BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

REASONABL Y AVAILABLE CONTROL ) 

TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ) 

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM ) 

GROUP II AND GROUP IV CONSUMER & ) 

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED ) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, ) 

218, and 219 ) 

To: John Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 

NOTICE 

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 

RII-23 

(Rulemaking-Air) 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Pollution Control 

Board the POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, a copy of which is herewith served upon you. 

DATED: June 1,2011 

1021 N. Grand Ave. East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

(217) 782-5544 

Respectfully submitted, 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

BY:C::;CQ(.~U~tz:t;?!!:{g,# Dana Vetterhoffer 

Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL ) 

TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ) 

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM ) 

GROUP II AND GROUP IV CONSUMER & ) 

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED ) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, ) 

218, and 219 ) 

RII-23 

(Rulemaking-Air) 

POST-HEARING COMMENTS OF THE 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

The ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ("Illinois EPA" or 

"Agency"), by its attorney, hereby submits its post-hearing comments in the above rulemaking 

proceeding. 

PII/SGIA Comments 

On April 15, 2011, the Printing Industry of Illinois/Indiana Association and the Specialty 

Graphic Imaging Association ("PIIISGIA") submitted comments to the Board, suggesting 

several revisions to the Agency's proposal. The Illinois EPA responded to several of these 

comments in its Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal ("Motion to Amend") and in its first.set 

of post-hearing comments ("Post-Hearing Comments I"). The outstanding issues are discussed 

below. 

First, regarding PIIISGIA' s request that cleaning of substrates prior to screen printing be 

added to the list of exemptions in Section 218/219.187(a)(2)(A), the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency CUSEP A") initially indicated that there was not a snfficient 

basis for the exemption, and requested additional information in order to further evaluate the 

proposed amendment. PIIISGIA supplied such information, which the Agency forwarded to the 

USEP A. USEP A responded that PII/SGIA still did not provide sufficient doclllllcntation to 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
support their requested amendment, and pointed out that the California Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District's cleaning regulations, which the USEP A relied upon in preparing its 

Control Techniques Guideline ("CTG") for Industrial Cleaning Solvents, does not contain such 

an exemption. Following more discussions, PIIISGIA submitted a request for a more limited 

exemption, along with supporting information, which the Agency again forwarded to the 

USEP A. The USEP A advised that a limited exemption is acceptable. The Illinois EPA therefore 

recommends that the exemption be added; as other changes to Section 218/219.187(a) and (e) are 

recommended in these post-hearing comments under the subsection titled "Other Proposed 

Changes Regarding Industrial Cleaning Solvents" below, the Illinois EPA has included this 

proposed change in such subsection as well. 

Second, PII/SGIA requested that the exemption set forth in Section 

218/219.1 87(a)(2)(C)(xiv) regarding cleaning of metering rollers, dampening rollers, and 

printing plates be removed to avoid confusion, as cleaning associated with lithographic printing 

is already exempt from the cleaning requirements in Section 218/219.187 per subsection 

(a)(2)(B). The Illinois EPA initially indicated at hearing that it would likely agree; however, the 

Agency subsequently received comments from another industry group that implied that certain 

sources intended to utilize this exemption. The Illinois EPA has learned that can coating 

operations, and potentially other typcs of operations as well, utilize lithographic-type presses that 

are not necessarily covered by the regulations governing lithographic printing lines (set forth in 

Section 218/219.405 through 411). Such printing lines would therefore not be covered by the 

exemption in Section 218/219.187 for lithographic printing, as this exemption was intended to 

relieve only lithographic printers that are already otherwise regulated from additional cleaning 

obligations. These printers would, however, still be able to utilize the exemption for metering 

2 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
rollers, dampening rollers, and printing plates. Retention of the exemption is therefore 

necessary, and the Agency recommends against deletion of it. The Illinois EPA does not believe 

that the risk of confnsion for lithographic printers is great enough to justify depriving other 

sources of the benefit of this exemption. 

Pleasure Craft Surface Coatings 

On May 6, 2011, Jim Sell prefiled testimony with the Board on behalf of the American 

Coatings Association ("ACA") in connection with the second hearing that took place in this 

matter. The Illinois EPA forwarded the testimony to the USEP A. The USEP A approved the 

ACA's proposed definition of "extreme high gloss coating," approved a small container 

exemption (as set forth in the Agency's Post-Hearing Comments I), and approved the ACA's 

proposed YOM limitations, provided that the existing averaging alternative for pleasure craft 

surface coatings were eliminated. The USEP A indicated that the ACA's proposed revision to the 

definition of "pretreatment wash primer" may be acceptable, but the USEP A needed additional 

information regarding the effect of the revision on YOM emissions in order to make a 

determination. The Illinois EPA informed Jim Sell of the USEP A's responses, of the changes 

the Illinois EPA intended to propose, and of the USEP A' s request for information. 

On May 16, 2011, the Illinois EPA filed post-hearing comments with the Board, 

proposing those changes that were both requested by the ACA and approved by the USEP A. At 

the second hearing, on May 18, 2011, the representative who testified for the ACA, Scott 

Townsend, indicated that he could not speak on behalf of the ACA as to the acceptability of the 

Agency's proposed changes. Mr. Townsend presented testimony that neither reflected the 

Agency's commnnications with Jim Sell, the amendments proposed in the Agency's PostHearing Comments I, nor the existing rule as it currently applies to pleasure craft coatings. (See 

3 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
Transcript of 5/18/l1 Hearing, p. 7-17. For example, Mr. Townsend recommended that Illinois 

consider an averaging approach for pleasure craft coatings, which is already part of the current 

rule, and which the Agency is proposing to remove pursuant to both the USEPA's instructions 

and the ACA's stated preference for higher YOM limits). Consequently, after the hearing, the 

Illinois EPA engaged in additional discussions with the ACA to clarify the Illinois EPA's 

proposed changes and the information requested by USEP A. Based on these and other 

communications, the Illinois EPA believes that the only remaining pleasure craft coating issues 

are those set forth below. 

On May 26, 2011, .Tim Sell provided supplemental information regarding the definition of 

pretreatment wash primer, which the Illinois EPA forwarded to the USEP A. The USEP A 

indicated that the ACA's suggested revisions to this definition are not approvable at this time, as 

there is already an existing definition for pretreatment wash primer, and the information provided 

by the ACA did not indicate what impact the revision will have on YOM emissions. The Illinois 

EPA therefore recommends against revising the definition at this time. 

On May 26, 2011, Mr. Sell also requested that the stricter YOM content limitation for 

finish primer/surfacer be delayed four years, as opposed to the approximate two and a half year 

extension proposed by the Agency. The Illinois EPA opposes this amendment, as the USEP A 

has indicated that extending the compliance date any further is unacceptable. 

Finally, the ACA requested that a specifIc definition for "antifouling sealer/tie coat" be 

added to the rule. The USEP A approved the definition; therefore, the Illinois EPA recommends 

adding the definition to the rule as follows: 

Section 211.493 Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat 

4 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
"Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat" means a coating applied over biocidal antifouling coating for the 

purpose of preventing release ofbiocides into the environment and/or to promote adhesion 

between an antifouling and a primer or other antifoulings. 

The Illinois EPA's proposed changes regarding pleasure craft surface coatings adequately 

address all of the concerns identified in the ACA's prefiled testimony, to the extent allowed by 

the USEP A. The Illinois EPA therefore recommends that no further changes, other than those 

proposed in the Agency's Motion to Amend and post-hearing comments, be made. 

Comments of the Boeing Company 

On May 17,2011, the Boeing Company ("Boeing") submitted comments to the Board, 

requesting that the exemption for "aerospace coatings" in Section 218/219.1 87(a)(2)(B) be 

retained, not deleted as proposed by the Illinois EPA. Boeing recommended that deletion of the 

exemption be "deferred until such time that aerospace solvent cleaning operations can be subject 

to a regulation that is RACT for aerospace manufacturing." 

The Illinois EPA contacted a representative of Boeing, who confirmed that the projected 

emissions of YOM from the facility at issue do not exceed 15 lb/day; therefore, the facility is not 

subject to Illinois' industrial cleaning solvents rule. The representative indicated that Boeing's 

concerns regard potential future expansion of the operations at the facility, such that emissions 

would exceed the applicability threshold. 

The Illinois EPA understands that, in the future, a rulemaking to implement the 

recommendations contained in the Aerospace CTG may be warranted. This possible future 

rulemaking, however, should not impact the Illinois EPA's current proposal. The USEP A has 

advised that the exemption for aerospace coatings in Section 218/219. I 87(a)(2)(B) must be 

removed, as the exemptions listed in this subsection are reserved for emission units already 

5 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
governed by regulations that contain their own set of cleaning requirements. If and when an 

aerospace coatings rulemaking is necessary, interested parties can revisit the issue of exempting 

such coatings from the industrial cleaning solvents rule. Until that time, though, the Illinois EPA 

recommends complying with USEP A' s requirement that the exemption be removed, particularly 

as the removal has no current impact upon the facility at issue. 

Emission Adjustment Factor for Lithographic Printers 

At the May 18, 20 11, hearing, the Board inquired about the revisions to Sections 

218/219.187 and 218/219.411 recommended by the Agency in its Post-Hearing Comments I. 

Specifically, the Board asked about the type of "demonstration" necessary to comply with the 

Agency's proposed language regarding vapor pressure, and whether lithographic printers that 

were not previously subject to this requirement will have any additional obligations. (Transcript 

of 5/18/11 Hearing, p. 22-23). 

The proposed amendments simply require that sources be able to demonstrate, through 

recordkeeping, that their cleaning solutions satisfy the criteria for use of the emission adjustment 

factor, i.e. that the solutions have a vapor pressure below the applicable threshold. The Agency 

does not believe that the proposed language subj ects sources to any additional requirements. 

Under the existing language for both industrial cleaning solvents and lithographic printing 

operations, an exempt source is required to submit a certification to the Agency setting forth 

calculations that demonstrate that the source does not exceed the applicability threshold. 

Complying with this requirement necessarily entails maintaining sufficient records to support 

emissions calculations, including those necessary to demonstrate that cleaning solutions satisfy 

the eriteria for use of the emission adjustment factor. Further, even absent the certification 

6 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
requirement, sources are always required to demonstrate compliance, The Illinois EPA's 

proposed amendment simply clarifies this obligation, as required by the USEP A. 

Other Proposed Changes Regarding Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

The Illinois EPA received additional comments from an industry group regarding 

industrial cleaning solvents. First, the group requested that an exemption be added for cleaning 

pertormed with aerosol products if such use falls below a specified threshold. In response to this 

request, and after obtaining the USEPA's approval, thc Illinois EPA proposes amending Section 

218!219.187(a)(2)(C) as set forth below. The Illinois EPA also proposes adding the metric 

equivalents to two other daily limits in this subsection, which were mistakenly omitted from the 

Agency's original proposal. 

Also, the group indicated that the introductory language to Section 218!219.187(a)(2)(B) 

should be amended to clarify that the exemptions in this subsection apply to emission units that 

fall within the specified categories; such emission units need not be located at sources that, as a 

whole, fall within such categories, and indeed sources may have operations that fall within 

multiple categories at the same location. The Illinois EPA therefore recommends the amendment 

below. 

Finally, the industry group recommended that an exemption be added to Section 

218!219.187(a)(2)(C) for cleaning associated with performance testing conducted on production 

lines. The USEP A requested additional information supporting such an exemption, which the 

group provided. The USEP A approved a limited exemption, which the Illinois EPA 

recommends as set forth below. 

The USEP A also indicated that certain recordkeeping requirements must be added to 

Section 218!219.187(e) to address the additional exemptions described above, as well as the 

7 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
exemption requested by PIIISGIA, discussed earlier in these comments. In addition, the USEP A 

suggested that the Illinois EPA amend references to cleaning operations being "subject to" 

exclusions, in order to avoid causing confusion. The Illinois EPA recommends implementing 

the USEP A's requirements and suggestion as follows: 

Section 218.187 

a) 

(2) 

Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations 

B) Cleaning operations for emission units within the following 5ffi!ffie 

categories shall be exempt from the requirements of subsections 

(b), (c ), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this Section: 

i) Flexible package printing; 

ii) Lithographic printing; 

iii) Letterpress printing; 

iv) Flat wood paneling coating; 

v) Large appliance coating; 

vi) Metal furniture coating; 

vii) Paper, film, and foil coating; 

viii) Wood furniture coating; 

ix) Plastic parts coating; 

x) Miscellaneous metal parts coating; 

xi) Fiberglass boat manufacturing; 

xii) Miscellaneous industrial adhesives; and 

xiii) Auto and light-duty truck assembly coating; 

C) The following cleaning operations shall be exempt from the 

requirements of subsections (b), (c), (f), and (g) of this Section: 

8 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
i) Cleaning of solar cells, laser hardware, scientific 

instruments, and high-precision optics; 

ii) Cleaning conducted as part of performance laboratory tests 

on coatings, adhesives, or inks; research and development 

operations; or laboratory tests in quality assurance 

laboratories; 

iii) Cleaning of paper-based gaskets and clutch assemblies 

where rubber is bonded to metal by means of an adhesive; 

iv) Cleaning of cotton swabs to remove cottonseed oil before 

cleaning of high-precision optics; 

v) Cleaning of medical device and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing operations if the facility uses no more than 

5.7 liters (1.5 gallons} per day of solvents for such 

cleaning; 

vi) Cleaning of adhesive application equipment used for thin 

metal laminating; 

vii) Cleaning of electronic or electrical cables; 

viii) Touch-up cleaning performed on printed circuit boards 

where surface mounted devices have already been attached; 

ix) Cleaning of coating and adhesive application processes 

utilized to manufacture transdermal drug delivery products 

using no more than three gallons per day of ethyl acetate; 

x) Cleaning of application equipment used to apply coatings 

on satellites and radiation effect coatings; 

xi) Cleaning of application equipment used to apply solventborne t1uoropolymer coatings; 

xii) Cleaning of ultraviolet or electron beam adhesive 

application; 

xiii) Cleaning of sterilization indicating ink application 

equipment if the facility uses no more than 5.7 liters (1.5 

gallons} per day of solvents for such cleaning; 

9 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
xiv) Cleaning of metering rollers, dampening rollers, and 

printing plates; 

xv) Cleaning of numismatic dies; and 

xvi) Cleaning operations associated with digital printing~, 

xvii) Cleaning with aerosol products if the facility uses no more 

than 4.7 liters 0.25 gallons) per day of such products; 

xviii) Cleaning of plastic-based or vinyl-based substrates for use 

in the screen printing process when using UV curable ink 

and coating systems; 

xix) Cleaning conducted as part of performance tests on 

coatings, adhesives, or inks that are in research and 

development and that are not yet commerciallv used for the 

applications for which they are being tested. This 

exemption is limited to the use of up to a total of90.91iters 

(24 gallons) of cleaning solvent per calendar month and 

416.3 liters (11 0 gallons) of cleaning solvent per calendar 

year for such cleanin& 

e) Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

7) The owner or operator of a source with cleaning operations that fall under 

subject to one or more of the exclusions set forth in Section 

2 J S.187(a)(2)(C)(vl, er( a)(2)(C)(xiii), or (a)(2)(C)(xvii). including 

sources exempt from the limitations of this Section because of the criteria 

in Section 21S .187 (a)(1) of this Subpart, shall: 

A) By January 1,2012, or upon initial start-up of the source, 

whichever is later, submit a certification to the Agency that 

includes a declaration that the source has cleaning operations that 

fall undersubjeet to one or more of the exclusions set torth in 

Section 218. J 87(a)(2)(C)(v), er( a)(2)(C)(xiii), or (a)(2)(C)(xvii) 

and a statement identifying each such cleaning operation and the 

exclusion applicable to each cleaning operation; 

B) Collect and record the name, identification, and volume of each 

cleaning solvent as applied each day in each cleaning operation 

that falls undersubject to one or more of the exclusions set forth in 

10 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
Section 218.187(a)(2)(C)(v), 6f-(a)(2)(C)(xiii), or (a)(2)(Q(xvii); 

and 

C) Notify the Agency in writing if the amount of cleaning solvent 

used in the cleaning of medical device and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing operations or of sterilization indicating ink 

application equipment at the source ever exceeds 5,7 literslL5 

gallons} per day, or if the amount of aero,,-ol cleaning products used 

at the source ever exceeds 4,7 liters (L25 gallons) per day, within 

30 days after the exceedance occurs; 

8) The owner or operator of a source with cleaning operations that fall undq 

one or more of the exclusions set forth in Section 218, 187(a)(2)(C)(xviii) 

or (a)(2)(C)(xix). including sources exempt from the limitations of this 

Section because of the criteria in Section? 18.187(a)(1) of this Subpart, 

shall: 

A) By January 1,2012. or upon initial start-up of the source, 

whic_Dever is later, submit a certification to the Agency that 

includes a declaration that the source has cleaning operations that 

fall under one or more of the exclusions set forth in Section 

218, 187(a)(2)(C)(xviii) or (a)(2)(C)(xix), and a statement 

identifying each such cleaning operation and the exclusion 

applicable to each cleaning operatiQQ'; 

B) Collect and record the name. identification, volume, and YOM 

content of each cleaning solvent as applied each month in each 

cleaning operation that falls under one or more of the exclusions 

set forth in Section 218.187(a)(2)(C)(xviii) or (a)(2)(C)(xix): 

C) For cleaning operations that fall under the exclusion set forth in 

Section? 18, 187(a)(2)(C)(xviii). collect and record each month 

information demonstrating that the exempt cleaning solvent is 

being used exclusively for the cleaning of plastic-based or vinylbased substrates for use in the screen printing process when using 

UV curable ink and coating systems; and 

D) For cleaning operations that fall under the exclusion set forth in 

Section 218, 187(a)(2)(C)(xix). collect and record each month 

information demonstrating that the exempt cleaning solvent is 

being used exclusively for production line performance testing of 

coatings that are in research and development and are not yet 

commercially used for the applications for which they are being 

tested~ 

11 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
2&) All sources subject to the requirements of subsections (b) and (d) of this 

Section shall notify the Agency of any violation of subsection (b) or (d) by 

providing a description of the violation and copies of records documeuting 

the violation to the Agency within 30 days following the occurrence of the 

violation; 

109) All records required by this subsection (e) shall be retained by the source 

for at least three years and shall be made available to the Agency upon 

request. 

