements in a plan approval cannot be contravened. 

He thinks this will add to the complexity of obtaining equivalency determinations. (Machaver) 

Response A. 4.: The language being added is simply for clarification. Any facility wishing to 

change one of these requirements contained in a plan approval must have Department approval 

for the change. This is not a change from the current requirements. 

B. Limited Plan Application 

Comment B. 1.: The presumptive approval of Limited Plan Applications (LP As) is not 

approvable under federal regulations governing the state preconstruction review program. It 

does not adequately allow the Department to prevent the construction or modification at a facility 

that could result in a violation. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.160(b) requires the state to develop a 

permitting plan that includes means by which the state will prevent the construction or 

modification of a facility if the construction or modification will (1) result in a violation of 

applicable portions of the control strategy, or (2) interfere with the attainment or maintenance of 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. (EPA) 

The Department has no way of assuring that the presumptive approval will be enforceable as a 

practical matter since the applicant will be presumptively approved for the averaging times, 

record keeping, testing and monitoring conditions they propose. (EPA) 

4 
Response B. 1.: The presumptive approval is not being adopted. The rationale for proposing 

the presumptive approval was to create a more streamlined approval process, resulting in time 

and resource savings for facilities and the Department. Instead of adopting the presumptive 

approval, the review process will be streamlined to accomplish a similar administrative savings, 

for both applicants and the Department. 

Comment B. 2.: The requirement that LP As be stamped by a Professional Engineer is an 

unwarranted expense to the applicant. (MCTA, Solutia, NRG, EarthTech) 

Adding a requirement that the application be stamped by a Professional Engineer will not 

adequately assure protection of the environment. The LPA should not be made a presumptive 

approval. (ELM) 

Response B. 2.: Since the Department is not adopting the proposal to make the LPA a 

presumptive approval, the requirement that the application bear the seal and signature of a 

Professional Engineer is also not being adopted. 

Comment B. 3.: The Department currently acts on LP As in less than 60 days, so the 60 days 

allowed for presumptive approvals is too long. (Solutia) 

Response B. 3.: Since the Department is not adopting the presumptive approval, the process 

timelines will remain the same. However, the Department does plan to make changes in forms 

and guidance to streamline the review and approval process. 

Comment B. 4.: The commenters oppose the requirement that facilities issued an operating 

permit be required to file an LPA for projects at the facility that trigger the LPA threshold, rather 

than just file for a minor modification to the operating permit. These facilities are already 

heavily regulated. One suggestion is to add a requirement to the filing of a minor modification to 

the operating permit that the modification must meet BACT. Another is to add a general permit 

requirement. (NRG and Polaroid) 

Response B. 4.: Under the previous regulation, an owner or operator holding an operating 

permit was exempt from filing an LPA. They could proceed with making the change as soon as 

they filed an application for a minor modification to the operating permit. 

First, as a practical matter, it is difficult to require utilization of BACT after the modification has 

been made. Second, EPA did not consider that exempting Operating Permit facilities from filing 

an LPA satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 70, State Operating Permit Programs, and said the 

provision could not be approved. 

Therefore, the Department is deleting the exemption from filing an LPA for facilities with 

Operating Permits. 

C. Large Combustion Emission Units 

Comment C. 1.: The commenter quotes from an EPA statement concerning the December 31, 

2002 final rulemaking on amendments to New Source Review (NSR) regulations. In the 

statement, EPA raises concerns about the complexity of past regulations. The commenter 

5 
suggests that certain changes be made to the regulation to avoid discouraging facilities from 

using the Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) and the Clean Unit Exemption. (NRG) 

Response C. 1.: Although it is certainly true the NSR regulations were complex before EPA's 

most recent amendments, the revised regulations are more complex. The Department has 

objections to the way that EPA amended the regulations. Although there were portions of the 

amendments the Department supports, we do not think EPA reached the proper balance in its 

regulation. 

With regard to the specific comments, facilities are able to apply for a PAL under the 

Department's current regulations. The clean unit exemption will be one of the options 

considered for inclusion when the Department adopts its own PSD regulations. 

Comment C. 2.: The regulation should clarify whether combined cycle turbines are included in 

the definition of Large Combustion Emission Unit. (Machaver, Earth Tech) 

Response C. 2: Combined cycle turbines, with indirect heat exchangers, regardless of whether 

there are duct burners, with an energy input capacity greater than 250 million Btu per hour are 

included. This is consistent with EPA's New Source Review interpretation. The definition of 

Indirect Heat Exchanger is amended to clarify this. 

Comment C. 3.: Pollution Control Project should include low NOx burners. (Machaver) 

Response C. 3.: Low NOx burners are not included in pollution control projects as part of 310 

CMR 7.54. However, installing a low NOx burner as part of complying with NOx RACT (310 

CMR 7.19) pursuant to 310 CMR 7.02(2)(g) (old 7.02(2)(b)), is exempt from plan approval. 

Comment C. 4.: All Large Combustion Emission Units should be allowed to use 

"representative actual annual emission" occurring after implementation of the change. 

(Machaver, Earth Tech) 

Response C. 4.: As stated above, at such time as the Department proceeds with adopting its 

own PSD regulations, it will evaluate expanding the use of representative actual annual 

emissions by other sources beyond steam electric generating units. 

D. Section 7.03 and VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology 

Comment D. 1.: The Department proposes to add language to 310 CMR 7.03(23) that states 

that temporary boilers are subject to 40 CFR Subpart Dc. The Department should clarify that the 

relocation of temporary boilers fabricated prior to June 9,1989 (the effective date of subpart Dc) 

is not subject to NSPS, unless either another physical modification increases emissions from the 

unit, or the overall costs exceed the threshold of 'reconstruction'. In addition, one commenter 

opposes the addition of declaratory language to this section on the belief that it is both bad 

practice and, in this case, wrong. (AIM, Polaroid, GE) 

Response D. 1.: It was not the intent to make boilers not otherwise subject to Dc subject to the 

rule, but to be informational. The Department will not adopt the proposed change. 

6 
Comment D. 2.: 310 CMR 7.03(16)(d) currently requires the use of electrostatic or HVLP (high 

volume low pressure) spray application. The Department is proposing to amend this section to 

also allow "any other coating application method approved by the Department in writing." The 

amendment as stated raises the issue of Director's discretion. Allowing such a provision would 

be considered more reasonable if the criteria by which the DEP's determination will be made are 

included in the rule. For example, 310 CMR 7.03(16)(d)(3) could be revised to read as follows: 

3. Any other coating application method that achieves a transfer efficiency of at least 65% and is 

approved by the Department in writing." 

A similar provision is included in Rhode Island's rule for automobile refinishing operations, 

Regulation No. 30. Alternatively, the criteria could be stated more generally, in which case 310 

CMR 7.03(16)(d)(3) might allow "any other coating application method that achieves a transfer 

efficiency equivalent to electrostatic or HVLP spray application and is approved by the 

Department in writing." (EPA) 

Response D. 2.: The Department is including language that requires any spray application 

method, other than electrostatic or HVLP, to achieve a transfer efficiency equivalent to 

electrostatic or HVLP spray application, and to be approved by the Department in writing. 

Comment D. 3. : 310 CMR 7.03(16)(h) currently requires that spray gun cleaning be performed 

using a totally enclosed system. The Department is proposing to amend this section to allow a 

totally enclosed or equally effective system. Adding such language to this provision would make 

it difficult to enforce. (EPA) 

Response D. 3: The Department is amending the regulation language to specify the 

characteristics that a spray gun cleaning system must exhibit to control emissions effectively. 

The revised language is equivalent to the spray gun washer requirements in 310 CMR 7.18(28) 

Automotive Refinishing. 

Comment D. 4. : The Department is proposing to add a new section, 310 CMR 7.03(16)(1), 

requiring automotive refinishing operations to keep records. Surface preparation products are 

referenced only at the beginning of this section. This reference should be carried throughout the 

entire provision. Also, DEP should specify a time period for record retention. (EPA) 

Response D. 4.: The Department agrees and is including the term surface preparation product 

throughout all of the subsections of the recordkeeping provision, 310 CMR 7.03(16)(1) of the 

promulgated regulation. The Department also added a minimum record retention period of three 

years, which is consistent with record retention times in other sections of 310 CMR 7.18. 

Comment D. 5: The commenter suggested wording changes to clarify proposed amendments to 

310 CMR 7.18(2)(g) regarding daily emissions averaging. (EPA) 

Response D. 5: The changes are being adopted. 