Section 219.187 Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations 

a) 

(2) 

B) Cleaning operations for emission units within the following SBtlf6e 

categories shall be exempt from the requirements of subsections 

(b), (c), (d), (e), (t), and (g) of this Section: 

i) Flexible package printing; 

ii) Lithographic printing; 

iii) Letterpress printing; 

iv) Flat wood paneling coating; 

v) Large appliance coating; 

vi) Metal furniture coating; 

vii) Paper, film, and foil coating; 

viii) Wood furniture coating; 

ix) Plastic parts coating; 

x) Miscellaneous metal parts coating; 

xi) Fiberglass boat manufacturing; 

xii) Miscellaneous industrial adhesives; and 

xiii) Auto and light-duty truck assembly coating; 

12 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
C) The following cleaning operations shall be exempt ii'om the 

requirements of subsections (b), (c), (£), and (g) of this Section: 

i) Cleaning of solar cells, laser hardware, scientific 

instruments, and high-precision optics; 

ii) Cleaning conducted as part of performance laboratory tests 

on coatings, adhesives, or inks; research and development 

operations; or laboratory tests in quality assurance 

laboratories; 

iii) Cleaning of paper-based gaskets and clutch assemblies 

where rubber is bonded to metal by means of an adhesive; 

iv) Cleaning of cotton swabs to remove cottonseed oil before 

cleaning of high-precision optics; 

v) Cleaning of medical device and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing operations ifthe facility uses no morc than 

5.7 liters ( 1.5 gallons} per day of solvents for such 

cleaning; 

vi) Cleaning of adhesive application equipment used for thin 

metal laminating; 

vii) Cleaning of electronic or electrical cables; 

viii) Touch-up cleaning performed on printed circuit boards 

where surface mounted devices have already been attached; 

ix) Cleaning of coating and adhesive application processes 

utilized to manufacture transdermal drug delivery products 

using no more than three gallons per day of ethyl acetate; 

x) Cleaning of application equipment used to apply coatings 

on satellites and radiation effect coatings; 

xi) Cleaning of application equipment used to apply solventborne fluoropolymer coatings; 

xii) Cleaning of ultraviolet or electron beam adhesive 

application; 

13 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
xiii) Cleaning of sterilization indicating ink application 

equipment if the facility uses no more than 5,7Jiters (1,5 

gallons) per day of solvents for such cleaning; 

xiv) Cleaning of metering rollers, dampening rollers, and 

printing plates; 

xv) Cleaning of numismatic dies; and 

xvi) Cleaning operations associated with digital printing;~ 

xvii) Cleaning with aerosol prodllCts if the facility uses no more 

than 4,7 liters (1.25 gallons) per day of such products; 

xviii) Cleaning of plastic-based or vinyl-based substrates for usc 

in the screen printing process when using UV curable ink 

and coating systems; 

xix) Cleaning conducted as part of performance tests on 

coatings, adhesives, or inks that are in research and 

development and that are not yet commercially used for the 

applications for which they are being tested, This 

exemption is limited to the use of up to a total of 90,9 liters 

(24 gallons) of cleaning solvent per month and 416,3 liters 

(110 gallons) of cleaning solvent per year for such 

cleaning, 

e) Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

7) The owner or operator of a source with cleaning operations that fall under 

subject to one or more of the exclusions set forth in Section 

219, 187(a)(2)(C)(v), er( a)(2)(C)(xiii), or (a)(2)(C)(xvii), including 

sources exempt from the limitations of this Section because of the criteria 

in Section 219,187(a)(1) of this Subpart, shall: 

A) By January 1,2012, or upon initial start-up ofthe source, 

whichever is later, submit a certification to the Agency that 

includes a declaration that the source has cleaning operations that 

fall undersubject to one or more ofthe exclusions set forth in 

Section 219, 187(a)(2)(C)(v), er( a)(2)(C)(xiii), or (a)(2)(C)(xvii) 

and a statement identifying each such cleaning operation and the 

exclusion applicable to each cleaning operation; 

14 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
B) Collect and record the name, identification, and volume of each 

cleaning solvent as applied each day in each cleaning operation 

that falls underwbjeeHe one or more of the exclusions set forth in 

Section 219.187( a)(2)(C)(vt OF-( a)(2)(C)(xiii), or (a)(2)(C)(xvii); 

and 

C) Notify the Agency in writing if the an10unt of cleaning solvent 

used in the cleaning of medical device and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing operations or of sterilization indicating ink 

application equipment at the source ever exceeds 5.7 liters ( 1.5 

gallons} per day, or if the amQtmt of aerosol cleaning products used 

at the source ever exceeds 4.7 liters (1.25 gallons) per day. within 

30 days after the exceedance occurs; 

8) The owner or operator of a source with cleaning operations that fall under 

one or more of the exclusions set forth in Section 219. 1 87(a)(2)(C)(xviii) 

or (a)(2)(C)(xix). including sources exempt from the limitations of this 

Section because of the criteria in Section 219.187(a)(1) of this Subpart. 

shall: 

A} By January 1, 2012, or upon initial start-up ofthe source. 

whichever is later. submit a certification to the Agency that 

includes a declaration that the source has cleaning operations that 

fall under one or more of the exclusions set forth in Section 

219.187(a)(2)(C)(xviii) or (a)(2)(C)(xix), and a statement 

identifying each such cleaning operation and the exclusion 

applicable to each cleaning operation: 

l2L Collect and record the name. identification. volume. and YOM 

content of each cleaning solvent as applied each month in each 

cleaning operation that falls under one or more of the exclusions 

set forth in Section 219. 1 87(a)(2)(C)(xviii} or (a)(2)(C)(xix): 

C) For cleaning operations that fall under the exclusion set forth in 

Section 219.187(a)(2)(C}(xviii), collect and record each month 

information demonstrating that thc exempt cleaning solvent is 

being used exclusively for the cleaning of plastic-based or vinylbased substrates for use in the screen printing process when using 

UV curable ink and coating systems; and 

ill- For cleaning operations that fall under the exclusion set forth in 

Section 219. 1 87(a)(2)(C)(xix), collect and record each month 

information demoustrating that the exempt cleaning solvent is 

being used exclusively for production line performance testing of 

coatings that are in research and development and are not yet 

15 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
commercially used for the applications for which they are being 

tested; 

2&) All sources subject to the requirements of subsections (b) and (d) of this 

Section shall notify the Agency of any violation of subsection (b) or (d) by 

providing a description of the violation and copies of records documenting 

the violation to the Agency within 30 days following the occurrence of the 

violation; 

lQ9) All records required by this subsection (e) shall be retained by the source 

for at least three years and shall be made available to the Agency upon 

request. 

The group recommended additional changes, but such changes were rejected by the 

USEP A, and the Agency has already conveyed that information to the group. 

In addition to changes recommended by the industry group, the USEP A requested 

changes to Section 218/219.187(f) regarding monitoring requirements for sources subject to 

Section 218/219.187(b)(3). The USEPA brought this same issue to the Illinois EPA's attention 

previously with regard to miscellaneous industrial adhesives; the USEP A indicated that a 

requirement for continuous monitoring equipment must be added when a carbon adsorber is used 

to demonstrate compliance. (See USEPA's letter to the Agency, dated March 7, 2011, submitted 

to the Board on April 14, 2011, as an Exhibit to the Testimony of David Bloomberg and 

Testimony of Yoginder Mahajan). The USEPA recently noticed, and advised the Agency, that 

the same mistake appears in the current rule regarding industrial cleaning solvents. The Illinois 

EPA therefore recommends the following changes. The Agency does not believe these changes 

will have any negative impact upon subject sources, as such sources are most likely already 

complying with these monitoring procedures: 

Section 218.187 Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations 

16 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
f) Monitoring Requirements 

I) If an afterburner or carbon adsorber is used to demonstrate compliance, 

the owner or operator of a source subject to Section 218.187(b)(3) of this 

Subpart shall: 

A) Install, calibrate, operate, and maintain temperature monitoring 

devices with an accuracy of 3°C or SOF on the emissions control 

system in accordance with Section 218.1 OS(d)(2) of this Part and 

in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Monitoring 

shall be performed at all times when the emissions control system 

is operating; and 

B) Install, calibrate, operate and maintain, in accordance with 

manufacturer's specifications, a continuous recorder on the 

temperature monitoring devices, such as a strip chart, recorder or 

computer, with at least the same accuracy as the temperature 

monitor; 

2) If a carbon adsorber is used to demonstrate compliance, the owner or 

operator of a source subject to Section 218.187(b)(3) of this Subpart shall 

use Agency and USEP A approved continuous monitoring equipment 

which is installed, calibrated, maintained. and operated according to 

vendor specifications at all times the control device is in use. The 

continuous monitoring equipment shall monitor the YOM concentration of 

each carbon adsorption bed exhaust or the exhaust of the bed next in 

sequence to be desorbed; 

Section 219.187 

If an emissions control system other than an afterburner or carbon 

adsorber is used to demonstrate compliance, the owner or operator of a 

source subject to Section 2 I 8.187(b )(3) of this Subpart shall install, 

maintain, calibrate, and operate such monitoring equipment as set forth in 

the owner's or operator's plan approved by the Agency and USEPA 

pursuant to Section 218.187(b)(3). 

Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations 

f) Monitoring Requirements 

I) If an afterburner or carbon adsorber is used to demonstrate compliance, 

the owner or operator of a source subject to Section 219.187(b)(3) of this 

Subpart shall: 

17 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
A) Install, calibrate, operate, and maintain temperature monitoring 

devices with an accuracy of 3°e or 5°F on the emissions control 

system in accordance with Section 219.1 05( d)(2) of this Part and 

in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, Monitoring 

shall be performed at all times when the emissions control system 

is operating; and 

B) Install, calibrate, operate and maintain, in accordance with 

manufacturer's specifications, a continuous recorder on the 

temperature monitoring devices, such as a strip chart, recorder or 

computer, with at least the same accuracy as the temperature 

monitor; 

2) If a carbon adsorber is used to demonstrate compliance, the owner or 

operator of a source subject to Section 219.187(b)(3) of this Subpart shall 

use Agency and USEP A approved continuous monitoring equipment 

which is installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated according to 

vendor specifications at all times the control device is in use, The 

continuous monitoring equipment shall monitor the YOM concentration of 

each carbon adsorption bed exhaust or the exhaust of the bed next in 

sequence to be desorbed: 

12,) If an emissions control system other than an afterburner or carbon 

adsorber is used to demonstrate compliance, the owner or operator of a 

source subject to Section 219.187(b)(3) of this Subpart shall install, 

maintain, calibrate, and operate such monitoring equipment as set forth in 

the owner's or operator's plan approved by the Agency and US EPA 

pursuant to Section 219.187(b)(3). 

Agency Position Regarding All Other Substantive Revisions 

This rulemaking is intended to address deficiencies identified by the USEP A in current 

regulations for certain product categories. The Illinois EPA has worked closely with the USEP A 

over the last nine months, both to correct these deficiencies, as well as to ensure that any other 

amendments made to the rule in response to stakeholder comments are acceptable to the USEP A. 

This effort has included working with industry groups and USEP A to resolve all issues brought 

to the Agency's attention, and obtaining USEPA approval before recommending/supporting any 

substantive amendments to the original rulemaking proposal. 

18 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
The USEPA's disapproval of the regulations that are being amended is the main 

roadblock to Illinois' redesignation to attainment ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard. A second 

disapproval of Illinois' rule will require yet another rulemaking, which will further delay 

redesignation. The Illinois EPA therefore strongly opposes any changes to the rule that have not 

been first approved in writing by the USEP A. 

DATED: June 1,2011 

1021 N. Grand Ave. East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

(217) 782-5544 

Respectfully submitted, 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

I,d /1,/ By:~ lJaI~ Dana Vetterhoffer j'l' / v Assistant Counsel .' 

Division of Legal Counsel 

19 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

REASONABL Y AVAILABLE CONTROL ) 

TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE ) 

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM ) 

GROUP II AND GROUP IV CONSUMER & ) 

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED ) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 211, ) 

218,and219 ) 

RII-23 

(Rulemaking-Air) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

1, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached POSTHEARING COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

upon the following person: 

John Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph, Suite I 1-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 

and electronically to the following persons: 

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST. 

DATED: June 1,201 I 

1021 N. Grand Ave. East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

(217) 782-5544 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

By:~ ~'::(7{14&f~ Dana Vetterhoffer ,-;:;T 7 

Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
Timothy J. Fox 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 

Chicago, IL 6060 I 

foxtiaJ,ipcb.st<jte. i I. us 

Virginia Yang 

Deputy Legal Counsel 

Service List Rll-23 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, IL 62702-1271 

virginia. van g@illinois.gov 

Matthew Dunn, Chief 

Division of Environmental Enforcement 

Office of the Attorney General 

100 West Randolph St., Suite 1200 

Chicago, IL 60601 

mdunn(?iJatg.state. il. us 

Alec M. Davis 

General Counsel 

Illinois Enviromnental Regulatory Group 

215 E. Adams St. 

Springfield, II, 6270 I 

adavis@ierg.org 

James Sell 

American Coatings Association 

1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

jsell@paint.org 

Katherine D. Hodge 

Monica T. Rios 

Hodge Dwyer & Driver 

3150 Roland Ave. 

P.O. Box 5776 

Springfield, IL 62705-5776 

khodge@hddattorneys.com 

mriosiaJ,hddattornevs.com 

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, 06/01/2011 

 * * * * * PC# 4 * * * * * *
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 16, 2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL 

TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE 

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM 

GROUP II AND GROUP IV CONSUMER & 

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 

211, 218, and 219

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 R11-23

 (Rulemaking - Air)

Proposed Rule. Second Notice.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by A.S. Moore):

The Board today proposes for second-notice review by the Joint Committee on 

Administrative Rules (JCAR) amendments to its air pollution regulations. On March 7, 2011, 

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency or Illinois EPA) filed a proposal under 

provisions including the “fast-track” rulemaking authority of Section 28.5 of the Environmental 

Protection Act (Act). See 415 ILCS 5/10, 27, 28 (2010); Public Act 96-0308, eff. Aug. 11, 2009 

(P.A. 96-0308) (re-enacting repealed Section 28.5). The Agency responds to comments by the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) by proposing amendments to recentlypromulgated rules controlling emission of volatile organic material (VOM) from the following 

Group II and Group IV Consumer and Commercial Product Categories: industrial cleaning 

solvents, flat wood paneling coatings, flexible packaging printing materials, lithographic printing 

materials, letterpress printing materials, miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, auto and 

light-duty truck coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing 

materials. On March 17, 2011, the Board adopted its first-notice opinion and order without 

commenting on the substantive merits of the Agency’s proposal. See 35 Ill. Reg. 4887 (Apr. 1, 

2011); see also P.A. 96-0308 (subsection (e)). 

In addition, after reviewing testimony and comments by the American Coatings 

Association (ACA) and the Agency, the Board today opens a subdocket A in this rulemaking in 

order to address a small container exemption in Sections 218.208 and 219.208, neither of which 

was included in the Board’s first-notice opinion and order. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.208, 

219.208; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Emissions 

from Group II and Group IV Consumer and Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R11-23 (Mar. 17, 2011); see also 5 ILCS 100/5-40(b) (2010) 

(“Each agency shall give at least 45 days' notice of its intended action to the general public. This 

first notice period shall commence on the first day the notice appears in the Illinois Register.”); 

35 Ill. Reg. 4887 (Apr. 1, 2011).

In this opinion, the Board first provides the procedural history of this rulemaking before 

addressing two preliminary matters. The Board then briefly summarizes the statutory and 
2

regulatory background of VOM regulation. The opinion next generally reviews the sources 

addressed in this rulemaking and VOM emissions from them. The Board then considers the 

economic reasonableness and technical feasibility of the Agency’s proposal. The Board then 

summarizes its second-notice proposal on a section-by-section basis. Finally, the order 

following the opinion sets forth the proposed amendments for second-notice review by JCAR.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 7, 2011, the Agency filed a proposal to amend Parts 211, 218, and 219 of the 

Board’s air pollution regulations (Prop. 211, Prop. 218, and Prop. 219, respectively). A number 

of documents accompanied the proposal, including a Statement of Reasons (SR), a “Technical 

Support Document for Controlling VOM Emissions from Lithographic Printing, Letterpress 

Printing, Flexible Package Printing, Flat Wood Paneling Coating, and Industrial Cleaning 

Operations” (TSD Group II) and a “Technical Support Document for Control of Volatile Organic 

Material Emissions in Non-Attainment Areas from Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings; Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial 

Adhesives; and Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials” (TSD Group IV). The Agency also 

filed a motion for waiver of copy requirements.

In an order dated March 17, 2011, the Board accepted the Agency’s proposal for hearing

and submitted the proposal to first-notice publication in the Illinois Register without commenting 

on its substantive merits. See 35 Ill. Reg. 4887 (Apr. 1, 2011). In the same order, the Board also 

granted the Agency’s motion for waiver of copy requirements.

In a letter dated March 17, 2011, the Board requested that the Department of Commerce 

and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) conduct an economic impact study of the Agency’s 

rulemaking proposal. See 415 ILCS 5/27(b) (2010). The letter requested that DCEO determine 

whether it would conduct a study and respond to the Board by April 6, 2011. On May 23, 2011, 

the Board received a response from DCEO. In a letter dated May 5, 2011, DCEO Director 

Warren Ribley stated that, “[a]t this time, the Department is unable to undertake such an 

economic impact study. Therefore, I must respectfully decline your request.”

In an order dated March 18, 2011, the hearing officer scheduled three hearings: the first 

beginning Wednesday, April 27, 2011, in Chicago with pre-filed testimony due on or before 

Friday, April 15, 2011; the second beginning Wednesday, May 18, 2011, in Chicago with prefiled testimony due on or before Friday, May 6, 2011; and the third beginning Wednesday, June 

1, 2010, in Chicago with pre-filed testimony due on or before Friday, May 20, 2011. See P.A. 

96-0308 (subsections (e), (f)).

First notice of the proposed rules appeared in the Illinois Register on April 1, 2011. 35

Ill. Reg. 4887 (Apr. 1, 2011); see 5 ILCS 100/5-40(b) (2010) (establishing 45-day comment 

period).

On April 14, 2011, the Agency pre-filed for the first hearing testimony by Mr. David 

Bloomberg (Bloomberg Test.) and Mr. Yoginder Mahajan (Mahajan Test.). Both witnesses 

included an Exhibit A, a letter from USEPA to the chief of the Agency’s air bureau (Exh. A). 
3

Exhibit A included an attachment entitled “Required Corrections to Volatile Organic Compound 

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Rules Submitted to U.S. EPA on July 29, 

2010 by Illinois EPA” (USEPA Attachment).

On April 15, 2011, the Board received a public comment (PC 1) on the Agency’s 

proposal from the Specialty Graphics Imaging Association (SGIA) and the Printing Industry of 

Illinois/Indiana Association (PII).

On April 25, 2011, the Agency filed a motion to amend its rulemaking proposal (Mot. 

Amend). The Board grants the motion below under “Preliminary Matters.”

The first hearing took place as scheduled on April 27, 2011, in Chicago. Also on April 

27, 2011, the Board received the transcript of the first hearing (Tr.1). During the first hearing, 

the hearing officer admitted into the record two exhibits, the pre-filed testimony of Mr. 

Bloomberg (Exh. 1) and the pre-filed testimony of Mr. Mahajan (Exh. 2).

In an order dated April 27, 2011, the hearing officer stated that the Board would hold 

open the statutory seven-day period during which any person may request that the second 

hearing be held. See P.A. 96-308 (subsection (f)(1)). On May 3, 2011, Mr. James Sell filed a 

request on behalf of ACA that the second hearing take place as scheduled.

On May 6, 2011, Mr. Sell pre-filed testimony (Sell Test.) on behalf of the ACA for the 

second hearing. On May 16, 2011, the Agency filed post-hearing comments (PC 2). On May

17, 2011, Mr. David Shanks of Boeing Environmental Policy Analysis filed comments on behalf 

of The Boeing Company (Boeing) (PC 3).

The second hearing took place as scheduled on May 18, 2011. Also on May 18, 2011, 

the Board received the transcript of the second hearing (Tr.2). During the second hearing, the 

hearing officer admitted into the record two exhibits. The first was prepared by ACA and 

compared the application of one coat and two coats of both solvent-based and water-based 

coating (Exh. 3), and the second consisted of testimony by Mr. Scott Townsend, Vice President 

of International Paint Yacht Division of Akzo Nobel (Townsend Test. or Exh. 4), who appeared 

on behalf of Mr. Sell. Townsend Test. at 1.

On May 19, 2011, the Agency filed a “Request to Cancel Hearing.” In an order dated 

May 20, 2011, the hearing officer cancelled the third hearing and set a deadline of June 1, 2011 

to file post-hearing comments.

On June 1, 2011, the Agency filed post-hearing comments (PC 4).
4

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Motion to Amend Rulemaking Proposal

As noted above under “Procedural History,” the Agency on April 25, 2011 filed a motion 

to amend its rulemaking proposal. See Mot. Amend. The Agency’s motion responds to requests 

from industry representatives and also seeks to correct a small number of errors. Id.

Section 101.500(d) of the Board’s procedural rules provides in pertinent part that, 

“[w]ithin 14 days after service of a motion, a party may file a response to the motion. If no 

response is filed, the party will be deemed to have waived objection to the granting of the 

motion, but the waiver of objection does not bind the Board or the hearing officer in its 

disposition of the motion.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500(d). Having reviewed the substance of the 

motion, and in the absence of any response to it, the Board grants the Agency’s motion and 

amends the rulemaking proposal as requested.

The Board summarizes the substance of the Agency’s amendments on a section-bysection basis below in the summary of its second-notice proposal. See infra at __-__.

Motion to Correct Transcript

On May 19, 2011, the Agency filed a motion to correct the transcript of the second 

hearing (Mot. Corr.). The Agency requests that the Board make four changes “to correct errors 

in the transcript. . . .” Mot. Corr. at 1.

Section 101.500(d) of the Board’s procedural rules provides in pertinent part that, 

“[w]ithin 14 days after service of a motion, a party may file a response to the motion. If no 

response is filed, the party will be deemed to have waived objection to the granting of the 

motion, but the waiver of objection does not bind the Board or the hearing officer in its 

disposition of the motion.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500(d). Having reviewed the substance of the 

motion, and in the absence of any response to it, the Board grants the Agency’s motion and 

directs the Clerk to correct the transcript of the second hearing as requested in the Agency’s 

motion.

STAUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

The Agency states that its proposal is intended to satisfy Illinois’ obligation to submit a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing sources of VOM1

 1

 The Agency states that VOM “is effectively the same as volatile organic compounds” (VOC). 

SR at 1.

emissions in areas designated as 

nonattainment with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. 

SR at 1-2, 6, citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502, 7511a. The Agency reports that two Illinois areas, 
5

Chicago and St. Louis/Metro East, have been designated as moderate nonattainment areas 

(NAA) for the 8-hour ozone standard.2

These nonattainment designations trigger Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements “for 

adopting regulations that reduce emissions sufficiently to demonstrate attainment of the 

standard.” SR at 3, citing 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1). Specifically, the Agency claims that the CAA 

requires Illinois “to submit VOM regulations constituting RACT [reasonably available control 

technology] for Group II and Group IV Consumer and Commercial Product Categories in ozone 

NAAs classified as moderate and above.” SR at 4, citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(1), 7511a(b)(2); 

see Mahajan Test. at 2. The Agency defines RACT “as the lowest emission limitation that a 

particular source can meet by applying a control technique that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic feasibility.” SR at 3, citing 44 Fed. Reg. 53762 (Sept. 

17, 1979); see Mahajan Test. at 2.

The Agency states that the CAA requires states to revise SIPs “to include RACT for 

sources of VOM emissions covered by a control techniques guideline (CTG) issued between 

November 15, 1990, and the date of attainment.” SR at 2, citing 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(2); see

Mahajan Test. at 2. The Agency reports that “[o]n October 5, 2006, the USEPA issued final 

CTGs for Group II Consumer and Commercial Products.” SR at 4. The Agency also reports 

that, “[o]n October 7, 2008, the USEPA issued final CTGs for Group IV Consumer and 

Commercial Products.” Id.; see Mahajan Test. at 2. USEPA required submission of SIP 

revisions responding to the CTGs within one year. SR at 4, citing 73 Fed. Reg. 58484, 71 Fed. 