Comment D. 6.: Clarify the definition of Aqueous Cleaner by removing the 1 mm of Hg vapor 

pressure requirement. Vapor pressure values are not always easily available or accurate in 

MSDS or other documents. DEP should not discourage operators from shifting to aqueous 

cleaners due to uncertainty about vapor pressures that may barely exceed 1 mm of Hg. Other 

7 
states exempt cold cleaners with up to 5% VOC without a vapor pressure limit. Massachusetts 

should also exempt cold cleaners with less than 5% VOC without a vapor pressure limit. (GE) 

Response D. 6.: Several states, including New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland have adopted 

solvent degreasing regulations that exempt cold cleaning fluids with less than 5% VOC by 

weight, regardless of vapor pressure. This exemption is also consistent with the Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) Model Rule for Solvent Cleaning. The Department agrees with the 

commenter and is modifying the definition of aqueous cleaner by deleting the vapor pressure 

limit and changing the VOC content to 5 per cent by weight. 

Comment D. 7.: Modify 7.18(8) to exempt cold cleaning degreasers with a solvent capacity of 

less than two gallons. (GE) 

Response D. 7.: Making this change would represent a substantial lessening of the current 

regulation and would require public comment before it could be adopted. It would exempt most 

degreasers in the state that are currently subject to the regulation. It would also present 

significant savings clause issues under section 193 of the Clean Air Act. Also, since it represents 

a significant relaxation in the regulation which was not proposed, the Department could not 

make the change without proposing first at public hearing. 

Comment D. 8.: It is proposed to amend the provisions in 310 CMR 7.18(8) to include an 

exemption for aqueous cleaning operations if the cleaning fluid contains no more than 10 percent 

by weight organic material, excluding soaps, and all organic materials have a vapor pressure less 

than 1 mm Hg at 25°C. (EPA) 

Since Massachusetts' degreasing rule was part of the Massachusetts federally approved SIP prior 

to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the DEP must show that the 

revisions to the rule are consistent with the requirements of the General Savings Clause in 

Section 193 of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, Massachusetts must show that the modifications 

to the rule ensure equivalent or greater reductions in VOC emissions. It appears that exempting 

aqueous cleaners would encourage facilities to switch to aqueous cleaning solutions, thereby 

decreasing VOC emissions. Massachusetts should provide an explicit justification that this is the 

case and that the General Savings Clause has been satisfied. For example, such an equivalency 

demonstration could include a comparison of the degreasing emissions from a few individual 

facilities before and after those facilities switched to aqueous cleaning. (EPA) 

Response D. 8.: The Department agrees that exempting aqueous cleaners from the equipment 

requirements would encourage their use. In 1995, in a letter addressed to Anne Arnold at EPA 

Region I, the Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance (OTA) provided documentation 

(attached) of the reduction of VOC emissions of several companies in the jewelry and electronic 

equipment manufacturing industries as a result of replacing their TCE degreasers with aqueous 

cleaners. The reductions in emissions were substantial, in one case degreasing emissions 

dropped from 10.5 tons per year to 98 pounds. Therefore, the Department is adopting an 

exemption for cleaning solvents with a VOC content of no more than 5 percent by weight. This 

exemption more closely follows the OTC model rule. 

Comment D. 9.: The reference to "instantaneous averaging time" in 310 CMR 7.18(8)(f) 

should be deleted. It refers to "instantaneous averaging time" as used in section 310 CMR 

8 
7.18(2)(a) which applies to coatings, not degreaser solvents. This term is confusing and 

misleading. (GE) 

Response D. 9.: The reference to "instantaneous averaging time" in 310 CMR 7.18(8)(g) 

(formerly 7.18(8)(f)) is being deleted. However, instantaneous averaging is still required by 310 

CMR 7.18(8)(f) (formerly 7.18(8)(e)). 

Comment D. 10.: The 310 CMR 7.18(19)(h) SOCMI (synthetic organic chemical 

manufacturing industry) provisions are being amended to state that a facility must submit 

quarterly monitoring reports to the Department "unless otherwise notified by the Department, in 

writing." It is not clear why these changes are being made, and it appears these changes may 

reduce the utility of the monitoring reports. (EPA) 

Response D. 10: This proposed amendment is not being adopted. Any SOCMI facility will still 

be required to report. 