Reg. 58745-53.

The Agency states that, in response to the Group II and Group IV CTGs, it submitted to 

the Board proposed amendments to the VOM regulations. SR at 4, citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 

218, 219. The Agency notes that the Board subsequently adopted amendments. Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group IV 

Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Il. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 

219, R10-20 (Sept. 2, 2010); Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile 

Organic Material Emissions from Group II Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed 

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R10-8 (June 17, 2010); see Mahajan Test. 

at 2.

The Agency indicates that, on July 29, 2010, it “submitted the adopted rules to the 

USEPA and requested that USEPA approve them as amendments to Illinois’ SIP.” SR at 4; see

Bloomberg Test. at 3, Mahajan Test. at 2; see also Tr.1 at 10. The Agency reports that the 

USEPA determined “that the revisions were insufficient and that USEPA would not approve 

them without additional amendments.” SR at 4; see Mahajan Test. at 2. The Agency states that, 

while the USEPA ultimately “agreed that several of its suggested revisions were not necessary,” 

 2

 The Chicago nonattainment area includes the following Illinois jurisdictions: Cook, DuPage, 

Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties, Goose Lake and Aux Sable Townships in Grundy 

County, and Oswego Township in Kendall County. SR at 7, citing 40 C.F.R. 81.314. The St. 

Louis/Metro East nonattainment includes the following Illinois counties: Jersey, Madison, 

Monroe, and St. Clair. SR at 7, citing 40 C.F.R. 81.31.
6

it insisted on a number of changes necessary for SIP approval. SR at 5; see Bloomberg Test. at 

3; Mahajan Test. at 2, 3; USEPA Attachment.

In testimony pre-filed for the first hearing, Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Mahajan noted that 

USEPA specified deficiencies that it required the Agency to address. Bloomberg Test. at 3, 

Mahajan Test. at 2-3; see Exh. A (USEPA letter to chief of Agency air bureau), USEPA 

Attachment. Mr. Bloomberg listed the following general issues identified by USEPA: 

“[i]nadequate recordkeeping requirements for exempt sources, insufficient VOM limitations in 

certain categories, typographical errors, provisions requiring clarification, failure to include 

definitions for certain terms, and failure to implement certain recommendations set forth in the 

CTGs.” Bloomberg Test. at 3; see also Mahajan Test. at 2. Mr. Bloomberg’s pre-filed 

testimony stated that the Agency’s proposal addressed the issues specified by USEPA in its 

Attachment. Bloomberg Test. at 3; see Mahajan Test. at 3, USEPA Attachment. Mr. Bloomberg 

also reported that the Agency proposed additional changes “in order to clarify and simplify some 

sections of the rules that were found to cause confusion for affected sources.” Bloomberg Test. 

at 3; see Mahajan Test. at 3.

The Agency states that “Illinois is required to submit these SIP revisions before the 

USEPA can re-designate the Chicago and Metro East NAAs to attainment of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS.” SR at 6, citing 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(3)(E). The Agency notes that, on July 2, 2007, it 

“submitted to the USEPA an attainment demonstration for the Metro East nonattainment area for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.” SR at 7. The Agency further notes that it submitted an 

attainment demonstration for the Chicago nonattainment area on March 19, 2009. Id. The 

Agency argues that “[t]hese areas cannot be redesignated to attainment, however, unless and 

until the Illinois EPA submits the additional USEPA-mandated amendments as SIP revisions and 

the USEPA approves such revisions.” Id. at 7; see Bloomberg Test. at 2, 3, Mahajan Test. at 3.

In its second post-hearing comments filed June 1, 2011, the Agency stated that it had 

worked closely with USEPA to address deficiencies in Illinois’ regulations “as well as to ensure 

that any other amendments made to the rule in response to stakeholder comments are acceptable 

to the USEPA.” PC 4 at 18. The Agency describes this process as “working with industry 

groups and USEPA to resolve all issues brought to the Agency’s attention, and obtaining USEPA 

approval before recommending/supporting any substantive amendments to the original 

rulemaking proposal.” Id.

The Agency characterizes USEPA’s disapproval of regulations proposed for amendment 

as “the main roadblock to Illinois’ redesignation to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard.” PC 4 at 19. The Agency claims that another USEPA disapproval of these VOM 

regulations will require additional rulemaking and delay redesignation. Id. The Agency 

concludes that it “strongly opposes any changes to the rules that have not been first approved in 

writing by the USEPA.”

DESCRIPTIONS OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED SOURCES

AND PROJECTED VOM EMISSIONS
7

The Agency indicated in its Statement of Reasons that its proposed regulations apply 

within the Chicago and Metro East regions, the two Illinois areas designated as nonattainment 

for the eight-hour ozone NAAQS. SR at 7, citing 40 C.F.R. § 81.314. The Agency further stated 

that, within those two areas, the proposed regulations “are generally expected to affect both new 

and existing sources that are covered by a Group II or Group IV CTG” and meet specified 

applicability criteria. SR at 7. The Agency noted that it had filed in rulemaking dockets R10-8 

and R10-20 lists of sources potentially affected by the proposed regulations. Id. The Agency 

incorporated those two TSDs into the current rulemaking by reference. Id., see TSD Group II, 

TSD Group IV.

The Board addresses the record with regard to potentially affected sources on a categoryby-category basis in the following subsections.

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

Description of Sources

In its TSD, the Agency stated that “[m]iscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings are 

coatings applied to a wide range of metal and plastic parts for decorative, protective, and 

functional purposes.” TSD Group IV at 8 (§2.1). The Agency further stated that manufacturers 

apply these coatings to components of products such as

fabricated metal products, molded plastic parts, small and large farm machinery, 

commercial and industrial machinery and equipment, automotive or transportation 

equipment, interior or exterior automotive parts, construction equipment, motor 

vehicle accessories, bicycles and sporting goods, toys, recreational vehicles, 

pleasure craft (recreational boats), extruded aluminum structural components, 

railroad cars, heavier vehicles, lawn and garden equipment, business machines, 

laboratory and medical equipment, electronic equipment, steel drums, metal 

pipes, and numerous other industrial and household products. Id.

The Agency indicated that, in order to conform to the CTG corresponding to these products, it 

refers to coatings applied to these subcategories of parts as “miscellaneous metal and plastic 

parts coatings.” Id. The Agency stated that “[e]missions of VOM from this source category 

occur when the solvent carrying the coating material evaporates and leaves the coating material 

on the surface during application and drying, and to a lesser extent during the mixing and 

thinning of the coating, and during cleaning operations.” Id.

The Agency emphasized that its proposal affects coatings “that are applied by 

manufacturers to the parts they produce, and not [] coatings that are applied to test panels or 

coupons for research and development, quality control, or performance testing.” TSD Group IV 

at 8. The Agency also emphasized that its proposal does not address “any coatings that are 

otherwise defined in CAA Section 183(e) which have been previously addressed by other 

CTGs.” Id. The Agency stated that CTGs have addressed coatings including the following: 

shipbuilding and repair coatings; aerospace coatings; wood furniture coatings; metal furniture 

coatings; large appliance coatings; automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings; flatwood 
8

paneling coatings; miscellaneous industrial adhesives; fiberglass boat manufacturing materials; 

and paper, film, and foil coatings.” Id.

Potentially Affected Sources

The Agency stated that it relied upon USEPA’s estimate of the number of sources 

affected nationally by the proposed regulations to determine the number of Illinois sources 

“potentially affected by the proposed regulation regarding miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings.” TSD Group IV at 20 (§2.6). According to the Agency, the CTG lists 1,269 sources in 

this category in nonattainment areas nationally with 155 in Illinois nonattainment areas. Id. The 

Agency reported that “111 of these sources remained in operation in 2007.” Id.; see id. at 20-23 

(Table 2.3).

VOM Emissions

Noting that “existing emission sources in Illinois are not required to report what portion 

of their VOM emissions are due to metal and plastic parts coatings,” the Agency claimed that “it 

is difficult to determine the total VOM emissions directly related to the category.” TSD Group 

IV at 9 (§2.2). Based on USEPA data indicating 111 Illinois sources potentially affected by 

these proposed regulations, the Agency estimated that those sources “emitted a total of 1,730 

tons of VOM in 2007.” Id. Claiming that the CTG “does not detail the level of control 

anticipated from proposed regulations meeting the CTG’s recommendations,” the Agency stated 

that it “has not estimated the VOM reductions that may result from implementation of this 

proposal.” Id.

While it acknowledged uncertainty regarding emissions reduction, the Agency claimed 

that it must revise Illinois’ SIP “to include RACT for VOM sources covered by a CTG issued by 

USEPA after November 15, 1990, and before the area’s date of attainment.” TSD Group IV at 9. 

The Agency stated that the CTG for this category recommends controls that may constitute 

RACT for affected coating operations. Id. The Agency further stated that it “concurs with the 

recommendations of the CTG and has included them, with few exceptions, in the proposed 

regulation. . . .” Id.

Industrial Cleaning Solvents

Description of Potentially Affected Sources

Prior to the adoption of rules in docket R10-8, Illinois had “current regulations for cold 

cleaning degreasing, open top vapor degreasing, and conveyorized degreasing operations as well 

as some limitations and work practices on cleaning solvent uses in existing rules, e.g., 

regulations regarding autobody refinishing, wood furniture coating, and lithographic printing.” 

TSD Group II at 17 (§5.4); see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.182-184, 219.182-184. In docket R10-8, 

the Board adopted Section 218/219.187, which addresses other industrial solvent cleaning 

operations and defines “cleaning operation” for the purposes of that section as
9

the process of cleaning products, product components, tools, equipment, or 

general work areas during production, repair, maintenance, or servicing, including 

but not limited to spray gun cleaning, spray booth cleaning, large and small 

manufactured components cleaning, parts cleaning, equipment cleaning, line 

cleaning, floor cleaning, and tank cleaning, at sources with emission units. See 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a), 219.187(a).

In the TSD for Group II, the Agency stated that the category of industrial cleaning solvents 

includes a number of products and procedures “used to clean dirt, soil, oil, and grease as well as 

remove adhesives, paints, and inks.” TSD Group II at 5 (§2.4). The Agency further stated that 

“VOM emissions occur during the cleaning process while wiping, flushing, brushing, and from 

the storage and disposal of used solvents and rags.” TSD at 6.

The Agency noted that USEPA has conducted studies of VOM emissions focusing on six 

industries: “automotive, electrical equipment, magnetic tape, furniture, packaging, and 

photographic supplies.” TSD Group II at 5-6. The Agency claimed that these studies revealed 

nine major categories in which cleaning processes result in VOM emissions: “spray gun 

cleaning, spray booth cleaning, large manufactured components cleaning, parts cleaning, 

equipment cleaning, line cleaning, floor cleaning, tank cleaning, and small manufactured 

components cleaning.” Id. The Agency argued that the first four account for a majority of VOM 

emissions from these categories and that spray gun cleaning alone accounts for 50 percent. Id. 

The Agency stated that the CTG nonetheless “recommends coverage of a wide range of cleaning 

activities” and that its proposal in R10-8 reflected that recommendation. Id. The Agency 

emphasized, however, that the regulations proposed in R10-8 did not cover “[g]eneral cleaning 

of offices, bathrooms, and other janitorial type services.” Id.

Projected VOM Emissions

Also in the TSD for Group II, the Agency noted USEPA’s estimate that 130 sources in 

Illinois’ two nonattainment areas emit a total of 15 PPD or more of VOM from cleaning 

operations at the source. TSD Group II at 20 (§6.4). During consideration of the proposal in 

docket R10-8, the Agency stated that its proposal applied to “anybody who uses this amount of 

industrial cleaning solvents” and not only to operations in Group II categories. Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group II 

Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 

219, R10-8, slip op. at 8-9 (May 6, 2010) (citing transcript of hearing). Elaborating, the Agency 

argued that, because it does not generally seek specific information on solvent use and because 

that use may not be subject to a current permit, “there was no good way to make an estimate as 

to who might be affected. . . .” Id. at 9.

Nonetheless, the Agency stated that baseline emissions from the 130 sources noted by 

USEPA are estimated to be 2293 MG/yr (2528 tpy) of VOM. TSD Group II at 20. The Agency 

further stated that this estimate included “degreasing operations that are already impacted by 

existing state regulations and will not gain any further reductions.” Id. The Agency argued that 

it was “not reasonably practicable to estimate emission reductions for the other impacted sources 

under the industrial clean-up solvent rule, as any source in either NAA that uses cleaning solvent 
10

is potentially affected, depending on the source’s usage level.” Id. at 20-21. The Agency also 

claimed that potentially affected sources may already be using solutions that comply with the 

proposed regulations. Id. at 21. Accordingly, the Agency projected that its proposed regulations 

would result in actual VOM emission reductions but claimed that “calculation of such emission 

reductions cannot be accomplished without detailed information from every affected source.” Id.

at 21.

Flat Wood Paneling Coatings

Description of Potentially Affected Sources

In the TSD for Group II, the Agency cited the applicable CTG to state that “[f]lat wood 

paneling products are used in construction and can be classified as three main product types: 

decorative interior panels, exterior siding, and tileboard.” TSD Group II at 6 (§2.5) (citation 

omitted). The Agency stated that “[d]ecorative interior panels are often embossed and usually 

grooved, having more decorative coating requirements than many other products.” Id. For these 

panels, the Agency indicated that “[s]ubstrates include hardwood, plywood, medium density 

fiberboard, and particle board.” Id.

With regard to exterior siding, the Agency stated that it “may be coated at the production 

facility or on-site.” TSD Group II at 6. The TSD indicated that flat wood paneling regulations 

do not apply to on-site coating of exterior siding. Id. The Agency further stated that, in addition 

to siding, “[e]xterior trim is also generally manufactured at the same production facility and 

coated with the same coatings.” For this classification, the Agency listed substrates including 

solid wood, hardboard, and waferboard. Id.

With regard to tileboard, the Agency indicated that it “is used on high-moisture areas 

such as kitchens and bathrooms, and is considered a premium interior wall paneling.” TSD 

Group II at 6. The Agency stated that “[t]ileboard meets the specifications for Class I hardboard 

according to the American National Standards Institute.” Id.

The Agency stated that producers coat flat wood paneling in order “to provide protection 

from the environment, modify the surface, and present a desired appearance.” TSD Group II at 

6. The Agency cited the CTG to state that

a typical flat wood coating facility applies stains and varnishes to natural plywood 

panels used for wall coverings. Other plants print wood grain patterns on particle 

board panels that were first undercoated with an opaque coating to mask the 

original surface. Coatings applied to flat wood surfaces include fillers, sealers, 

‘groove’ coats, primers, stains, basecoats, inks and topcoats. TSD Group II at 6 

(citation omitted).

Addressing methods and techniques, the Agency cited the CTG to state that coating line 

processes typically begin “with mechanical alterations of the substrate (filing of holes, cutting of 

grooves, sanding, etc.). . . .” TSD Group II at 7 (citation omitted). Following this step,
11

[m]ost coatings are applied by direct roll coating. Filler is usually applied by 

reverse roll coating. The offset rotogravure process is used where the coating and 

printing operation requires precision printing techniques. Other coating methods 

include spray techniques, brush coating and curtain coating. A typical flat wood 

paneling coating line includes a succession of coating operations. Each individual 

operation consists of the application of one or more coatings followed by a heated 

oven to cure the coatings. Id. at 6-7 (citation omitted).

The Agency stated that, during these operations, “VOM emissions occur primarily during the 

coating process as the coatings dry and cure, but also as coatings are applied, and during mixture 

before application.” Id. at 7.

Projected VOM Emissions

The TSD for Group II noted a 2005 search of the Agency’s source inventory maintained 

by its Bureau of Air. That search projected that four sources, all in the Chicago NAA, would 

become subject to the proposed flat wood paneling coating regulations. TSD at 21 (§6.5). The 

Agency stated that “[o]ne of these four sources would appear to fall below the proposed 

applicability threshold” and that “[t]he other three total 0.09 TPD of VOM emissions.” Id. The 

Agency claimed that the CTG projects VOM emission reductions averaging 60 percent from 

interior paneling and tileboard manufacturing. Id. Stating that the Illinois sources appear to fall 

within these two manufacturing categories, the Agency “estimates a VOM reduction of 0.05 

TPD in the Chicago NAA.” Id

Flexible Package Printing

Description of Potentially Affected Sources

In the TSD for Group II, the Agency stated that “[f]lexible packaging means any package 

or part of a package, the shape of which can be readily changed.” TSD Group II at 4 (§2.3). The 

Agency further stated that this packaging “includes, but is not limited to, bags, pouches, liners, 

and wraps utilizing paper, plastic, film, aluminum foil, metalized or coated paper or film, or any 

combination of these materials.” Id. The Agency also indicated that “[s]hrink-wrap labels or 

wrappers (but not self-adhesive labels) printed on or in-line with a flexible packaging printing 

press are also considered to be flexible packaging.” Id. The Agency stated, however, that the 

following items are not flexible packaging: “cartons, gift wraps, hot stamp foils, wall coverings, 

vinyl products, decorative laminates, floor coverings, or tissue products.” Id. at 5.

The Agency characterized rotogravure printing as using “an image etched or engraved 

into a plate or cylinder.” TSD Group II at 5. The Agency stated that “[i]nks, coatings, and 

adhesives may be applied to a substrate through the rotogravure process.” Id. The Agency 

described flexographic printing as the use of “an image raised above the level of the printing 

plate, with the image carrier made of rubber or other flexible material.” Id. The Agency 

distinguished the two in part by stating that “[f]lexographic printing is better suited to short 

production runs, in contrast to rotogravure printing, which is more useful for long runs.” Id. The 
12

Agency claimed that “VOM emissions for both types of printing originate from the drying of 

inks as well as solvents used to clean presses and other components.” Id.

The Agency cited the CTG to state that “the use of waterbased inks is increasing.” TSD 

Group II at 5 (citation omitted). However, the Agency also noted that “[m]any facilities use 

hundreds of different inks to print various custom colors required by their packaging customers. 

Low [VOM] inks, coatings, and adhesives may not be available to meet all of the performance 

requirements.” Id (citation omitted).

The Agency stated that “most VOM control for flexible package printing is achieved 

through the use of add-on control devices.” TSD Group II at 5. The Agency indicated that most 

of the VOM emitted through these processes “is captured through evaporation in a dryer, along 

with hoods and other collection devices for solvent that evaporates elsewhere in the printing 

process.” Id. The Agency claimed that “[o]lder presses frequently do not allow for the same 

level of capture as newer installations do.” Id. However, the Agency cited the CTG to claim 

that “‘[t]here have been significant improvements in capture efficiency of flexographic presses 

and rotogravure presses’ since USEPA’s most recent review of those operations.” Id. (citation 

omitted). The Agency further cited the CTG to state that, “[s]ince 1990, many vendors have 

guaranteed capture efficiency of 85 to 90 percent without use of a permanent total enclosure.” 

Id. at 5 (citation omitted). The Agency argued that control devices can now attain control 

efficiencies of at least 95 percent. Id. (citation omitted).

Projected VOM Emissions

In the Group II TSD, the Agency stated that its proposal in docket R10-8 separated

flexible packaging printing from the existing flexographic and rotogravure regulations. TSD 

Group II at 17; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.401, 219.401. The Agency indicated that “[s]ources 

that print on flexible packaging will need to meet either a tightened ink VOM content or add-on 

control requirement.” TSD Group II at 17. The Agency stated that the required efficiency of the 

add-on control “will depend on both the date of construction, at the source, of the press and the 

control device.” Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.401(c), 219.401(c). The Agency claimed that 

these factors reflect “that presses and control devices already installed at the source might not 

have been designed to obtain capture and control efficiencies as high as are currently 

obtainable.” TSD Group II at 17. The Agency’s proposal also required that printing lines that 

meet the CTG’s prescribed applicability threshold comply with work practice requirements for 

cleaning materials. See id. at 5; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.402(b), 219.402(b).

In the Group II TSD, the Agency stressed difficulties in estimating emission reductions in 

this category. First, the Agency stated that “the Illinois source database does not generally 

specify the type of substrate being used by a flexographic or rotogravure printing operation.” 

TSD Group II at 20 (§6.3). The Agency further stated that the data also do not “specify the date 

of original installation of the printing press or the associated control device.” Id. Accordingly, 

the Agency listed as a potentially affected source each existing flexographic or rotogravure 

printing facility in the Illinois inventory exceeding the proposed applicability threshold. Id.; see 

id. at 27-28 (Appendix B: Potentially Affected Sources).
13

The Agency emphasized, however, that “all sources but one using flexographic or 

rotogravure printing of any type are already achieving greater control efficiency than required by 

the proposed regulation.” TSD Group II at 20. The Agency stated that the single remaining 

source “is required by its permit to achieve 60 percent control efficiency, but will now need to 

achieve 65 percent.” Id. The Agency claimed that this represents a reduction of 0.03 TPD in 

permitted emissions, “but a 0.01 TPD reduction according to emissions information in the 

inventory.” Id.

The Agency expected negligible emission reductions from proposed new ink limits. TSD 

Group II at 20. The Agency stated that, “[w]hile the inventory does not provide information 

regarding the use of compliant inks, it has been the Agency’s experience that sources printing on 

flexible packaging have had difficulty with the use of compliant VOM inks on such substrates.” 

Id. The Agency reported that “[s]ources either relied on add-on controls or switched to waterbased inks that should meet the newly proposed requirements as well as the existing ones.” Id.

Regarding proposed work practice standards for cleaning materials, the Agency argued 

that they “do not lend themselves to a calculation of emission reductions.” TSD Group II at 20. 

The Agency claimed that actual VOM emission reductions will result from requirements such as 

“storing of cleaning materials and used shop towels in closed containers, as well as conveying 

cleaning materials in closed containers or pipes. . . .” Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.401(d), 

219.401(d). The Agency argued, however, that “calculation of such emission reductions cannot 

be accomplished without detailed information from every affected source -- both before and after 

such changes are made.” TSD Group II at 20.

Lithographic Printing Lines

Description of Potentially Affected Sources

In the TSD for Group II, the Agency stated that offset lithographic printing is used to 

produce materials including “books, magazines, periodicals, labels and wrappers, catalogs and 

directories, financial and legal documents, business forms, advertising materials, newspapers, 

newspaper inserts, charts and maps, calendars, tickets and coupons, greeting cards, and stamps.” 

TSD Group II at 2 (§ 2.1). The Agency added that, although other printing processes may 

produce these materials, “the newspaper industry uses offset lithography predominantly, with 

over 70 percent of all newspapers in the United States printed by this method.” Id.

The Agency described lithography as “a planographic method of printing; that is, the 

printing and nonprinting areas are essentially in the same plane on the surface of a thin 

‘lithographic’ plate.” TSD Group II at 3 (§ 2.1). The Agency further stated that the two areas 

are distinguished chemically by rendering the image area water repellent and the nonimage area 

water receptive. Id.

The Agency described the category of offset lithographic printing: “ink is transferred 

from the lithographic plate to a rubber-covered ‘intermediate’ or ‘blanket’ cylinder and then to 

the substrate.” TSD Group II at 3. The Agency stated that this “[t]ransfer of the ink from the 

lithographic plate to the blanket cylinder, rather than directly to the substrate, is the offset 
14

characteristic of this type of printing.” Id. The Agency stated that offset lithographic printing 

itself can be categorized by the manner in which the substrate is fed to the press. Id. The 

Agency indicated that, “[i]n sheet-fed printing, individual sheets of paper or other substrate are 

fed to the press. In web printing, continuous rolls of paper are fed to the press and the paper is 

cut to size after it is printed.” Id.

The Agency stated that pigments, vehicles, binders, and other additives comprise 

lithographic inks. TSD Group II at 3. The Agency further stated that pigments include both 

organic and inorganic materials. Id. The Agency indicated that “[l]ithographic inks may be 

heatset, where heat is required to set the ink, or non-heatset, where the inks are set by absorption 

into the substrate by oxidation or other methods not requiring added heat.” Id. The Agency 

claimed that “[h]eatset inks may contain up to 45 percent VOMs.” Id. The Agency also listed 

the characteristics of non-heatset inks: higher boiling points, less pastiness, and usually less than 

35 percent VOM content. Id. The Agency also stated that “[m]ost non-heatset inks used in 

sheet-fed printing are below 25 percent VOM.” Id.

The Agency stated that printing operations apply a fountain solution to a lithographic 

plate to render nonimage areas unreceptive to ink. TSD Group II at 3. The Agency further 

stated that, “[s]ince printing inks are oil-based and oil is repelled by water, the fountain solution 

is water-based.” Id. The Agency indicated that these fountain solutions also contain “small 

quantities of gum arabic or synthetic resins, acids, and buffer salts to maintain the pH of the 

solution, and a wetting agent or ‘dampening aid’ to enhance the spreadability of the fountain 

solution across the print plate.” Id. The Agency stated that the dampening aid reduces the 

surface tension of water and increases viscosity. Id.

The Agency stated that, since the 1950s, isopropyl alcohol, a VOM, “has been used as the 

primary dampening aid.” TSD Group II at 3. The Agency further stated that “[e]thanol and

normal propyl alcohol have also been used in this capacity.” Id. The Agency indicated that, 

“[b]efore the 1980s, concentration of alcohol in the fountain solution could range from 0 to 35 

percent or higher, with most presses using between 15 and 20 percent.” Id. The Agency argued 

that printers have since reduced the alcohol content of fountain solution and have “often replaced 

alcohol completely with other dampening aids.” Id. at 4.

The Agency stated that printers use cleaning solutions “to remove excess printing inks, 

oils, and paper components from press equipment” and also “to wash the blankets, the rollers, the 

outside of the presses, and to remove excess ink residue between color changes.” TSD Group II 

at 4. The Agency further stated that these “solutions are petroleum-based solvents, often mixed 

with detergent and/or water.” Id. The Agency indicated that “[t]he cleaning compound may be a 

single solvent, such as kerosene, or a combination of solvents.” Id.

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency stated that its “proposal 

does not reduce the applicability threshold for add-on control devices used by heatset presses.” 

TSD Group II at 15. The Agency thus argued that “no new lithographic printing units will need 

to add controls.” Id. The Agency indicated, however, that “new control devices on heatset web 

lithographic presses will need to meet a 95 percent control efficiency instead of the current 90 

percent limit.” Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.407, 219.407 The Agency expressed the belief 
15

that “control devices in existence today can meet the 95 percent limit, but at the request of 

printing industry representatives, the Agency has agreed not to ask existing sources to meet the 

higher control efficiency.” TSD Group II at 15.

The Agency stated that its proposal establishes “a new applicability threshold of 15 PPD 

for fountain solution and cleaning solution requirements for all lithographic printing operations.” 

TSD Group II at 15; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.405, 219.405. The Agency further stated that 

“[t]he requirements are the same as are already present in the Illinois regulations, other than a 

correction to the fountain solution limits that changes their measurement from ‘by volume’ to ‘by 

weight.’” TSD Group II at 15.

The Agency emphasized that “sources between 15 and 100 PPD will be able to take 

advantage of several new exclusions pertaining to fountain and cleaning solutions.” TSD Group 

II at 15; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.405, 219.405. The Agency stated that “[s]heet-fed presses 

that print substrates no larger than 11 inches by 17 inches and any lithographic press with a 

fountain solution reservoir of no larger than one gallon are not required to comply with the 

fountain solution requirements.” TSD Group II at 15. The Agency further stated that “sources in 

this [15 to 100 PPD] group will also need to meet only a 70 percent VOM content limit in 

cleaning solutions rather than the 30 percent limit that is applicable to sources over 100 PPD.” 

Id. at 15; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.407, 219.407. Finally, the Agency also stated that “[a]ll 

such sources will also be able to use up to 110 gallons of cleaning solution per year that do not 

meet either the VOM content or vapor pressure requirements.” TSD Group II at 15-16; see 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 218.405, 219.405.

The Agency stated that, “[b]ecause of the new exclusions that apply only between 15 and 

100 PPD, even subject sources in this group must continue to calculate emissions to ensure they 

do not exceed the 100 PPD threshold and lose the exclusions.” TSD Group II at 16. The 

Agency further stated that “[s]ources may opt out of the exclusions if they do not wish to make 

use of them, and thus would not need to calculate emissions in this fashion.” Id.

The Agency stated that “[s]ources which fall below one of the applicability limits, and 

are thus exempt from one or more control requirements, must certify this exemption to the 

Illinois EPA through calculations showing that their emissions will not exceed the applicable 

VOM threshold.” TSD Group II at 16; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.411, 219.411. The Agency 

further stated that “[t]hese calculations must include all VOM emissions, including inks, fountain 

solution, and cleaning solvents, and are determined on a monthly basis.” TSD Group II at 16.

The Agency emphasized that current regulations recognize “that the substrate retains 

some of the VOM present in the ink, and this a retention factor of 0.95 is used when calculating 

emissions from non-heatset inks, and a factor of 0.20 is used when calculating emissions from 

heatset inks.” TSD Group II at 16; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.411, 219.411. The Agency noted 

that current regulations also contain “a factor recognizing that VOM remains on solvent-laden 

rags that are stored and disposed of properly.” TSD Group II at 16; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.411, 219.411. The Agency stated that “[t]hese factors continue to be allowed for 

determination of applicability.” TSD Group II at 16; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.405, 219.405. 

The Agency also noted that its “proposal adds emission adjustment factors to be used in other 
16

situations when not determining applicability (such as Annual Emissions Reports and permit 

limits).” TSD Group II at 16; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.411, 219.411. The Agency claimed 

that “[t]hese factors take into account carryover of VOM from automatic blanket wash and 

fountain solutions into the dryer and control device.” TSD Group II at 16 (citation omitted).

Projected VOM Emissions

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency indicated that it did not 

“expect any additional [emission] reductions from increasing the required control efficiency for 

heatset web lithographic printers from 90 to 95 percent, because that change will not affect 

existing control devices.” TSD Group II at 18 (§6.1). The Agency did expect “some small 

VOM reductions related to the addition of fountain and cleaning solution requirements for 

sources with 15 PPD or more of emissions.” Id. The Agency claimed that it is difficult to 

estimate these reductions because it is not possible to identify sources that may be excluded from 

the proposed requirements. Id. The Agency elaborated that its source inventory “does not track 

information such as the number of gallons of cleaning solution used, the size of sheet-fed 

presses, or the fountain solution reservoir volume. . . .” Id.

The Agency’s search of the 2005 source inventory maintained by its Bureau of Air 

indicated that 98 lithographic printing sources in the Chicago NAA and three in the Metro East 

NAA have VOM emission over 15 PPD. TSD Group II at 18. The Agency reported that 66 of 

those sources in the Chicago NAA and all three of those sources in the Metro East NAA emit 

less than 100 PPD and were potentially affected by the proposed regulations. Id.

For those potentially affected sources, the Agency estimated potential emission 

reductions attributable to reformulation of fountain solutions at between 25% and 90% for 

smaller sources. TSD Group II at 19. Because this estimate was based on a 1993 draft CTG, and 

because the current CTG refers to steps reducing the VOM content of fountain solutions, the 

Agency relied on the 25% estimate in calculating reductions. Id. The Agency argued that 

“[c]leaning solutions can be calculated as a straight 30% reduction, since the regulation requires 

reformulation such that they cannot contain more than 70% VOM. “ Id. With regard to cleaning 

solutions emissions, the Agency claimed that they “make up a lower percentage of emissions 

compared to fountain solutions, ranging up to approximately 50% at certain facilities.” Id. The 

Agency argued that, “[a]ssuming that almost 50% of non-ink emissions come from cleaning 

solutions, which have 30% reduction, it is safe to use a 25% overall emission reduction to cover 

all VOM originating from the source.” Id.

The Agency stated that total VOM emissions from the 66 potentially affected sources in 

the Chicago NAA equal 1.455 TPD. TSD Group II at 19. Accordingly, a 25% reduction 

represents 0.36 TPD of VOM. Id. The Agency further stated that, in the Metro East NAA, a 

25% reduction from total emissions of 0.0295 TPD represents a reduction of 0.007 TPD. Id.
17

Letterpress Printing Lines

Description of Potentially Affected Sources

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency stated that “[l]etterpress 

printing involves the use of a reverse-imaged raised surface that is inked and then pressed against 

a substrate to transfer the image.” TSD Group II at 4 (§2.2). The Agency further stated that, 

compared with lithographic, flexographic, and rotogravure printing, “[l]etterpress operations

make up a very small percentage of the printing industry.” Id. Based on its source inventory, the 

Agency indicated that “no letterpress printing facility could be found in the Metro-East NAA, 

with very few of these facilities found even in the Chicago NAA.” Id.

The Agency stated that letterpress and lithographic printing operations use inks that are 

“very similar” and may both be accomplished through sheet-fed and web presses. TSD Group II 

at 4. The Agency thus argued that “ink emission sources are similar” to those of lithographic 

printing. Id. The Agency further argued that, although “[l]etterpress operations do not use 

fountain solutions,” they use cleaning solutions similar to those used in lithographic printing 

operations. Id.

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency stated that its proposal 

addressed “both heatset and non-heatset letterpress operations.” TSD Group II at 16. The 

Agency further stated that the proposal “would require that heatset letterpress printers use an 

add-on control device if they meet the applicability requirements of 25 TPY PTE plantwide.” 

Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.413, 219.413. The Agency believed that no operation in either of 

the two NAAs would be subject to this requirement. TSD Group II at 16.

The Agency further stated that “[a]ll letterpress printing operations of 15 PPD or more 

will be also required to abide by cleaning material limitations equivalent to those” applicable to 

lithographic printing sources emitting between 15 and 100 PPD. TSD Group II at 16; see 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.413, 219.413. Specifically, such sources would be required to use cleaning 

solutions containing no more than 70 percent VOM or having a maximum composite partial 

vapor pressure or less than 10 mm Hg. TSD Group II at 16.

Projected VOM Emissions

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency indicated that there are no 

heatset web letterpress printing operations in the two NAAs and that it expected no emission 

reductions from add-on controls for this category. TSD Group II at 19 (§6.2). The Agency’s 

search of the 2005 source inventory maintained by its Bureau of Air indicated that there are two 

sources in the Chicago NAA using letterpress printing. Id. The Agency stated that “[o]nly one 

of these sources appears to emit more than 15 PPD from such operations, with less than 0.02 

TPD of VOM, including emissions from the letterpress as well as other printing operations.” Id. 

The Agency argued that, “[e]ven if all of the emissions originated from letterpress cleaning 

solutions, which are to be reduced by 30 percent, the resulting reduction would be 0.005 TPD. 

Id. Accordingly, the Agency expected only “negligible” emission reduction from proposed 

regulations for this category. Id.
18

Automobile and Light-Duty Trick Assembly Coatings

Description of Potentially Affected Sources

In the TSD for its proposed Group IV regulations, the Agency characterized automobile 

and light-duty truck assembly coatings as “coatings applied to new automobile or light-duty 

truck bodies or body parts for those vehicles” in order “to enhance durability and appearance.” 

TSD Group IV at 24 (§3.1). The Agency stated that the CAA categorizes these coatings, which 

are generally formulated and marketed for these purposes. Id. The Agency emphasized that 

“[t]his coating category includes coatings applied on a contractual basis outside vehicle 

manufacturing facilities, but does not include coatings used at plastic or composites molding 

facilities described in the Auto and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP [National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants] (40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart III).” Id. (citation omitted).

The Agency stated that “[t]he coating process for automobiles and light-duty trucks 

generally consists of surface preparation, priming operations, topcoat operations, and final repair 

operation.” TSD Group IV at 24. The Agency further stated that “[e]missions of VOM from 

auto and light-duty truck coatings occur when the solvent carrying the coating material 

evaporates and leaves the coating material on the surface during application and drying, and to a 

lesser extent during the mixing and thinning of the coating.” Id. The Agency claimed that 

coating application, flash off, and the drying and curing of coatings account for a majority of 

emissions from this category. Id.

The Agency stated that its emissions inventory identified only a single source affected by 

the proposed regulation of these coating operations. TSD Group IV at 29 (§3.6). The Agency 

elaborated that Ford Motor Company in Cook County is the only source in that inventory “that is 

classified by the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) codes specified by 

the USEPA’s notice of final determination and availability of control techniques guidelines to be 

affected by the auto and light-duty truck coatings category.” Id. at 24-25 (§3.2) (citation 

omitted).

Projected VOM Emissions

In the TSD for its proposed Group IV regulations, the Agency reported that the single 

subject source, Ford Motor Company in Cook County, included the following affected coating 

operations: topcoat operations, prime coat operations, sealer application, dip coating application, 

and a final repair coating line. TSD Group IV at 25 (§3.2). The Agency stated that all of these 

operations exceed the CTG’s applicability threshold of 15 pounds of VOM emissions per day. 

Id. The Agency stated that this source emitted approximately 466 tons of VOM from affected 

coating lines in 2007. Id.
19

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

Description of Potentially Affected Sources

In the TSD for its proposed Group IV regulations, the Agency stated that “[t]he 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives category includes adhesives and adhesive primers at 

manufacturing and repair facilities with adhesive application operations.” TSD Group IV at 30 

(§4.1). The Agency emphasized, however, that “[t]he category does not include adhesives that 

have been addressed by earlier CTGs.” Id.

The Agency reported that these “[m]iscellaneous industrial adhesives are used for joining 

surfaces in assembly and construction of a large variety of products.” TSD Group IV at 30. The 

Agency argued that, compared with other fastening methods, “[a]dhesives allow for faster 

assembly speeds, less labor input, and more ability for joining dissimilar materials.” Id.

The Agency indicated that, while “there are a wide variety of adhesives formulated from 

a multitude of synthetic and natural raw materials, all adhesives can be generally classified as 

solution/waterborne, solvent-borne, solventless or solid (e.g., hot melt adhesives), pressure 

sensitive, hot-melt, or reactive (e.g., epoxy adhesives and ultraviolet-curable adhesives).” Id. 

The Agency also indicated that these “[a]dhesives can also be generally classified according to 

whether they are structural or nonstructural. Structural adhesives are commonly used on 

industrial assembly processes and are designed to maintain a product’s structural integrity.” Id. 

The Agency states that industrial adhesives can be applied by methods including “air atomized 

spray, electrostatic spray, high volume/low pressure (HVLP) spray, dip coating, flow coating, 

brush or roll coating, electrocoating, and hand application.” Id.

The Agency reported that “VOM emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives are 

generally due to evaporation of solvents during application of the adhesive, drying and curing of 

the adhesive, and in cleaning operations.” TSD Group IV at 30. The Agency elaborated that 

“[t]he majority of emissions occurs during the application and drying/curing of the adhesives.” 

Id.

The Agency stated that it relied upon USEPA’s estimate of the number of sources 

affected nationally by the proposed regulations to determine the number of Illinois sources 

“potentially affected by the proposed regulation.” TSD Group IV at 35 (§4.6). According to the 

Agency, the CTG lists 180 sources in this category in nonattainment areas nationally with 17 in 

Illinois nonattainment areas. Id. at 35-36. The Agency reported that 12 of those 17 operated in 

2007. Id.; see id. at 36 (Table 4.2).

Projected VOM Emissions

In the TSD for its proposed Group IV regulations, the Agency noted that “Illinois 

emission inventory data is not adequately specific to determine what portion of a source’s 

emissions are due to industrial adhesives.” TSD Group IV at 31 (§4.2). The Agency claimed 

that “it is difficult to determine the total VOM emissions directly related to the category at any 

given source.” Id. The Agency determined, however, that there are 12 potentially affected 
20

sources in Illinois NAAs and that they “emitted an estimated total of 120 tons of VOM in 2007.” 

Id.

The Agency claimed that data regarding emission reductions from the proposed 

regulation are “uncertain.” TSD Group IV at 31. The Agency stated that it must nonetheless 

revise Illinois’ SIP “to include RACT for VOM sources covered by a CTG issued by USEPA 

after November 15, 1990, and before the area’s date of attainment.” Id. The Agency stated that 

the CTG for this category recommends controls that constitute RACT for affected adhesives. Id. 

The Agency further stated that its proposed regulations “are consistent with the CTG’s 

recommendations.” Id.

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials

Description of Potentially Affected Sources

In the TSD for its proposed Group IV regulations, the Agency stated that “[t]he CTG 

addressing fiberglass boat manufacturing materials applies to sources manufacturing fiberglass 

hulls or decks for boats, or sources that construct molds for the manufacture of fiberglass boat 

hulls or decks.” TSD Group IV at 37 (§5.1). The Agency further stated that “[t]he CTG does 

not apply to sources solely manufacturing boat parts.” Id. The Agency indicated that, if a source 

manufactures fiberglass boat hulls and decks, [then] the manufacture of all fiberglass boat parts 

at the source is covered by the CTG.” Id. The Agency stated that “[e]missions of VOM from 

fiberglass boat manufacture occurs from the use of gel coats and resins applied to fiberglass in 

the manufacturing process and from material used to clean application equipment used in the 

process.” Id.

Projected VOM Emissions

In the TSD for its proposed Group IV regulations, the Agency stated that “there are 

currently no sources in Illinois that will be affected by the proposed regulation of this source 

category.” TSD Group IV at 43 (§5.4). The Agency stated that it assumes “that any source that 

intended to commence operation of a source in this category in an Illinois non-attainment area 

would necessarily consider the proposed regulation in the planning of source operations. . . .” Id.

TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS

The Agency indicated in its Statement of Reasons that “[t]he technology for controlling 

VOM emissions from Group II and Group IV product categories is both technically feasible and 

economically reasonable.” SR at 8. The Agency states that the TSDs filed in R10-8 and R10-20, 

which it had incorporated by reference into this rulemaking, “included a thorough discussion of 

the control techniques available to subject sources.” Id.; see TSD Group II, TSD Group IV.
21

Technical Feasibility

The Agency claims that it is technically feasible to control VOM emissions from Group 

II and Group IV product categories. SR at 8. The Board addresses the record with regard to 

technical feasibility on a category-by-category basis on the following subsections.