Comment D. 11.: The Department is proposing to delete the existing 310 CMR 7.18(27) 

coating mixing tank provisions and to amend 310 CMR 7.18(l)(c) to apply to coating mixing 

tanks. The existing 310 CMR 7.18(27) provisions that are to be deleted include more specific 

requirements than the provisions in 310 CMR 7.18(l)(c). (EPA, AIM and POLAROID) 

Response D. 11: The proposed amendment is not being adopted. 

Comment D. 12.: 310 CMR 7.18(21), (22), (23), (25), and (26) are being amended to allow an 

exemption from RACT requirements for several surface coating categories provided that the 

person obtains and complies with a federally enforceable emission limit which restricts the 

potential emissions below the applicability cut-off. It is not clear, however, why 310 CMR 

7.18(24) is not also being similarly amended. (EPA) 

Response D. 12.: Applicability of 310 CMR 7.18(24) is based on actual emissions (15 pounds 

per day), not potential emissions (50 tons per year) like these other sections referenced. 

Therefore the Department is not changing 310 CMR 7.18(24). 

Comment D. 13.: The Department is proposing to add to 310 CMR 7.00, definitions of the 

following terms associated with automobile refinishing: adhesion promoter; elastomeric coating; 

impact resistant coating; underbody coating; uniform finish blender; and weld-through primer. 

In EPA's rule, all of these terms are used in the definition of the term "specialty coating," for 

which an emission limit is specified. However, the definition of the term "specialty coating" in 

310 CMR 7.00 currently includes some, but not all, of these terms. Therefore, EPA recommends 

that the definition of "specialty coating" be revised to include all of the terms: (EPA) 

Response D. 13: The Department agrees, and the definition of Specialty Coating in 310 CMR 

7.00 now includes all of the terms in EPA's definition. 

Comment D. 14: The following proposed revisions to 310 CMR 7.18(28)(c), which contain the 

emissions limits for automotive refinishing products, constitute a relaxation of the rule that has 

previously been approved into the MA SIP: 

• a new emission limit for multi-colored topcoats that is less stringent than the limit currently 

required by the Table at 310 CMR 7.18(28)(c); 

9 
• addition of an exemption for stencil coatings and coatings that are sold in non-refillable 

aerosol containers; and 

• replacement of the current 1.7 pounds of VOC/gallon of product emission limit for all 

surface preparation products with a limit of 1.67 pounds of VOC/gallon for products used to 

clean non-plastic surfaces, and 6.5 pounds of VOC/gallon limit for products used to clean 

plastic surfaces. 

MA must meet the anti-backsliding requirements under Section 110(1) of the Clean Air Act and 

recommends that MA do so by adopting model rules for several VOC source categories 

developed by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). (EPA) 

Response D. 14: The Table at 310 CMR 7.18(28)(c) is not being amended to include Multicolored topcoats. Department staff spoke with representatives of BASF and Dupont, and four 

local jobbers concerning the proposed multi-colored topcoat category. They were not familiar 

with this category, as defined in the proposal. The Department concludes that the sale and use of 

this type of automotive refinish coating in MA is insignificant, and therefore, reconsidered the 

need to adopt a separate emission limit for multi-colored topcoats. 

310 CMR 7.18(28) is being amended to make clear that stencil coatings and coatings sold in 

non-refillable aerosol containers are exempt from this regulation. This amendment is intended to 

clarify the requirements of 310 CMR 7.18(28). The estimated reductions resulting from 

adoption of the MA rule were calculated using information from EPA's ACT and CTG 

documents for automotive refinishing. Data from those documents did not include emissions 

from the use of stencil or aerosol coatings. Since the MA rule does not regulate the VOC content 

of stencil coatings or coatings applied from non-refillable aerosol containers, DEP does not 

consider this clarification to be a relaxation of the existing automotive refinishing rule. 

310 CMR 7.18(28)(f) was amended to add a limit of 6.5 pounds of VOC per gallon as applied for 

surface preparation products for plastic parts. This is a relaxation from the current limit. Using 

the methodology suggested in EPA's Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP1 

Guidance (Guidance) dated January 2001; the predicted emissions increase is approximately 24.8 

TPY or 0.1 TPSD. This assumes 15% of all surface preparation products are used on plastic 

parts (primarily bumpers). 