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

The CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coating provided three emission 

control options and recommended various work practices. TSD Group IV at 9 (§2.3). The TSD 

argued that “[t]he three options for control detailed in the CTG are intended to provide a measure 

of flexibility in compliance,” and the Agency included all three options in its proposal. Id. at 10.

The TSD stated that the Agency “relied upon the CTG to determine the technical 

feasibility of the proposed VOM limits.” TSD Group IV at 10. The TSD noted that “USEPA 

based the limits and practices on regulations achieving the same level of emission reduction in 

California, and specifically in the South Coast Air Quality Management District” (SCAQMD).

TSD at 10. The Agency argued that, because sources in other regions comply with these limits 

and because there is some flexibility in complying, “the limits in the proposed regulation are 

technically feasible.” Id.

In his testimony pre-filed on behalf of the ACA, Mr. Sell argued that VOM limits 

applicable to certain pleasure craft surface coatings “do not represent RACT.” Sell Test. at 1; 

see Townsend Test. at 2. He indicates that the SCAQMD limits were recognized at the time of 

their adoption as “technology-forcing.” Sell Test. at 1. He adds that SCAQMD has amended its 

regulations on the basis that “the hoped for technology had not developed. . . . “ Id. at 2. Mr. 

Townsend’s testimony stated that the SCAQMD regulations and the CTG include compliance 

deadlines that “do not provide sufficient time for the coatings manufacturers to formulate 

products that comply with the restrictive VOC limits, while also meeting the technical 

performance and aesthetic requirements of pleasure craft manufacturers and owners.” Townsend 

Test. at 3, 4; see Tr.2 at 9-10, 15. Mr. Sell also states that SCAQMD adopted regulations “before 

the ban on TBT containing antifouling coatings and thus failed to include a coatings category 

that is designed to contain their release -- an ‘Antifoulant Sealer/Tie Coating.’” Sell Test. at 2; 

see Townsend Test. at 3-4; Tr.2 at 14. He further argues that the draft CTG did not include 

pleasure craft coating limitations, which “surfaced for industry’s review in the final CTG.” Id.;

see Townsend Test at 2; Tr.2 at 8-9. He stated that this procedure prevented the ACA from 

working with the USEPA on the VOM limitations before they appeared in the final CTG. Sell 

Test. at 3; see Townsend Test. at 2; Tr. 2 at 9, 17.

Mr. Sell states that industry has provided USEPA with data on current pleasure craft 

coatings for development of a National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP). Sell Test. at 3; see Townsend Test. at 5; Tr.2 at 16. He argues that the prior 

development of a more stringent NESHAP applicable nationally may have reduced or even 

obviated the need for a less stringent RACT standard applicable in nonattainment areas. Sell 

Test. at 4. He suggests that, if USEPA had first developed the NESHAP, it would have seen that 
22

the VOM limitations for pleasure craft coatings “are not available or technologically achievable 

and thus cannot be considered current RACT.” Id.

Accordingly, the ACA proposed to revise a number of provisions pertaining to pleasure 

craft surface coating. The Board summarizes those proposed revisions below in its section-bysection summary of its second-notice proposal. See infra at __-__.

Use of Low VOM Coatings. The TSD noted the use of low-VOM coatings as one 

option for reducing VOM emissions. TSD Group IV at 10 (§2.3.1). The TSD further noted that 

the CTG provides “recommended application methods and specific limits on VOM content in 

coatings in terms of mass of VOM per volume of coating. These VOM limits do not include 

water and exempt compounds in the calculation of mass per volume VOM content.” Id. at 10, 

12-13 (Table 2.1). The CTG also recommended “one or more of the following application 

methods: electrostatic application, HVLP spray, flow coat, roller coat, dip coat (including 

electrodeposition), airless spray, air-assisted airless spray, or other coating application methods 

capable of achieving a transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than that achieved by HVLP 

spraying.” TSD Group IV at 17.

The TSD indicated that the CTG provides “exceptions for specified coatings or uses of 

those coatings that exempt them from either the VOM limits, the application methods, or both.” 

TSD Group IV at 10. The TSD attributed these exemptions “to these coatings requiring a higher 

VOM content in order to meet performance specifications.” Id. The Agency indicated that these 

exemptions are reflected in its proposal. Id. at 10-11.

Use of Low VOM Coatings and Add-On Controls. The TSD noted that “[a]n affected 

source may also choose to combine the use of low-VOM coatings with add-on controls.” TSD 

Group IV at 14 (§2.3.2). This compliance option limits VOM emissions “in terms of mass of 

VOM emitted per volume of coatings solids applied.” Id. The CTG intended this option “for 

use by facilities employing a combination of low-VOM coatings, specific application methods, 

and add-on controls. . . .” Id. The TSD listed “the equivalent VOM limits in terms of mass of 

VOM per volume of solids.” Id. at 10, 14, 15-16 (Table 2.2). The CTG derived these limits 

from those based upon mass per volume of coating, “assuming a VOM density of 883 g/L.” Id. at 

14.

The CTG also recommended “one or more of the following application methods: 

electrostatic application, HVLP spray, flow coat, roller coat, dip coat (including 

electrodeposition), airless spray, air-assisted airless spray, or other coating application methods 

capable of achieving a transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than that achieved by HVLP 

spraying.” TSD Group IV at 17.

90% Capture and Control Efficiency. The TSD noted that, instead of using low-VOM 

coatings, “a source may opt to install and operate an add-on capture and control system that 

provides an overall control efficiency of at least 90%.” TSD Group IV at 17 (§2.3.3). The TSD 

expected this option to achieve VOM emissions reductions “that are equal to or greater than the 

limits” under the two preceding compliance options. Id. Sources complying through this option 
23

need not meet VOM content limits described above or employ recommended application 

methods. Id.

Work Practices. In addition to VOM content and emission limits, the CTG 

recommended work practices for these operations. TSD Group IV at 19 (§2.5). The CTG stated 

that “[t]he work practices address coating activities and cleaning activities, and are intended to 

further reduce VOM emissions from the source category.” Id. The TSD indicated that “[t]he 

proposed regulation includes the recommended work practices from the CTG in their entirety.” 

Id. Specifically, the CTG recommended work practices for coating-related activities including 

the following: 

(1) store all VOM-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related waste 

materials in closed containers; (2) ensure that mixing and storage containers used 

for VOM-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related waste materials are 

kept closed at all times except when depositing or removing those materials; (3) 

minimize spills of VOM-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related waste 

materials; and (4) convey VOM-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related 

waste materials from one location to another in closed containers or pipes. Id.

The CTG also recommended work practices for cleaning materials including the following:

(1) store all VOM-containing cleaning materials and used shop towels in closed 

containers; (2) ensure that storage containers used for VOM-containing cleaning 

materials are kept closed at all times except when depositing or removing those 

materials; (3) minimize spills of VOM containing cleaning materials; (4) convey 

VOM-containing cleaning materials from one location to another in closed 

containers of pipes; and (5) minimize VOM emission from cleaning of 

application, storage, mixing, and conveying equipment by ensuring that 

equipment cleaning is performed without atomizing the cleaning solvent and all 

spent solvent is captured in closed containers. Id.

Industrial Cleaning Solvents

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency noted the CTG’s 

recommendation that sources emitting more than 15 pounds per day of VOM through industrial 

cleaning comply with various requirements. TSD Group II at 10 (§3.4) (citation omitted); see 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 218.187, 219.187. The Agency stated that the various cleaning activities “use a

multitude of different solvents with different styles of applications.” TSD Group II at 10. The 

Agency proposed regulations covering “a wide range of products that remove contaminants from 

parts, products, tools, machinery, and other work production areas.” Id. The Agency stressed 

work practices, solvent substitution, and controls as the chief techniques for reducing VOM 

emissions from this category. Id. at 10-11.

Work Practices. The Agency indicated that solvent management practices can reduce 

VOM emissions. TSD Group II at 10. The Agency stated that these practices “include keeping 

solvent containers and used applicators covered; properly storing and disposing of spent solvents 
24

and used cleaning rags; minimizing air circulation around all cleaning operations; and 

implementing equipment practices that reduce emission, e.g., leak detection and repair 

practices.” Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187, 219.187.

VOM Content Limits. The Agency indicated that substitution of low-VOM or no-VOM 

solvents can reduce emissions. Group II TSD at 10. The Agency notes the CTG’s 

recommendation of “a content limit of 50 grams VOM per liter (0.42 lb/gal) of cleaning material 

for those industries that are not already covered, or to be covered, by a CTG.” Id. The Agency 

also stated that, as a result of discussions with industry, other states, and USEPA, it proposed to 

add additional “exemptions and higher VOM content limits for certain specific cleaning 

activities.” Id. at 10-11; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(b)(1), 219.187(b)(1).

Alternate Vapor Pressure Limit. The Agency noted that the CTG recommends the use 

of low vapor pressure solvents because “the slower evaporation reduces the amount of VOM 

released into the atmosphere.” TSD Group II at 11. The Agency stated that its proposal 

reflected the CTG’s recommended limit of 8 mm Hg at 20 degrees Celsius in place of 50 grams 

of VOM per liter of cleaning material. Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(b)(2), 219.187(b)(2).

Alternate Control. The Agency stated that add-on controls, equipment modification, 

and changing cleaning methods all can reduce VOM emissions. TSD Group II at 11. The 

Agency further stated that “[t]he CTG recommends an overall control efficiency of 85 percent 

reduction in emissions of VOM, which is reflected in the proposed rule.” Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.187(b)(3), 219.187(b)(3).

Exclusions. The Agency stated that the CTG proposes to exclude “certain categories 

from the cleaning regulations, as these categories already have or will have their own 

recommended work practices and limitations.” TSD Group II. at 11. The Agency further stated 

that

[t]hese categories include coating operations for aerospace, wood furniture, flat 

wood paneling, large appliance, metal furniture, plastic parts, paper film and foil, 

miscellaneous metal parts, auto and light-duty truck assembly, and shipbuilding 

and repair; flexible packaging printing materials; lithographic printing materials; 

letterpress printing materials; fiberglass boat manufacturing materials; and 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives.” Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(B), 

219.187(a)(2)(B).

The Agency also stated that both the CTG and industry groups have suggested “[o]ther 

categories with specific exemptions.” TSD Group II at 11. These categories include

electrical and electronic components; precision optics; numismatic dies; stripping 

of cured inks, coatings, and adhesives; cleaning of resin, coating, ink, and 

adhesive mixing, molding, and application equipment; research and development 

laboratories; medical device or pharmaceutical manufacturing; and performance 

or quality assurance testing of coatings, inks, or adhesives. Id. Further exclusion 

recommendation include cleaning of paper-based gaskets and clutch assemblies; 
25

cleaning of adhesive application equipment used for thin metal laminating; touchup cleaning on circuit boards; cleaning of coating and adhesive application 

processes utilized to manufacture transdermal drug delivery product using less 

than three gallons per day of ethyl acetate; cleaning of application equipment used 

to apply coatings on satellites and radiation effect coatings; cleaning of 

application equipment used to apply solvent-borne fluoropolymer coatings; 

cleaning of ultraviolet or electron beam adhesive application; and cleaning of 

electrical cables. Id. at 11-12; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(C), 

219.187(a)(2)(C).

Flat Wood Paneling Coating Lines

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency stated that the CTG refers 

to three options for controlling VOM emissions from flat wood paneling coating operations: 

reformulation, add-on controls, or work practices. TSD Group II at 12 (§3.5).

Material Reformulation. The Agency stated that reformulation involves replacing highVOM coatings with low-VOM coatings. TSD Group II at 12. Citing the CTG, the Agency 

argued that “water-based coatings ‘are generally available’ and ‘can lower [VOM] emissions 

greatly, and most coatings operations are capable of converting to waterborne coatings.’” Id. 

(citation omitted). The Agency further argued that sources can reformulate by using “coatings 

that emit almost zero VOM and are cured through the use of ultraviolet light or an electron 

beam.” Id. The Agency acknowledged that “[t]he use of such systems are more limited than 

those for waterbased coatings, but they are available.” Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(p), 

219.204(o).

Add-On Controls. The Agency claimed that, when a source uses high-VOM coatings, it 

can use add-on controls. TSD Group II at 12. Citing its experience with a range of coating 

operations, the Agency agreed with the CTG that “an overall control and capture efficiency of 90 

percent is a widely-accepted and readily available technique.” Id. (citation omitted); see 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.207, 219.207.

Work Practices. The Agency noted that

[t]he CTG recommends specific work practice requirements for flat wood 

paneling coating operations: storing all [VOM] coatings, thinners, and cleaning 

materials in closed containers, minimizing spills of [VOM] containing coatings, 

thinners, cleaning up spills immediately, conveying any coatings, thinners, and 

cleaning materials in closed containers or pipes, closing mixing vessels which 

contain [VOM] coatings and other materials except when specifically in use, and 

minimizing emissions of [VOM] during cleaning of storage, mixing, and 

conveying equipment.” TSD Group II at 12 (citation omitted); see 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.217, 219.217.
26

The Agency stated that Illinois has already adopted some of these requirements through 

regulations for wood furniture coaters. Id. The Agency further stated that its proposal applies 

those requirements and other specific requirements to flat wood paneling coaters. Id.

Flexible Packaging Printing Lines

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency stated that VOM emissions 

from flexible package printing operations stem largely from evaporation of inks, coatings, and 

adhesives and from the use of cleaning materials. TSD Group II at 9 (§3.3). The Agency argued 

that these emissions can be controlled through material reformulation, add-on controls, and work 

practices. Id. at 9-10.

Material Reformulation. The Agency state that this control substitutes high-VOM inks, 

coatings, and adhesives with low-VOM versions of those materials. TSD Group II at 9. Citing 

the CTG, the Agency argued that “such reformulation ‘has been achieved by many facilities in 

the packaging rotogravure and flexographic printing industries.’” Id. (citation omitted). The 

Agency acknowledged that “[w]hether a particular facility is able to use such reformulated 

material depends upon their specific activities, including the substrate(s) being used.” Id.; see 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 218.401, 219.401.

Add-On Controls. The Agency stated that all flexible packaging printers can use add-on 

controls. TSD Group II at 9. The Agency argued that “[t]he most common control devices used 

by these sources are thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and carbon adsorbers, with adsorbers 

probably being the least-used of the three.” Id. The Agency agreed with the CTG that “[t]oday, 

these control devices can achieve at least 95 percent control device efficiency.” Id. (citation 

omitted); see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.401, 219.401.

The Agency also described capture systems, which collect air containing VOM “so it 

may be destroyed or reclaimed by the control device. . . .” TSD Group II at 9. The Agency 

noted that, “[w]hile new presses may be able to obtain as high as 100 percent capture if designed 

properly, older presses were not necessarily constructed with emissions capture in mind.” Id. 

The Agency proposed a tiered approach to capture efficiency based on the construction date of 

the printing line and the control device. Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.401, 219.401.

Work Practices. The Agency noted the CTG’s recommendation of “work practice 

requirements as the best means to control emissions from cleaning operations at flexible package 

printing sources.” TSD Group II at 10. The Agency listed some of these practices: “keeping 

solvent containers closed except when filling, draining or conducting cleaning operations, 

keeping used shop towels in closed containers, and conveying cleaning materials from one 

location to another in closed containers or pipes.” Id. (citation omitted); see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.401, 219.401.

Lithographic Printing Lines

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency addressed three options for 

regulating VOM emissions from lithographic printing lines: add-on controls, fountain solution 
27

reformulation and process modification, and material reformulation or substitution for cleaning 

solutions. TSD Group II at 7-8 (§3.1).

Add-On Controls. The Agency stated that add-on controls apply only to heatset web 

offset lithographic printing and not to non-heatset or sheet-fed lithographic printing. TSD Group 

II at 7; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.407, 219.407. The Agency further stated that these add-on 

controls fall into two broad categories: combustion control devices “designed to destroy VOMs 

in the vent stream prior to atmospheric discharge” and recovery devices that “limit VOM 

emissions by recovering material for reuse.” TSD Group II at 7. The Agency indicated that 

heatset web offset lithographic printers use three add-on controls: thermal afterburners, catalytic 

afterburners, and condenser filter systems. Id. The Agency’s experience leads it to conclude 

“that the field is dominated by thermal and catalytic afterburners, which can often achieve 98 

percent or greater VOM removal.” Id. The Agency also reported that condenser filter systems 

now in use have been designed specifically for heatset web offset printers with efficiency as high 

as 97 percent removal, “with 90 percent being easily achievable for older systems.” Id.

Fountain Solution Reformulation and Process Modifications. The Agency argued 

that “[a] significant portion of VOM emissions from lithographic printing can be ascribed to 

evaporation from fountain solutions.” TSD Group II at 8. The Agency stated that substitutes 

reduce or replace alcohol in fountain solutions. Id. The Agency further stated that the 

substitutes have lower volatility and reduce emissions. Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.407, 

219.407.

The Agency characterized process modifications as “changes in operational methods or 

equipment resulting in improved VOM control.” TSD Group II at 8. The Agency named 

cooling fountain solution to minimize evaporation as one process modification that reduces 

VOM emissions. Id. The Agency claimed that the use of refrigerated circulators to cool 

fountain solution “has been shown to reduce consumption of alcohol in the solution by as much 

as 44 percent.” Id. Although process modification may involve retrofitting or replacing existing 

equipment, the Agency did “not expect retrofitting or replacement to be an issue with this 

rulemaking.” Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.407, 219.407.

Material Reformulation or Substitution for Cleaning Solutions. The Agency 

described two reformulations to reduce VOM emissions from cleaning solutions. First, sources 

can use solutions containing a smaller amount of VOM. TSD Group II at 8. Current Illinois 

regulations now limit these solutions to no more than 30 percent VOM by weight. Id.; see 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.407(a)(4)(A)(i); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 219.407(a)(4)(A)(i). The Agency reported 

that, “[w]hile no problems with this limit have been reported to Agency personnel in Illinois, 

there have apparently been complaints on a national level.” TSD Group II at 8. The Agency 

noted that “the CTG now recommends limiting such solutions to 70 percent VOM.” Id. (citation 

omitted). The Agency proposed to apply “this higher limit for sources between 15 and 100 

pounds per day (PPD), with the previous limit remaining in effect for larger sources.” Id.; see 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 218.407, 219.407.

Second, the Agency reported that sources can rely on cleaning solution with a low vapor 

pressure. TSD Group II at 8. Citing the CTG, the Agency stated that “[c]leaning solutions with 
28

[VOM] composite vapor pressure less than 10 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) at 20oC have 

been used successfully by many printers for blanket washing and other cleaning activities. Id.

(citation omitted). The Agency further stated that, before Illinois adopted its previous 

lithographic printing rules, USEPA determined that the use of such materials results in emission 

reductions comparable “to using cleaning materials that contain less than 30 weight percent 

VOM.” Id. Because the Agency believes that sources now use these materials without 

difficulty, it proposed not to amend the limit but to apply it to smaller sources. Id.; see 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.407, 219.407.

Letterpress Printing Lines

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency stated that sources of VOM 

emissions from letterpress printing are similar to those for lithographic printing, except “that 

letterpress operations do not use a fountain solution.” TSD Group II at 9. The Agency further 

stated that “letterpress printing presses are often operated at the same source as lithographic 

printing[,] and many of the control options for letterpress printing are the same as the control 

options for lithographic printing,” particularly with regard to cleaning solutions.” Id.

“Because letterpress operations have never been specifically regulated in Illinois before, 

the Agency is proposing to use the 70 percent VOM content limit for all subject letterpress 

units.” TSD Group II at 9; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.413, 219.413. The Agency indicated on 

the basis of communication with industry representatives “that Illinois does not currently contain 

any heatset web letterpress operations in either the Chicago or Metro-East NAA. . . .” TSD 

Group II at 9. The Agency argued, however, that “the regulation is necessary and technically 

feasible should a new such operation locate in one of the NAAs.” Id.

Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings

In the TSD for its proposed Group IV regulations, the Agency stated that it has relied on 

the CTG for this category “to determine the appropriate level of control and the feasibility of 

those measures.” TSD Group IV at 25 (§3.3). The Agency further stated that the CTG intended 

“to provide recommendations for RACT control of the affected coating operations. . . .” Id. The 

Agency claimed that its proposed regulations in this category are consistent with the 

recommendations in the CTG. Id. The Agency recommended “VOM emission limits for coating 

operations; work practices for storage and handling of coatings, thinners, and waste materials; 

and work practices for handling and use of cleaning materials.” TSD Group IV at 25. The 

Agency argued that the CTG reflects “current practices that the USEPA considers to be RACT, 

and were supplied to the USEPA by member and non-member companies of the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers in 2008.” Id.

Emission Limits. The Agency reported that VOM limits for automobile and light-duty 

truck coatings are listed by assembly coating process operations: electrodeposition primer 

(EDP), primer-surfacer, topcoat, final repair, and combined primer-surfacer and topcoat. TSD 

Group IV at 26 (Table 3.1); see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(a), 219.204(a). For EDP operations, 

the VOM emission limit is based on the solids turnover ratio (RT). That ratio “is defined as the 

ratio of total volume of coating solids that is added to the EDP system in a calendar month 
29

divided by the total design capacity of the EDP system.” TSD Group IV at 26; see 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 211.6065 (definition). The Agency also recommended limits “for a number of 

miscellaneous materials used in auto and light-duty truck assembly coating.” Id. The following 

materials have a recommended VOM emission limit: glass bonding primer, adhesive, cavity 

wax, sealer, deadener, gasket/gasket sealing material, underbody coating, trunk interior coating, 

bed liner, weatherstrip adhesive, and lubricating wax/compound. Id. at 27 (Table 3.2); see 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.204(a)(2)(F), 219.204(a)(2)(F).