If facilities were using the lower VOC content surface preparation product, the Department feels 

the reduced emissions emissions resulting from using lower VOC surface preparation products 

would be offset by the increase in coating failures caused by insufficient decontamination of the 

plastic part and the need to re-prep and repaint the plastic part. The emissions increase resulting 

from repainting a bumper is approximately 10 times the emissions increase resulting from use of 

the 6.5 lbs./gallon surface preparation product. The Department believes that this amendment 

will not result in an increase in actual emissions, because the emissions reductions that were 

anticipated from surface preparation products with lower limits have not occurred. 

Furthermore, Massachusetts anticipates adopting additional control measures prior to the 2007 

attainment year as noted in Table III-2 of the 2002 Eastern Massachusetts Attainment 

Demonstration SIP. 

• The Department signed an OTC Memorandum of Understanding under which it committed 

to adopt the model rules for architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings, and 

10 
consumer products. The Department is currently developing regulations for AIM coatings 

and consumer products based on the model rules, and anticipates proposing them at public 

hearing during 2005. 

• DEP also committed to adopt the OTC portable fuel container model rule, which was based 

on the California portable fuel container rule. California has recently proposed significant 

revisions to its rule. DEP will delay proposing a portable fuel container regulation until such 

time as revisions to the California rule can be incorporated into a proposed Massachusetts 

regulation. 

With the exception of multi-colored topcoats, the Department is adopting the changes to 310 

CMR 7.18(28)(c) as proposed. 

Comment D. 15.: Since Table 7.18(28)(c) of the automotive refinishing rule is being amended, 

the DEP may want to consider also clarifying some of the other limits contained in the table. 

Specifically, the table includes a limit for topcoats and another, less stringent, limit for three or 

four stage topcoats. EPA recommends that the table be clarified to state that the more stringent 

topcoat limit applies to single and two-stage topcoats. (EPA) 

Response D. 15.: The Department agrees with EPA's suggestion, but two-stage topcoat is not 

defined in 310 CMR 7.00. Currently, the regulations define "basecoat/clearcoat system", which 

is simply another term for two-stage topcoat. Therefore, the Department is amending the 

regulations as follows: 

1. Replace the "topcoat" category in Table 310 CMR 7.18(28)(c) with two categories: 

"single-stage topcoat" and "two-stage topcoat". Two-stage topcoat is already subject to 

the topcoat limit. 

2. Replace the definition of "basecoat/clearcoat system" with a definition of "two-stage 

topcoat". The definition doesn't change. 

BASECOAT/CLEARCOAT SYSTEM TWO-STAGE TOPCOAT means a twestage topcoat basecoat/clearcoat system composed of a colored basecoat and a 

transparent final coat. For compliance purposes, the VOC content of 

basecoat/clearcoat systems shall meet the emission limitation for two-stage 

topcoats in Table 7.18(28)(c), and is-shall be calculated according to the following 

formula: 

The changes are only clarifications and do not affect the stringency of the regulation. 

Comment D. 16.: The commenter says the new record keeping section at 310 CMR 

7.18(28)(p) should require that records be kept of surface preparation products in addition to 

information on the coatings. (EPA) 

The commenter also says that, "the provision should also state that records be made available to 

the EPA and should specify a time period for record retention." The commenter proposed 

adding at 310 CMR 7.28(p)4.: 

"Records kept to demonstrate compliance must be kept on site for five years and must be made 

available to representatives of the Department or EPA upon request." (EPA) 

11 
Response D. 16.: These changes are being made, except that facilities are only required to 

retain their records for three years, which is the duration the Department feels is sufficient to 

document a facility's compliance status and used in recent regulation adoption as well as other 

subparagraphs of 310 CMR 7.18. 

E. Operating Permits 

Comment E. 1.: The Department narrowed the scope of 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix C(8)(c)4. 

(processing of significant modifications to an operating permit) from all actions under 310 CMR 

7.02(1) to just actions subject to 310 CMR 7.02(4) and (5). However, these types of approvals 

are not required for modifications made under a Reasonably Available Control Technology 

(RACT) Emission Control Plan (ECP). The commenter believes that the same consideration 

should be made for RACT approvals issued by the Department and requests that this section be 

additionally modified to reflect this. (Polaroid) 

Response E. 1.: The amendment clarifies a regulatory citation. This does not affect the 

process for a facility modifying a provision approved by the Department in its RACT ECP. In 

general, the provisions of a facility's RACT ECP can be modified through the minor 

modification process of Appendix C(8)(d) and do not require a significant modification. 