Work Practices. In addition to VOM emission limits, the Agency recommended work 

practices for these operations. TSD Group IV at 28 (§3.5). The Agency stated that the 

recommended practices “address coating activities and cleaning activities, and are intended to 

further reduce VOM emissions from the source category.” Id. The Agency indicated that “[t]he 

proposed regulation includes the recommended work practices from the USEPA CTG in their 

entirety.” Id. Specifically, the CTG recommends the following work practices for coatingrelated and cleaning activities:

(1) store all VOM-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related waste 

materials in closed containers; (2) ensure that mixing and storage containers used 

for VOM-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related waste materials are 

kept closed at all times, except when depositing or removing these materials; (3) 

minimize spills of VOM-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related waste 

materials; (4) convey VOM-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related 

waste materials from one location to another in closed containers or pipes; and 

(5) minimize VOM emissions from cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying 

equipment. Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.219, 219.219.

The CTG also recommends development and implementation of “a work practice plan to ensure 

that VOM emissions are minimized from the following operations: vehicle body wiping; coating 

line purging; flushing of coating systems; cleaning of spray booth grates; cleaning of spray booth 

walls; cleaning of spray both equipment; cleaning external spray booth areas; and other 

housekeeping measures (e.g., keeping solvent-laden rags in closed containers).” TSD Group IV 

at 28; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.219(a)(6), 219.219(a)(6). The Agency states that, if a source 

has in place a work practices plan pursuant to specified federal authority, then the proposed 

regulations do not require a new one. Id. (citation omitted).

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

The Agency stated that it relied on the CTG for this category “to determine the 

appropriate level of control and the feasibility of those measures.” TSD Group IV at 31 (§4.3). 

The CTG based its recommendations in this category “upon rules currently in effect in California 

and the Ozone Transport Commission” jurisdictions. Id. at 32. The Agency stated that “USEPA 

believes these measures to be RACT, and the Illinois EPA concurs.” Id.

Emission Limits. The Agency described pollution prevention and add-on control 

equipment as “[t]he two most common emission control techniques for reducing VOM emissions 

from miscellaneous industrial adhesives.” TSD Group IV at 31.
30

[P]ollution prevention measures involve the use of lower VOM adhesives, higher 

solids content adhesives, higher efficiency application methods, and work 

practices to reduce waste and minimize emissions during cleaning operations. 

Add-on controls for capture and control of VOM emissions are systems similar 

to those used for a variety of processes that generate VOM emissions, and 

involve capture and oxidation or recovery. Id. at 31-32.

The Agency listed the VOM emission limits recommended in the CTG and incorporated into the 

Agency’s proposal. Id. at 33 (Table 4.1); see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.901(b), 219.901(b).

The Agency argued that, in order to provide sources with flexibility in complying, it 

followed the CTG in recommending three control options. TSD at Group IV at 32; see 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.901, 219.901. The first “involves the use of low VOM adhesives and adhesive 

primers.” TSD Group IV at 32. The second relies on “use of a combination of low VOM 

adhesives and primers and add-on controls to achieve emissions equivalent to the VOM content 

limits of the first option.” Id. The third allows a source to “employ add-on controls to achieve a 

control efficiency of 85% as an alternative to the prescribed emission limits of the first control 

option.” Id. The Agency stated that “[t]his 85% control efficiency criteria is expected to achieve 

emission reductions of VOM that are equal to or greater than the prescribed emission limits for 

the industrial adhesives.” Id.

Application Method Limitations and Work Practice Requirements. The Agency

indicated that, in addition to emission limits recommended by the CTG and incorporated into the 

proposal, the it also recommended work practices to reduce VOM emissions from this category. 

TSD Group IV at 34. The Agency reported that its proposal includes these recommended 

practices “in their entirety.” Id. at 35. Specifically, the CTG recommended the following work 

practices regarding adhesives: 

(1) store all VOM-containing adhesives, adhesive primers, and process-related 

waste materials in closed containers; (2) ensure that mixing and storage 

containers used for VOM-containing adhesives, adhesive primers, and processrelated waste materials are kept closed at all times, except when depositing or 

removing these materials; (3) minimize spills of VOM-containing adhesives, 

adhesive primers, and process-related waste materials; and (4) convey VOMcontaining adhesives, adhesive primers, and process-related waste materials from 

one location to another in closed containers or pipes. Id. at 35; see 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.901(f), 219.901(f).

The CTG also recommended the following work practices with regard to cleaning materials:

(1) store all VOM-containing cleaning materials and used shop towels in closed 

containers; (2) ensure that storage containers used for VOM-containing cleaning 

materials are kept closed at all times except when depositing or removing these 

materials; (3) minimize spills of VOM-containing cleaning materials; (4) convey 

VOM-containing cleaning materials from one location to another in closed 
31

containers or pipes; and (5) minimize VOM emission from cleaning of 

application, storage, mixing, and conveying equipment by ensuring that 

equipment cleaning is performed without atomizing the cleaning solvent and all 

spent solvent is captured in closed containers. TSD Group IV at 35; see 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.901(f), 219.901(f).

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials

The Agency stated that the CTG recommends what it considers to be RACT for sources 

in the fiberglass boat manufacturing materials category. TSD Group IV at 37 (§5.2). The 

Agency stated that it concurs with USEPA’s RACT determination for this category. Id. at 43 

(§5.3). The Agency further stated that it “concurs with the determination that the 

recommendations of the CTG are technically feasible because these recommended control 

measures are merely based on controls currently in place at affected sources” as a result of a 

2001 NESHAP. Id. The Agency also assumed “that any source that intended to commence 

operation of a source in this category in an Illinois non-attainment area would necessarily 

consider the proposed regulation in the planning of source operations, and that the proposed 

controls would be technically feasible for any new source.” Id.

The Agency noted that control measures for this category “are intended to reduce 

emissions of monomer VOM.” TSD Group IV at 37. The Agency indicated that “[s]tyrene and 

methyl methacrylate (“MMA”) are the primary monomer VOMs used in gel coats and resins for 

the manufacture of fiberglass boats.” Id. at 38. The Agency cited the CTG to state that

[a] monomer is a volatile organic compound that partially combines with itself, 

or other similar compounds, by a cross-linking reaction to become a part of the 

cured resin. A fraction of each monomer compound evaporates during resin and 

gel coat application and curing. Not all of the styrene and MMA evaporate, 

because a majority of these compounds are bound in the cross-linking reaction 

between polymer molecules in the hardened resin or gel coat and become part of 

the finished product. Id. at 37-38.

The Agency stated that “[n]on-monomer VOM is generally less than 5% of a resin or gel coat 

formulation.” Id. at 38. Although the Agency’s proposal did not directly limit non-monomer 

VOM, “if a product is found to contain greater than 5% non-monomer VOM, the percentage 

exceeding 5% will be added to the monomer VOM content of a product of the purposes of 

compliance.” Id.

The Agency noted that the CTG recommended and it had proposed three control options 

in order to provide sources with compliance flexibility. TSD Group IV at 37. The Agency 

claimed that these options are similar to those for other categories, including low-VOM 

materials, add-on controls, an emissions averaging option, and recommended work practices. Id. 

at 37, 38. The Agency further claimed that “[o]ther control options are specific to this category 

and include the use of vapor suppressed resins and gel coats, the use of non-atomizing resin 

application, and various closed molding operations.” Id. at 38.
32

Use of Low Monomer VOM Manufacturing Methods. The Agency noted that the 

“CTG recommends a compliance option for sources using low monomer VOM resins and gel 

coats.” TSD Group IV at 38 (§5.2.1). The Agency indicated that “[a] source may meet the 

requirements by using low monomer VOM products that meet the emission limits given for each 

material used in a given operation, or the VOM content for all materials used on a covered 

operation that can be averaged on a weight-adjusted basis.” Id. The Agency listed these VOM 

content limits, which are “based upon the material type and the application method used.” Id. at 

38; see id. at 39 (Table 5.1 Compliant Materials Monomer VOM Content Recommendations for 

Open Molding Resin and Gel Coat); see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.891(b)(1), 219.891(b)(1).

The Agency stated that the recommended VOM content limits “would be considered met 

if all materials of a certain type meet the applicable monomer VOM content limit for a specific 

application method on a weighted-average basis.” TSD Group IV at 38. The Agency provided 

an Equation 1 that sources use “to determine weighted-average monomer VOM content for a 

particular open molding resin or gel coat material.” Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.891(b)(2), 

219.891(b)(2). The Agency further provided that “[t]he weighted average monomer VOM 

content would be determined based on a 12-month rolling average.” TSD Group IV at 38.

Emissions Averaging Option. The Agency noted that the CTG recommends a second 

compliance option, which averages “the monomer VOM emissions for all operations that a 

source chooses to include in an averaging group.” TSD Group IV at 39; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.891(c), 219.891(c). The Agency indicated that operations outside the averaging group could 

meet VOM emission limits either through the use of low monomer VOM materials or through 

add-on controls. TSD Group IV at 39.

The Agency provided an Equation 2, which determines a source-specific monomer VOM 

limit for the operations a source includes in the averaging option. TSD Group IV at 39-40; see

35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.891(c)(1), 219.891(c)(1). The Agency stated that, “[a]fter a monomer 

VOM limit for a source’s averaged operations has been determined using Equation 2, an 

emission average is determined on a 12 month rolling-average basis and calculated at the end of 

each month.” TSD Group IV at 40.

The Agency also provided an Equation 3. TSD Group IV at 41; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.891(c)(2), 219.891(c)(2). The Agency stated that, “[a]t the end of the first 12 month period, 

and at the end of each subsequent month, the monomer VOM emissions from the source’s 

averaged operations are calculated, using Equation 3, to determine whether these emissions 

exceed the source’s limit.” TSD Group IV at 40. The Agency also provided an Equation 4. Id.

at 41-42; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.891(c)(3), 219.891(c)(3). For each operation averaged 

through Equation 3, Equation 4 calculates the weighted-average monomer VOM emission rate 

for the previous 12-month period for each open molding resin and gel coat operations included in 

the average. TSD Group IV at 41. The Agency also provided a table listing formulas to use in 

calculating monomer VOM emission rates for resins and gel coats for Equation 4. Id. at 42 

(Table 5.2 Monomer VOM Emission Rate Formulas for Open Molding Operations); see 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.891(c)(4), 219.891(c)(4).
33

Add-On Controls. The Agency stated that, if an operation requires use of materials that 

do not meet VOM limits, “a source may opt to use add-on control equipment to reduce VOM 

emissions to below the limit determined by Equation 2.” TSD Group IV at 42 (§5.2.3); see id. at 

40 (Equation 2); see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.891(d), 219.891(d). The Agency provided that 

“[a] source would be considered to be complaint if measured emissions at the outlet of a control 

device were less than the applicable emission limit for that operation.” TSD Group IV at 42-43.

Work Practice Requirements. The Agency stated that the CTG “also recommends 

work practices for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials.” TSD Group IV at 43. The 

Agency’s proposal included these recommendations “in their entirety.” Id. at 44. The CTG 

addresses resin and gel coat mixing containers by recommending that “all containers with a 

capacity of 55 gallons or greater should have a cover with no visible gaps in place at all times. 

This does not apply to containers smaller than 55 gallons, or when material is being manually 

added or removed from a container” Id. at 43-44; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.891(h), 219.891(h). 

The CTG also “recommends the use of low-VOM and low vapor pressure cleaning materials.” 

TSD Group IV at 44. Specifically, the CTG recommends “that VOM cleaning solvents should 

contain no more than 5% VOM by weight, or have a composite vapor pressure of no more than

0.50 mm Hg at 68o F.” Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.891(g), 219.891(g).

Agency Summary of Technical Feasibility

The Agency concurs with the USEPA that the proposed amendments are all technically 

feasible. Bloomberg Test. at 3; see Mahajan Test. at 3.

Economic Reasonableness and Cost Effectiveness

In the Statement of Reasons, the Agency claimed that it had “included a thorough 

discussion of the control techniques available to subject sources in the TSDs filed in the R10-8 

and R01-20 rulemakings, incorporated by reference into this rulemaking.” SR at 8; see TSD 

Group II, TSD Group IV. The Agency claims that the technology to control VOM emissions 

from Group II and Group IV product categories is economically reasonable. SR at 8. The Board 

addresses the record with regard to economic reasonableness on a category-by-category basis in 

the following subsections.

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

The Agency stated that it “relied upon the cost analysis conducted by the USEPA for the 

CTGs for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings to determine that the proposed 

regulations are cost effective.” TSD Group IV at 17 (§2.4). The TSD first noted that USEPA 

used the 2002 National Emissions Inventory database to estimate that there are 1,269 facilities in 

the ozone nonattainment areas nationwide emitting at or above the recommended 15 pounds per 

day applicability threshold. Id. at 18. These 1,269 facilities emitted an estimated total of 22,108 

tons of VOM per year. Id. “The USEPA also estimated the average cost of compliance with the 

CTGs for this emission category to be $10,500 per source, and a cost effectiveness of $1,758 per 

ton of VOM reduced.” Id. Based on USEPA estimates, the TSD projected that each affected 
34

source on average would reduce VOM emissions by 5.97 tons annually, with “an estimated 

reduction of 662 tons of VOM in Illinois NAAs.” Id.

The TSD further noted that, of the 1,269 potentially affected sources nationwide, 155 are 

situated in Illinois nonattainment areas, and 111 of those “remained in operation in 2007.” TSD 

Group IV at 18. Although the TSD noted that “the source emission data is generally not specific 

enough to determine whether a source is emitting 15 pounds of VOM per day specifically from 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings,” the Agency conservatively included all 111 

potentially affected sources in its cost estimate. Id. Based on USEPA’s $10,500 per source 

average cost of compliance, the Agency expected statewide compliance costs to be 

approximately $1,165,500. Id. Although the Agency believes that this amount “is almost 

certainly an over-estimate of potential costs,” it accepted USEPA’s estimated cost effectiveness 

of $1,758 per ton as “reasonable for control of VOM.” Id.

Industrial Cleaning Solvents

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency cited USEPA’s estimate 

that the regulations would affect 130 Illinois sources with baseline VOM emissions of 2528 tons 

per year. TSD Group II at 14 (§4.4) (referring to 2002 National Emissions Inventory database). 

The Agency also noted USEPA’s determination that “the cost effectiveness of meeting the 50 

grams of VOM per liter of cleaning material limit for a parts cleaner at $1664/ton based on a 

study provided by the California Bay Area Air Quality Management District.” Id. The Agency 

indicated that sources switching from high-VOM content solvents to low-VOM content solvents 

may realize savings of $1325/ton because of lower disposal costs. Id.

Flat Wood Paneling Coating Lines

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency noted that USEPA relied 

upon data from the South Coast Air Quality Management District of California to estimate cost 

effectiveness “of between $1,900 and $2,600 per ton of VOM reduced (in 2005 dollars).” TSD 

Group II at 14 (§4.5). The Agency also cited the CTG to indicate that Illinois sources subject to 

the proposed rule could incur costs to make their coatings compliant. Id. at 14-15 (citation 

omitted). The Agency concluded that “the only significant cost is expected to be reformulation 

of coatings.” Id. at 15.

Flexible Packaging Printing Lines

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency cited the CTG to claim that 

“[m]any facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas are already meeting the control levels 

being recommended in this CTG.” TSD Group II at 14 (§4.3) (citation omitted). The Agency 

argued that

this proposal does not expand the number of sources that will be subject to the ink 

or control device portions of the flexible packaging rotogravure and flexographic 

printing regulations. It is expected that those sources currently able to use 

compliant inks and coatings will similarly be able to make use of inks and 
35

coatings meeting the new compliance limit, while those using add-on control 

devices will continue to do so as well. As such, the Illinois EPA expects that 

there will not be any additional add-on control costs for subject facilities. Id.

The Agency cited the CTG to state that sources installing add-on control devices will face costs 

that vary based on operating factors. Id. The Agency cited the CTG to estimate that “‘a press 

exhausting approximately 5,800 cubic feet per minute, operating 2000 hours per year, and 

achieving 70 percent capture efficiency’ would have a cost of between $1,300 and $2,800 per ton 

of VOM removed.” Id. (citation omitted). The Agency argued that factors including a larger 

press or more operating hours would lower the cost per ton of VOM removed. Id.

Addressing the cleaning provisions of the proposed regulations, the Agency expected 

“minimal” costs for sources becoming subject to them. TSD Group II at 14. The Agency argued 

that “some sources may see an overall costs savings as less cleaning solution is necessary.” Id.

Lithographic Printing Lines

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulation, the Agency argued that “[t]he largest 

cost factor for lithographic printing -- add-on controls - is applicable to heatset web lithographic 

operations only. Since the Agency’s proposal does not increase the number of sources for which 

this requirement is applicable, there is no foreseen additional cost due to add-on controls for 

existing sources.” TSD Group II at 13 (§4.1). Although the Agency acknowledged that new 

sources will be subject to a higher control efficiency, it expects new control devices to achieve 

that efficiency. Id. The Agency argued that “no additional cost is expected for this reason 

either.” Id.

The Agency stated that its proposal could result in fountain solution and cleaning solution 

reformulation costs for newly-regulated sources emitting between 15 and 100 pounds per day of 

VOM. TSD Group II at 13. The Agency reported that “USEPA estimated the cost for cleaning 

material reformulation at $855 per ton of VOM removed (in 2005 dollars).” Id. (citation 

omitted).

The Agency noted USEPA’s projection of a costs saving with fountain solutions because 

of reduced alcohol use. TSD Group II at 13. The Agency indicated that, although USEPA has 

not specifically estimated the amount of these savings, it noted that “the TSD for the Illinois 

lithographic printing rule in 1994 put this savings at $920 per ton. Id. The Agency explained 

that, “while alcohol substitutes are more expensive, the cost is reduced because they are used in 

lower quantities.” Id. (citation omitted).

Letterpress Printing Lines

In the TSD for its proposed Group II regulations, the Agency cited the CTG to state that,

[b]ecause of the similarities between offset lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing in terms of the nature of the processes at issue, the sources of [VOM] 

emissions and available control approaches, it is reasonable to assume that the 
36

cost-effectiveness estimates . . . for control of [VOM] from heatset inks and 

control of [VOM] from cleaning materials apply equally to the letterpress printing 

industry. TSD Group II at 13 (§4.2) (citation omitted).

The Agency acknowledged that, because Illinois does not now regulate heatset web letterpress 

printing operations, “the reasoning behind the zero cost estimate for heatset web lithographic 

printing” does not apply to letterpress printing. Id. The Agency noted the CTG’s estimate of 

$2,010 per ton of VOM removed in 2005 dollars as the cost-effectiveness for this category. Id. 

However, the Agency expressed the belief that there are not now any heatset web letterpress 

operations in either of the Illinois NAAs. Id.

Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings

The Agency noted that, in this source category, “[a]ffected sources have reduced VOM 

emissions from coating operations in response to the New Source Performance Standards 

(“NSPS”), the 2004 NESHAP for this category, and various State rules.” TSD Group IV at 27 

(citation omitted). The Agency indicated that the CTG’s recommendations “were derived from 

information supplied to the USEPA by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and reflect 

measures currently being implemented at affected sources.” Id. In addition, the Agency

projected “that the additional work practices recommended in the CTG will result in a net cost 

savings to sources, as implementing these work practices reduces the amount of coating and 

cleaning materials used.” Id. Accordingly, the Agency stated that “[t]he USEPA estimates that 

there will be no additional cost for implementation of the control techniques guidelines for auto 

and light-duty truck assembly coating.” Id.

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

The Agency stated that it “relied upon the cost analysis conducted by the USEPA for the

CTGs for the miscellaneous industrial adhesives and determined that the proposed regulations 

are cost effective.” TSD Group IV at 34 (§4.4). The Agency first noted that USEPA used the 

2002 National Emissions Inventory database to estimate that there are 180 sources in the ozone 

nonattainment areas nationwide emitting at or above the recommended 15 pounds per day 

applicability threshold, 12 of which are in Illinois. Id. Those 180 sources emit an estimated 

4,881 tons of VOM per year. Id.

The Agency reported that, in order to develop cost estimates, USEPA relied upon a 1993 

study performed by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. TSD Group IV at 34. 

That study assumed that sources would comply through VOM limits rather than add-on controls, 

“because sources in currently regulated areas have already implemented the use of these low 

VOM adhesives, and the reformulated products should be readily available today.” Id. The 

study estimated that each affected sources would annually spend approximately $3,356 in 1997 

to comply with the proposed regulations. Id. The Agency reported that USEPA thus “estimated 

the cost effectiveness on a per ton basis of $265 per ton of VOM reduced.” Id. The Agency 

estimated that, with 12 affected sources in Illinois, “the total cost statewide for the proposed 

regulations will be approximately $40,272 annually.” Id. The Agency “considers these figures 

for cost effectiveness and total statewide cost to be reasonable for control of VOM.” Id.
37

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials

The Agency stated that, “[b]ecause there are currently no sources in Illinois that will be 

affected by the proposed regulation of this source category, there will be no associated economic 

impact for sources in Illinois.” TSD Group IV at 43 (§5.4). The Agency cited the CTG to add 

that “USEPA expects sources in this category will incur little if any increased costs due to the 

control recommendations.” Id. The Agency stated that it “concurs with the USEPA 

determination of the economic reasonableness of the measures.” Id.

Agency Summary of Economic Reasonableness

In its Statement of Reasons, the Agency stated that “[t]he technology for controlling 

VOM emissions from Group II and Group IV product categories is both technically feasible and 

economically reasonable.” SR at 8. The Agency further stated that it technical support 

documents submitted in the original rulemakings and incorporated by reference into this 

proceeding had “included a thorough discussion of the control techniques available to subject 

sources. . . .” Id.; see Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic 

Material Emissions from Group IV Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments 

to 35 Il. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R 10-20 (Mar. 8, 2010) (TSD); Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group II Consumer 

& Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R10-8 

(July 9, 2009) (TSD).

The Agency concurs with the USEPA that the proposed amendments are all economically 

reasonable. Bloomberg Test. at 3; see Mahajan Test. at 3.

Board Discussion of Technical Feasibility and Economic Reasonableness

In a letter dated March 17, 2011, the Board requested that DCEO determine by April 6, 

2011, whether it would conduct an economic impact study of the rulemaking proposal. See 415 

ILCS 5/27(b) (2010). On May 23, 2011, the Board received from the DCEO Director a response 

dated May 5, 2011, and stating that, “[a]t this time, the Department is unable to undertake such 

an economic impact study. Therefore, I must respectfully decline your request.”

Although the hearing officer during both hearings sought testimony on the Board’s 

request to DCEO, no participant offered such testimony. Tr.1 at 23-24; Tr. 2 at 26-27.

In adopting VOM RACT regulations in docket R10-8, the Board based on its review of 

the record found that the regulations are both technically feasible and economically reasonable. 

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions 

from Group II Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

211, 218, and 219, R10-8, slip op. at 17-18 (June 17, 2010). Similarly, in adopting regulation in 

docket R10-20, the Board based on its review of the record, and particularly in light of 

amendments proposed by the Agency, found that the regulations are both technically feasible and 

economically reasonable. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile 
38

Organic Material Emissions from Group IV Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed 

Amendments to 35 Il. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R 10-20, slip op. at 23 (Sept. 2, 2010).

During the course of this proceeding, the Agency moved to amend its proposal. See Mot. 

Amend. The Board granted that motion above, adopting amendments including, but not limited 

to, a clarification of testing obligations for lithographic printing operations and a revision of a 

definition pertaining to pleasure craft coatings. See id. at 2-3, 5. The Board notes that the 

Agency proposed these amendments in response to regulated entities. See id. at 2, 5.

In addition, the Agency’s post-hearing comments recommended additional amendments 

for the Board’s consideration. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, the 

addition of emission adjustment factor for solvent cleaning operations and amended emission 

limits applicable to pleasure craft coating operations. See PC 4 at 5, 10-11. Again, the Board 

notes that these recommendations stem from requests by regulated entities. See id. at 5, 10-11. 

In all significant respects, the Agency’s recommendations are reflected in the Board’s order 

below.

Having reviewed the record in this proceeding, and particularly in light of amendments 

such as those described in the preceding paragraphs, the Board finds that the proposed 

regulations, amended according to the Agency’s motion to amend and recommendations in the 

Agency’s post-hearing comments, are economically reasonable and technically feasible. In the 

following section of its opinion, the Board summarizes the proposal on a section-by-section 

basis.

SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF BOARD’S SECOND-NOTICE PROPOSAL

Part 211: Definitions and General Provisions

“All terms defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201 which appear in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211 

through 219 have the definitions specified by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.102. Otherwise, the 

definitions specified in this Part shall apply.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.121; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

201.102 (Definitions). In its original proposal, the Agency sought to amend one definition and 

add six new definitions in this Part. The Agency’s motion to amend addressed one other 

definition. See Mot. Amend at 5. The Agency’s post-hearing comment recommended the 

addition of one more definition to Part 211. PC 4 at 4-5. The following subsections of the 

opinion separately address proposed amendments to Part 211.

Section 211.493: Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat

The Agency’s original proposal did not include a definition of this term. See Prop. 211. 

In his testimony on behalf of ACA, Mr. Sell proposed a definition of “antifouling sealer/tie coat” 

providing that the term means “a coating applied over Biocidal antifouling coating for the 

purpose of preventing release of biocides into the environment and/or to promote adhesion 

between an antifouling and a primer or other antifoulings.” Sell. Test. at 10; see Tr.2 at 25.
39

In its second post-hearing comments filed on June 1, 2011, the Agency notes ACA’s 

request to adopt a definition of this term. PC 4 at 4. The Agency reports that USEPA has 

approved that proposed definition, and the Agency recommends adding that language to its 

proposal. Id. at 4-5. The Board concurs with the Agency, and the definition is included in its 

order below.

Section 211.2200: Extreme High-Gloss Coating

On September 2, 2010, the Board adopted a definition of “extreme high-gloss coating” 

providing in its entirety that the term means

[f]or purposes of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(q)(1) regarding metal parts and 

products coatings, a coating that, when tested by ASTM D 523-80, incorporated 

by reference in Section 211.101 of this Part, shows a reflectance of 75 or more on 

a 60° meter;

[f]or purposes of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(q)(5) regarding pleasure craft 

coatings, any coating that achieves at least 95 percent reflectance on a 60° meter 

when tested using ASTM D 523-89, incorporated by reference in Section 211.101 

of this Part. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.2200; see Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group IV 

Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Il. Adm. Code 

211, 218, and 219, R 10-20 (Sept. 2, 2010).

The Agency’s original proposal did not seek to amend this definition. See Prop. 211.

In its motion to amend, however, the Agency responded to a comment by an industry 

representative by recommending an amendment to this definition. Specifically, the Agency 

proposed that the second element of the definition provide as follows: “[f]or purposes of 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.204(q)(5) regarding pleasure craft coatings, any coating that achieves greater 

than 90at least 95 percent reflectance on a 60° meter when tested using ASTM D 523-89, 

incorporated by reference in Section 211.101 of this Part.” Mot. Amend at 5; but see Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group IV 

Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Il. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 

219, R 10-20, slip op. at 38 (Sept. 2, 2010) (declining to amend definition to 90 percent 

reflectance).

On behalf of the ACA, Mr. Sell stated that “application of topcoats is undertaken in a 

variety of environmental conditions that can have an effect on the final gloss level of the product 

at the point of application. To manage this variation it is suggested that the gloss level stated in 

the definition of the Extreme High Glass Topcoats category be lowered slightly. . . .” Sell Test. 

at 7. He proposed that, for purposes of pleasure craft coatings, the definition means “any coating 

which achieves greater than 90 percent reflectance on a 60o meter when tested by ASTM 

Method D523-89.” Id. (emphasis in original); see Townsend Test. at 5; Tr.2 at 15.
40

In its first post-hearing comment filed May 16, 2011, the Agency acknowledged ACA’s 

proposed revision of this definition. PC 2 at 10; see Sell. Test. at 7. Noting that it had proposed 

the same revision in its motion to amend (see Mot. Amend at 5), the Agency stated that USEPA 

accepts the language offered by the ACA. PC 2 at 10; PC 4 at 3. The Board above granted the 

Agency’s motion to amend, and the definition is included below in the Board’s order.

Section 211.2358: Flat Wood Paneling

On June 17, 2010, the Board adopted a definition of “flat wood paneling” providing that 

the term “means natural finish hardwood plywood panels, hardwood panels with Class II 

finishes, tileboard, exterior siding, and printed interior panels made of hardwood, plywood, or 

thin particleboard.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.2358; see Reasonably Available Control Technology 

(RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group II Consumer & Commercial 

Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R10-8, slip op. at 19, 

69 (June 17, 2010); 34 Ill. Reg. 9090 (July 9, 2010).

The Agency sought to revise this definition “by correcting a punctuation error.” SR at 9. 

Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘[f]lat wood paneling’ means natural finish hardwood 

plywood panels, hardwood panels with Class II finishes, tileboard, exterior siding, and printed 

interior panels made of hardwood plywood or thin particleboard.” Prop. 211 at 15; see USEPA 

Attachment at 2.

Section 211.2800: Hardwood Plywood

In its original proposal, the Agency sought to define the term “hardwood plywood,” to 

which the existing definition of “flat wood paneling” refers. SR at 9; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

211.2358. Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘hardwood plywood’ means plywood whose 

surface layer is a veneer of hardwood.” Prop. at 15; see USEPA Attachment at 2.

Section 211.3985: Natural Finish Hardwood Plywood Panel

In its original proposal, the Agency sought to define the term “natural finish hardwood 

plywood panel,” to which the existing definition of “flat wood paneling” refers. SR at 9; see 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 211.2358. Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘natural finish hardwood 

plywood panel’ means a panel whose original grain pattern is enhanced by essentially 

transparent finishes frequently supplemented by filters and toners.” Prop. at 15; see USEPA 

Attachment at 2.

Section 211.4460: Panel

In its original proposal, the Agency sought to define the term “panel,” to which the 

existing definition of “flat wood paneling” refers. SR at 9; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.2358. 

Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘panel’ means a flat piece of wood or wood product 

usually rectangular and used inside homes and mobile homes for wall decorations.” Prop. at 15; 

see USEPA Attachment at 2.
41

Section 211.5062: Pretreatment Wash Primer

The existing definition of “pretreatment wash primer” provides that the term means,

[f]or purposes of Subparts HH of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218 and 219, the first coating 

applied to bare metal if solventborne primers will be applied. This coating 

contains a minimum of 0.5 percent acid, by weight, is necessary to provide 

surface etching, and provides corrosion resistance and adhesion; 

For purposes of Subparts F of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218 and 219, a coating that 

contains no more than 12 percent solids by weight and at least 0.50 percent acids 

by weight, is used to provide surface etching, and is applied directly to fiberglass 

and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent 

coatings. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.5062; see Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group IV 

Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Il. Adm. Code 

211, 218, and 219, R10-20, slip op. at 52 (Sept. 2, 2010) (re-numbering section 

and adding definition applicable for purposes of Subpart F of Parts 218 and 219.)

In his pre-filed testimony on behalf of ACA, Mr. Sell argues that the definition derived 

from the SCAQMD regulations hinders the development of less toxic materials. See Sell Test. at 

11. He states that products meeting the current definition contain known carcinogens because 

those materials have “excellent anti-corrosive properties.” Id. Mr. Sell elaborated that the CTG 

generally defines controls in terms of product attributes. Id. He cites the definition of “high 

gloss topcoat,” which refers specifically to the product attribute of gloss result. Id. In this 

definition, he claims that “the approach has been to define the category both in terms of the 

formulation parameters (acid content and solids content) and the performance attribute of the 

product (surface etching).” Id. He argues that this approach has “tied industry to the current, 

well established but very toxic zinc-based etch primers.” Id. Mr. Sell concludes that the 

definition must be amended “to allow for the introduction of safer, alternative etch systems 

which are not based on zinc tetroxy chromate.” Id. (emphasis in original).

Specifically, Mr. Sell proposed to amend this definition to provide that the term “means a 

coating which contains no more than 25 percent solids by weight, and at least 0.1 percent acids, 

by weight; is used to provide surface etching; and is applied directly to fiberglass and metal 

surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent coatings.” Sell Test. at 11. 

He explained that increasing the “percent solids” would “allow for an increased quantity of safer 

(non-carcinogenic) replacement pigment[,] which is required for equivalent coating 

performance.” Id. He continued that “[t]hese replacement formulations require a reduced level 

of acid to perform adequately[,] therefore it is also necessary to reduce the de minimus value 

associated to ‘percent acids’ from 0.5 to 0.1.” Id. (emphasis in original).

In its post-hearing comment, the Agency indicates that USEPA might accept ACA’s 

proposed revision but “needs more information regarding how the revision will impact VOM 

emissions.” PC 2 at 10; PC 4 at 3. The Agency adds that it “intends to work with the ACA and 

USEPA regarding this issue.” PC 2 at 10; see Tr.2 at 21.
42

In its second post-hearing comments filed June 1, 2011, the Agency reports that the ACA 

supplied additional information regarding its proposed definition of this term. PC 4 at 4. The 

Agency reports that does not approve ACA’s amendment, “[a]s there is already an existing 

definition for pretreatment wash primer, and the information provided by the ACA did not 

indicate what impact the proposed revision will have on VOM emission.” Id. The Agency states 

that it “therefore recommends against revising the definition at this time.” Id. The Board 

concurs with the Agency and declines to include this amendment in its order below.

Section 211.5140: Printed Interior Panel

In its original proposal, the Agency sought to define the term “printed interior panel,” to 

which the existing definition of “flat wood paneling” refers. SR at 9; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

211.2358. Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘printed interior panel’ means a panel whose 

grain or natural surface is obscured by filters and basecoats upon which a simulated grain or 

decorative pattern is printed.” Prop. at 15-16; see USEPA Attachment at 2.

Section 211.6587: Thin Particleboard

In its original proposal, the Agency sought to define the term “thin particleboard,” to 

which the existing definition of “flat wood paneling” refers. SR at 9; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

211.2358. Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘thin particleboard’ is a manufactured board 

1/4 inch or less in thickness made of individual wood particles which have been coated with a 

binder and formed into flat sheets by pressure.” Prop. at 16; see USEPA Attachment at 2.

Section 211.6635: Tileboard

In its original proposal, the Agency sought to define the term “tileboard,” to which the 

existing definition of “flat wood paneling” refers. SR at 9-10; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.2358. 

Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘tileboard’ means paneling that has a colored waterproof 

surface coating.” Prop. at 16; see USEPA Attachment at 2.

Part 218: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations

for the Chicago Area

Part 219: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations

for the Metro East Area

Subpart A: General Provisions.

Section 218/219.105: Test Methods and Procedures.

Existing Section 218/219.105(e)(2) provides an equation for calculating the equivalent 

overall efficiency of a capture system and control device, which is applicable to owners or 

operators of coating lines complying with specified alternative emission limitations. 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.105(e)(2), 219.105(e)(2). The Agency sought to amend this provision by adding 

references to Section 218.207(m) and (n) and Section 219.207(l) and (m) as alternative emission 
43

limitations to which the equation applies. SR at 10; see Prop. 218 at 23, Prop. 219 at 22; see

USEPA Attachment at 2. Sections 218.207(m) and 219.207(l) address flat wood paneling 

coating lines equipped with a capture system and control device. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.207(m), 

219.207(l). Section 218.207(n) and 219.207(m) address miscellaneous metal parts and products 

coating lines equipped with a capture system and control device. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.207(n), 

219.207(m). The Agency stated that these references “were mistakenly omitted from the Illinois 

EPA’s prior rulemaking.” SR at 10.

Subpart E: Solvent Cleaning.

Subpart E of Part 218/219 addresses solvent cleaning operations using VOM. 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.181-187, 219.181-187.

Section 218/219.187: Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations. Section 

218/219.182 addresses cold cleaning degreasing operations, Section 218/219.183 addresses open 

top vapor degreasing operations, and Section 218/219.184 addresses conveyorized degreasing 

operations. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218/219.182-184. On June 17, 2010, the Board adopted Section 

218/219.187, which addresses other industrial solvent cleaning operations. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218/219.187; see Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic 

Material Emissions from Group II Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments 

to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R10-8, slip op. at 26-30, 77-89 (June 17, 2010); 34 Ill. 

Reg. 9111-25 (July 9, 2010).

Subsection (a). In subsection (a), which addresses applicability, the Agency proposed to 

extend the compliance deadline from April 1, 2011, to January 1, 2012. SR at 10; Prop. 218 at 

27; Prop. 219 at 27.

Subsection (a)(1). In subsection (a)(1), the Agency proposed to change the applicability 

threshold from a daily standard of 15 pounds of VOM emissions to a monthly standard of 500 

pounds. SR at 10; Prop. 218 at 27; Prop. 219 at 27, see USEPA Attachment at 1. In addition, 

the Agency suggested adding to this subsection language “specifying that emissions from 

cleaning operations identified in subsection (a)(2) are not included in the calculation to 

determine applicability.” SR at 10; see Prop. 218 at 27; Prop. 219 at 27; USEPA Attachment at 

1.

Subsection (a)(2). In subsection (a)(2), which provides various exemptions from the 

requirements of this section, the Agency proposed to add “two references to subsection (e) [of 

this Section] to specify that certain sources exempt from other requirements in this Section are 

also exempt from recordkeeping and reporting requirements.” SR at 10; Prop. 218 at 27-28; 

Prop. 219 at 27; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218/219.187(e).

Subsection (a)(2)(A). In this provision establishing exemptions for specified cleaning 

operations, the Agency sought to delete from subsection (a)(2)(A)(iii) “exemptions for screen 

reclamation activities, in response to a USEPA comment that the screen printing emission 

limitation is sufficiently high to accommodate screen reclamation activities.” SR at 10; Prop. 

218 at 28; Prop. 219 at 27; see USEPA Attachment at 1.
44

Subsection (a)(2)(B). This existing provision establishes exemptions for cleaning 

operations within specified source categories. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(B), 

219.187(a)(2)(B). During the first hearing, Mr. Alec Davis on behalf of IERG asked whether the 

Agency intended “to exclude emissions from cleaning operations associated with the source 

categories listed in Section 218.187(a)(2)(B) from being counted towards the 500 pounds per 

calendar month applicability threshold contained in Section 218.187(a)(1)?” Tr.1 at 12; see

Prop. 218 at 27, Prop. 219 at 27 (subsections (a)(1)). Mr. Bloomberg responded “[y]es” and 

indicated that the Agency’s proposal includes such language. Tr.1 at 12. In response to an 

additional question, Mr. Bloomberg clarified that facilities having only cleaning operations listed 

in subsection (a)(2)(B) would not have recordkeeping and reporting obligations under subsection 

(e) if the Agency’s proposal is adopted. Id. at 13. Mr. Davis further asked that, “[i]f a facility 

has only cleaning operations associated with the source categories listed in Section 

218.187(a)(2)(B), what are that facilities’ obligations, if any, under the full Section 218.187?” 

Id. at 12. Mr. Bloomberg responded that, if the Board adopted the Agency’s proposal, it would 

have “[n]one.” Id. Mr. Davis also inquired about requirements applicable to non-exempt 

facilities that include cleaning operations exempt under subsection (a)(2)(B). Id. at 14. Mr. 

Bloomberg responded that the exempt operations would not trigger any additional requirements 

but recommended that facilities maintain records demonstrating eligibility for an exemption. Id.

Mr. Davis also addressed the issue of certification. Tr.1 at 14. Mr. Bloomberg indicated 

that fully exempt cleaning operations such as those under subsection (a)(2)(B) “don’t need to 

send in another certification.” Id. at 15. He further indicated that most subject sources will need 

to re-certify by January 1, 2012, for reasons including a change in the applicability threshold 

from 15 pounds per day to 500 pounds per month. Id. He stressed that USEPA has insisted on 

certifying exemptions. Id.; see USEPA Attachment at 2.

Finally, in its second post-hearing comments filed June 1, 2011, the Agency noted that an 

industry group had “indicated that the introductory language to Section 218/219.187(a)(2)(B) 

should be amended to clarify that the exemptions in this subsection apply to emission units that 

fall within the specified categories; such emission units need not be located at sources that, as a 

whole, fall within such categories, and indeed sources may have operations that fall within 

multiple categories at the same location.” PC 4 at 7. The agency proposed simply to strike the 

word “source” from the language of this introductory language.” Id. at 8, 12. The Board 

concurs, and this amendment is reflected in its order below.

Subsection (a)(2)(B)(i). In this provision exempting cleaning operations at emission 

units within specified source categories, the Agency sought to strike an exemption for aerospace 

coatings “in response to a USEPA comment that the exemptions should not be included because 

Illinois has no rules for such coatings.” SR at 10; Prop. 218 at 28; Prop. 219 at 27-28; see

USEPA Attachment at 1.

In his comment on behalf of Boeing, Mr. Shanks stated that Boeing had recently begun 

its first Illinois manufacturing operation near Mascoutah in the Metro East ozone nonattainment 

area. PC 3 at 1. He indicated that Boeing’s operations in a nonattainment area ordinarily “would 

be regulated by an Aerospace VOM RACT rule, usually based on the US EPA Control 
45

Techniques Guideline (CTG) for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework.” Id. He added that, 

“[o]n October 11, 1996, Illinois EPA submitted a negative declaration to US EPA, saying that an 

Aerospace RACT rule was not needed at that time, because metro east did not have any 

aerospace facilities with potential to emit greater than the Aerospace CTG applicability 

threshold.” Id.

Mr. Shanks notes that the Agency’s proposal seeks to amend Section 219.187(a)(2)(B) , 

which exempts cleaning operations addressed by industry-specific RACT rules, by deleting an 

exemption for “aerospace coating.” PC 3 at 1; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 219.187(a)(2)(B); 35 Ill. 