Comment E. 2.: The Department needs to either simplify or delete the proposed changes to 

Appendix C(9)(c)(2). (CALPINE) 

Response E. 2.: 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix C(9)(2) is not a requirement of the federal operating 

permit program and adds confusion to the regulations, therefore the Department is deleting this 

in its entirety. 

F. Other Comments 

Comment F.l. : The commenter was concerned that proposed amendments to the definition of 

potential emissions would allow a facility to include limitations that are not enforceable as a 

practical matter. (EPA) 

Response F. 1. : The proposed amendments and current requirements of the Department satisfy 

the requirements to be enforceable as a practical matter. Notifications pursuant 310 CMR 

7.02(11) (50% or 25% Facility Emission Cap Notification) require the facility to keep records 

that satisfy these requirements. Similarly, the certifications the Department requires pursuant 

310 CMR 7.26 require the facility to certify to limitations that also meet the requirements to be 

enforceable as a practical matter. The emission control plan a facility proposes is subject to 

Department approval. The underlying regulations contain requirements that make the limitations 

enforceable as a practical matter. 

However, we are not including the requirement that all limitations be enforceable as a practical 

matter since some limitations contained in very old plan approvals (dating back to 1970s) may 

not satisfy all these requirements. 

Comment F. 2.: The Department should add OP-4 conditions to definition of'emergency' in 

310 CMR 7.03(10). (AIM) 

12 
Response F. 2.: This issue is being addressed in another Department regulation package. 

Comment F. 3.: 310 CMR 7.19(13)(a) should reference both 310 CMR 7.27 and 7.28 as the 

7.27 program has effectively expired. (Bob Machaver) 

Response F. 3.: The suggested change is not being made. The existing regulation requires 

selection of "the more stringent of the provisions" as a way of harmonizing state and federal 

monitoring requirements. Since writing the existing regulation, the Department has found this 

approach to be overly simplistic, as it is not always straightforward to determine the more 

stringent requirement, and because it may preclude reasonable flexibility built into certain 

monitoring regulations. Indeed, some Massachusetts facilities have sought to harmonize 

monitoring requirements through case-by-case determinations involving DEP and EPA. Simply 

adding the language suggested by the commenter would not address the harmonizing 

complexities that have been seen in practice; therefore, adding the suggested language would 

create the impression that complicated issues involving numerous monitoring regulations could 

be dealt with through a minor language change, which has not proven to be the case in practice. 

As the Department did not go out to public hearing proposing to remove the existing language, 

and as retaining the existing language has no practical impact since 310 CMR 7.27 has been 

superseded by 310 CMR 7.28, the Department is retaining the existing language. 

Comment F. 4. : The Department used the term 'air contaminant' in 310 CMR7.02(3)(g) which 

is defined in 310 CMR 7.00 but is not used in 301 CMR 11.00, the MEPA regulations. This can 

lead to confusion and the term 'air contaminant' should be deleted. (Polaroid, AIM) 

Response F. 4.: The reference to air contaminant is being replaced with a reference to criteria 

and hazardous air pollutants to be consistent with 301 CMR 11.03. 

Comment F. 5.: Did the Department intend to delete the size restriction of less than 10 MMBtu 

per hour from 310 CMR 7.03(10) as well as from 310 CMR 7.02(8)(i)? (Earthtech) 

Response F. 5.: No. The primary reason for removing the restriction from 310 CMR 7.02(8)(i) 

was to limit the hours of operation of emergency or standby engines installed before June 1, 

1990 to less than 300 hours per year in order to restrict potential emissions. However, 310 CMR 

7.03(10) applies to new engines. For new engines larger than 10 MMBtu per hour, the intent is 

to require the engine to be subject to 310 CMR 7.02(5) (Comprehensive Plan Approval) before 

construction. The Department is proposing to amend this requirement in another regulatory 

package (Engine and Combustion Turbines). Public hearings on that package were held on June 

22, and 23,2004. 

13