Reg. 5145 (Apr. 1, 2011) (first-notice publication). Mr. Shanks argues that, if the Board deletes 

the exemption and Boeing increases “manufacturing activity to exceed the proposed 500 

lb/month solvent cleaning threshold, the Boeing facility would be subject to a rule that does not 

represent presumptive RACT, as described in the Aerospace CTG.” PC 3 at 2 (citation omitted). 

Mr. Shanks briefly compared the aerospace rules based upon the CTG and in effect in most 

nonattainment areas and those applicable under the Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations 

regulations. Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 219.187.

Noting that Boeing may increase its manufacturing in the state, Mr. Shanks stated that 

Boeing in a separate proceeding intends “to petition Illinois to consider adopting an aerospace 

RACT rule and/or amendments to existing rules to clarify applicability of metro east VOM rules 

to aerospace.” PC 3 at 1. “Boeing requests that this deletion be deferred until such time that 

aerospace solvent cleaning operations can be subject to a regulation that is RACT for aerospace 

manufacturing.” PC 3 at 1; see id. at 2 (“Please retain the aerospace exemption. . . .”). Mr. 

Shanks states that Boeing “will follow up with a separate rulemaking petition regarding an 

Aerospace RACT rule for metro east and a request for interim determination of RACT rule 

applicability, understanding that rulemaking does take some time to complete.” Id. at 2.

In its second post-hearing comments filed June 1, 2011, the Agency acknowledged 

Boeing’s request to retain an exemption for aerospace coatings. PC 4 at 5. The Agency reports 

that it contacted Boeing and confirmed that Boeing’s facility is not subject to the industrial 

cleaning solvents rule because its projected emissions do not exceed 15 lb/day. Id. Boeing 

indicated that its position stems from concern that future expansion may cause it to exceed that 

threshold. Id. The Agency argues that USEPA requires removal of this exemption, “as the 

exemptions listed in this subsection are reserved for emission units already governed by 

regulations that contain their own set of cleaning requirements.” Id. at 5-6. The Agency argues 

that the possibility of implementing the aerospace CTG in the future should have no effect on 

adoption of the current proposal. Id. at 5. The Agency concludes that, until an aerospace 

coatings rule is proposed, the Board should comply “with USEPA’s requirement that the 

exemption be removed, particularly as the removal has no current impact upon the facility at 

issue.” Id. The Board concurs with the Agency and will not restore this exemption in its order 

below.

Subsection (a)(2)(B)(x). In this provision exempting cleaning operations at emission 

units within specified source categories, the Agency sought to strike an exemption for 

shipbuilding and repair coating “in response to a USEPA comment that the exemptions should 
46

not be included because Illinois has no rules for such coatings.” SR at 10; Prop. 218 at 28; Prop. 

219 at 27-28; see USEPA Attachment at 1.

Subsection (a)(2)(C). In this provision establishing exemptions for cleaning operations, 

the Agency proposed to amend “the exemption for medical device and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing operations to be consistent with language used in other exclusions.” SR at 10-11; 

Prop. 218 at 29; Prop. 219 at 28-29.

In their public comment filed April 15, 2011, SGIA and PII note that subsection (a)(2)(C) 

exempts specified cleaning operations from the requirements of subsections (b), (c), (f), and (g) 

of this Section but not from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of subsection (e). PC 

1 at 2; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(C), 219.187(a)(2)(C). SGIA and PII argue that the 

only recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to sources exempt under subsection 

(a)(2)(C) is subsection (e)(2)(vii), which requires a description of cleaning operations and a 

listing of exempt emission units. PC 1 at 2. SGIA and PII claim that, “[a]s this information does 

not limit or reduce emissions in any way, it creates an unnecessary recordkeeping burden for 

exempt sources and requires both exempt sources and the department to dedicate time to a task 

that does not improve air quality.” SGIA and PII request that Board revise subsection (a)(2)(C) 

“to indicate that the listed cleaning operations are completely exempt from Section 218.187(e).” 

Id. at 2, 3. As an alternative, SGIA and PII propose that subsection (a)(2)(c) could be merged 

with subsection (a)(2)(B). Id. at 2.

In its post-hearing comment, the Agency notes this request to exclude specified cleaning 

operations from recordkeeping obligations. PC 2 at 2. The Agency states that USEPA “has 

advised, however, that exempting such cleaning operations from the recordkeeping requirements 

in subsection (e) is not acceptable.” Id. The Agency “strongly opposes” the proposed change, 

“as the USEPA could once again disapprove the rule if such changes are made.” Id. at 3. The 

Board concurs and has not included this change in its order below.

During the first hearing, Mr. Davis on behalf of IERG noted that cleaning operations 

listed in subsection (a)(2)(C) are not exempt from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

at subsection (e). Tr.1 at 15. Mr. Bloomberg accounted for this by stating that two of the 

exemptions are based upon specific material use thresholds. Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.187(a)(2)(C)(v, xiii); 219.187(a)(2)(C)(v, xiii). He noted USEPA’s position that exempting 

the sources listed in subsection (a)(2)(C) from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements “is 

not acceptable.” Tr.1 at 16, 21. In its first post-hearing comment, the Agency noted USEPA’s 

position “that sources with cleaning operations subject to (a)(2)(C)(v) and (a)(2)(C)(xiii) must 

comply with the additional recordkeeping/reporting requirements set forth in Section 

218/219.187(e)(7) of the Illinois EPA’s proposal.” PC 2 at 2-3. Based on this position, the 

Agency “strongly opposes” any change to its proposed language, “as the USEPA could once 

again disapprove the rules if such changes are made.” Id. at 3. The Board concurs and has not 

included this change in its order below.

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(v). This subsection exempts from the requirements of subsection 

(b), (d), (f), and (g) of this Section the “[c]leaning of medical device and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing operations if the facility uses no more than 1.5 gallons per day of solvents for 
47

such cleaning. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(C)(v), 219.187(a)(2)(C)(v). In its second posthearing comments filed on June 1, 2011, the Agency proposes to amend this subsection only by 

adding to the existing daily limit a metric equivalent “mistakenly omitted from the Agency’s 

original proposal.” PC 4 at 7; see id. at 9, 13.

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(xiii). This subsection exempts from the requirements of subsection 

(b), (d), (f), and (g) of this Section the “[c]leaning of sterilization indicating ink application 

equipment if the facility uses no more than 1.5 gallons per day of solvents for such cleaning.” 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(C)(xiii), 219.187(a)(2)(C)(xiii). In its second post-hearing 

comments filed on June 1, 2011, the Agency proposes to amend this subsection only by adding 

to the existing daily limit a metric equivalent “mistakenly omitted from the Agency’s original 

proposal.” PC 4 at 7; see id. at 9, 14.

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(xiv). In their public comment filed April 15, 2011, SGIA and PII 

stated that subsection (a)(2)(C)(xiv) exempts from the requirements of subsections (b), (c), (f),

and (g) the “[c]leaning of metering rollers, dampening rollers, and printing plates.” PC 1 at 2; 

see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(C)(xiv), 219.187(a)(2)(C)(xiv). SGIA and PII state that 

“these cleaning operations take place at lithographic printing operations.” PC 1 at 2. SGIA and 

PII argues that subsection (a)(2)(B)(ii) exempts lithographic printing from the requirements of 

subsection (b) through (g). Suggesting that it is unnecessary, SGIA and PII claim that subsection 

(a)(2)(C)(xiv) “should be deleted to avoid confusion regarding the applicability of Sections 

218.187(d) and (e) to cleaning of metering rollers, dampening rollers, and printing plates.” PC 1 

at 2.

During the first hearing, Mr. Bloomberg indicated that the Agency had discussed this 

issue with USEPA and that this proposed change was “fine.” Tr.1 at 19-20; see PC 4 at 2. He 

added that the Agency would further address this request in its response to the comments from 

SGIA and PII. Id. at 20.

In its first post-hearing comments filed May 16, 2011, the Agency noted the request from 

SGIA and PII to remove this exemption. PC 2 at 2. The Agency acknowledged indicating

during the first hearing that it was likely to agree with this request. Id.; see PC 4 at 2. However, 

the Agency stated that another industry group had since opposed this change. PC 2 at 2; see PC 

4 at 2 (noting sources intending to utilize exemption). The Agency further stated that it “needs to 

work with the other group and USEPA to determine the proper course of action, and thus does 

not have a specific response to this issue at the present time.” Id.

In its second post-hearing comments filed on June 1, 2011, the Agency reported learning 

“that can coating operations, and potentially other types of operations as well, utilize 

lithographic-type presses that are not necessarily covered by the regulations governing 

lithographic printing lines. . . .” PC 4 at 2, citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.405-411, 219.405-411. 

The Agency argues that these sources would not fall under the lithographic printing exemption in 

Section 218/219.187, “as this exemption was intended to relieve only lithographic printers that 

are already otherwise regulated from additional cleaning obligations.” PC 4 at 2; see 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(B)(ii). 219.187(a)(2)(B)(ii). As these printers would be able to rely on 

the existing exemption for metering rollers, dampening rollers, and printing plates, the Agency 
48

argues that it is necessary to retain it and recommends against striking it. PC 4 at 2-3. The 

Agency adds that it “does not believe that the risk of confusion for lithographic printers is great 

enough to justify depriving other sources of the benefit of this exemption.” Id. at 3. The Board 

concurs and declines to strike this provision from its order below.

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(xvii). In its second post-hearing comments filed June 1, 2011, the 

Agency reports receiving “additional comments from an industry group regarding industrial 

cleaning solvents.” PC 4 at 7. Specifically, the group “requested that an exemption be added for 

cleaning performed with aerosol products if such use falls below a specified threshold.” Id. 

Having obtained USEPA’s approval of such a change, the Agency proposes to amend existing 

Section 218/219.187(a)(2)(C), which provides that various cleaning operations are exempt from 

the requirements of subsections (b), (c), (f), and (g) of this Section. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.187(a)(2)(C), 219.187(a)(2)(C). The Agency recommends adding the following language as 

an additional exempt category under subsection (a)(2)(C)(xvii): “[c]leaning with aerosol 

products if the facility uses no more than 4.7 liters (1.25 gallons) per day of such products.” PC 

4 at 10, 14. The Board concurs, and this addition is reflected in its order below.

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(xviii). In their public comment filed April 15, 2011, SGIA and PII 

stated that “[t]he rule does not specifically address substrate cleaning for screen printing.” PC 1 

at 2. SGIA and PII further state that “[s]ubstrate cleaning is necessary to insure the ink will 

properly adhere to the surface of the substrate, which frequently has residue on the surface of the 

as-received that must be removed prior to printing.” Id. SGIA and PII acknowledge that 

material and control requirements at subsection (b)(1)(A) refer to product cleaning, but they 

argue that those requirements address electrical and electronic components and medical and 

pharmaceutical manufacturing. PC 1 at 2; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(b)(1)(A), 

219.187(b)(1)(A). SGIA and PII further argue that, although the exemption in subsections 

(a)(2)(A)(iv) and (a)(2)(C)(xvi) address pre-press cleaning operations and cleaning operations 

associated with digital printing, no exemption addresses “substrate cleaning for screen printing 

operations.” PC 1 at 2; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(A)(iv), 218(a)(2)(C)(xvi), 

219.187(a)(2)(A)(iv), 219.187(a)(2)(C)(xvi). SGIA and PII request that the Board add a new 

subsection (a)(2)(A)(v) providing an exemption from various requirements for “cleaning of 

substrates prior to screen printing.” PC 1 at 2; see Tr.1 at 18-19.

In its first post-hearing comments filed on May 16, 2011, the Agency noted the request 

that substrate cleaning for screen printing be exempted. PC 2 at 2. The Agency reports, 

however, that “USEPA indicated that there is not currently a sufficient basis for the exemption, 

and requested additional information in order to further evaluate the proposed amendment.” Id. 

The Agency states that, although it has sought this information and believes that SGIA and PII 

are preparing a response, it has not yet received one. Id. The Agency indicates that, “[u]nless 

and until PII/SGIA submits the requested information and the USEPA approves the amendment, 

the Illinois EPA opposes adding the exemption.” Id.

In its second post-hearing comments filed on June 1, 2011, the Agency again noted the 

request that substrate cleaning for screen printing be exempted. PC 4 at 1. The Agency 

indicated that SGIA and PII supplied information supporting this proposed amendment. Id. The 

Agency reports USEPA’s response that SGIA and PII “still did not provide sufficient 
49

documentation to support their requested amendment. . . .” Id. at 1-2. USEPA also noted that 

the CTG is based upon Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations, which do not 

include such an exemption. Id. at 2. The Agency states that SGIA and PII ultimately requested a 

limited exemption, which USEPA accepted. Id.

Existing Section 218/219.187(a)(2)(C) provides that various cleaning operations are 

exempt from the requirements of subsections (b), (c), (f), and (g) of this Section. 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.187(a)(2)(C), 219.187(a)(2)(C). The Agency recommends adding the following 

language as an additional exempt category under subsection (a)(2)(C)(xviii): “[c]leaning of 

plastic-based or vinyl-based substrates for use in the screen printing process when using UV 

curable ink and coating systems.” PC 4 at 10, 14. The Board concurs, and this addition is 

reflected in its order below.

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(xix). In its second post-hearing comments filed on June 1, 2011, 

the Agency noted that an “industry group recommended that an exemption be added to Section 

218/219.187(a)(2)(C) for cleaning associated with performance testing conducted on production 

lines.” PC 4 at 7. After USEPA requested and received information in support of this proposal, 

it “approved a limited exemption.” Id. Existing Section 218/219.187(a)(2)(C) provides that 

various cleaning operations are exempt from the requirements of subsections (b), (c), (f), and (g) 

of this Section. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(C), 219.187(a)(2)(C). The Agency 

recommends adding the following language as an additional exempt category under subsection 

(a)(2)(C)(xix):

[c]leaning conducted as part of performance tests on coatings, adhesives, or inks 

that are in research and development and that are not yet commercially used for 

the applications for which they are being tested. This exemption is limited to the 

use of up to a total of 90.9 liters (24 gallons) of cleaning solvent per calendar 

month and 416.3 liters (110 gallons) of cleaning solvent per calendar year for 

such cleaning. Id. at 10, 14.

The Board concurs, and this addition is reflected in its order below.

Subsection (b). In this subsection, which provides material and control requirements, the 

Agency sought “to add USEPA-approved additional compliance alternatives” for sources that 

manufacture coatings, inks, adhesives, or resins. SR at 11; Prop. 218 at 30-32; Prop. 219 at 30-

32; see USEPA Attachment at 1-2.

Subsection (b)(1). In this subsection, the Agency proposed to add a VOM limitation 

applicable to the “[c]leaning of equipment used in the manufacture of coatings, inks, adhesives, 

or resins.” Prop. 218 at 31; Prop. 219 at 30; see SR at 11, USEPA Attachment at 1. In addition, 

because it proposed to remove an exemption for screen reclamation activities, the Agency 

“recommends specifying that the VOM limitation for screen printing includes such activities.” 

SR at 11; see Prop. 218 at 31; Prop. 219 at 30.

Subsection (b)(2). In its motion to amend the proposal, the Agency responds to a request 

by an industry representative by recommending an addition to this compliance alternative. 
50

Specifically, the Agency seeks “to add the term ‘VOM’ to a reference to composite vapor 

pressure.” Mot. Amend at 1-2. The Agency indicates that it had mistakenly omitted this term 

from its original proposal. Id. at 1. Having granted the Agency’s motion to amend, the Board 

includes this addition in its order below.

Subsection (b)(3). The Agency proposed to amend the add-on device compliance 

alternative to address cleaning operations at sources manufacturing coatings, inks, adhesives, or 

resins. Prop. 218 at 31; Prop. 219 at 30; see SR at 11; USEPA Attachment at 1.

Subsection (b)(4). The Agency proposed to add a new subsection establishing work 

practice requirements “[f]or sources that manufacture coatings, inks, adhesives, or resins.” Prop. 

218 at 32; Prop. 219 at 31; USEPA Attachment at 1-2; see SR at 11.

Subsection (b)(5). The Agency proposed to add a new subsection providing that sources 

manufacturing coatings, inks, adhesives, or resins may use solvents that do not meet VOM 

content or composite vapor pressure requirements if they meet requirements including a material 

use restriction. Prop. 218 at 32; Prop. 219 at 31-32; USEPA Attachment at 2.

Subsection (d). In this subsection providing operating requirements for subject sources, 

the Agency proposed to add work practice requirements for the use of cleaning solvents for wipe 

cleaning at sources that manufacture coatings, inks, adhesives, or resins.” SR at 11; see Prop. 

218 at 32-33; Prop. 219 at 32, USEPA Attachment at 1.

Subsection (e). In this subsection providing recordkeeping and reporting requirements, 

the Agency first proposed to change the compliance date from April 1, 2011, to January 1, 2012. 

Prop. 218 at 33-39; Prop. 219 at 32-38; see SR at 11. The Agency also proposed to change the 

applicability standard from a daily to a monthly limit. SR at 11; Prop. 218 at 33-34; Prop. 219 at 

33. In addition, the Agency recommended “adding monthly recordkeeping requirements for 

exempt sources.” SR at 11; see Prop. 218 at 34, Prop. 219 at 33, USEPA Attachment at 2. In a 

provision addressing sources changing the method of compliance, the Agency also recommended

adding cross-references to new compliance alternatives for sources manufacturing coatings, inks, 

adhesives, or resins. SR at 11; Prop. 218 at 35, Prop. 219 at 34. Finally, the Agency also 

proposed to add “recordkeeping requirements for sources complying pursuant to subsection 

(b)(5) and for sources with cleaning operations subject to one or more of the exclusions in 

subsection (a)(2)(C)(v) or (xiii) of this Section.” SR at 11; see Prop. 218 at 38-39, Prop. 219 at 

37-38; see USEPA Attachment at 1.

In their public comment filed April 15, 2011, SGIA and PII stated that VOM regulations 

do “not include a provision for retention of cleaning solvent in shop towels.” PC 1 at 3. SGIA 

and PII note that the recordkeeping requirement applicable to lithographic printers “provides for 

50 percent retention of cleaning solutions used with shop towels kept in closed containers that 

have a vapor pressure of 10 mm Hg or less at 20 oC (68oF).” Id. citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.411(b)(1)(B)(iv). SGIA and PII cite USEPA documents to argue that “[t]he same VOM 

retention factor should be included in this rule.” PC 1 at 3. Specifically, they propose a new 

subsection (e)(10) providing in its entirety that
51

[a]ll emission calculations required by this subsection (e) shall use an emission 

adjustment factor of 0.50 in calculating emissions from used shop towels if the 

VOM composite vapor pressure of each associated cleaning solution is less than 

10 mmHg measured at 20oC (68oF) and the shop towels are kept in closed 

containers. For cleaning solutions with VOM composite vapor pressure of equal 

to or greater than 10 mmHg measured at 20oC (68oF) and for shop towels that are 

not kept in closed containers, no emission adjustment factor is used. PC 1 at 3.

During the first hearing, Mr. Bloomberg indicated that the Agency was still discussing this 

proposed language and would address it in written comments. Tr.1 at 21-22.

In its first post-hearing comment filed May 16,. 2011, the Agency noted the request to 

include a retention factor “for cleaning solvents that have a vapor pressure of 10 mm Hg or less 

and that are kept in closed containers.” PC 2 at 3. The Agency states that it “does not object to 

the revision, but recommends that it be included in a different subsection . . .” Id. at 3-4 

(proposing amendment to subsection (e)(1)(A)(ii)). The Agency adds that “USEPA has advised 

that the revision is acceptable, provided that sources must demonstrate that the vapor pressure 

falls below the specified threshold.” Id. at 3; see Tr.2 at 22-23. Accordingly, the Agency 

proposes to amend Section 218/219.187(e)(1)(A)(ii) as follows:

1) The owner or operator of a source exempt from the limitations of this Section 

because of the criteria in Section 218[/219].187(a)(1) of this Subpart shall comply with 

the following:

A) By January 1, 2012, or upon initial start-up of the source, whichever is 

later, submit a certification to the Agency that includes:

ii) Calculations that demonstrate that combined emissions of VOM 

from cleaning operations at the source, other than cleaning operations 

identified in subsection (a)(2) of this Section, never equal or exceed 226.8 

kg/month (500 lbs/month), in the absence of air pollution control 

equipment. An emission adjustment factor of 0.50 shall be used in 

calculating emissions from used shop towels if the VOM composite vapor 

pressure of each associated cleaning solution is demonstrated to be less 

than 10 mmHg measured at 20oC (68oF) and the shop towels are kept in 

closed containers. For cleaning solutions with VOM composite vapor 

pressures of equal to or greater than 10 mmHg measured at 20oC (68oF) 

and for shop towels that are not kept in closed containers, no emission 

adjustment factor shall be used;

PC 2 at 3-4.

During the second hearing on May 18, 2011, the Agency indicated that it would respond 

in post-hearing comments to a question by the Board about any requirement to demonstrate 

vapor pressure. Tr.2 at 22-23. The Agency’s comment states that the proposal simply requires 

“that sources be able to demonstrate, through recordkeeping, that their cleaning solutions satisfy 
52

the criteria for use of the emission adjustment factor, i.e., that the solutions have a vapor pressure 

below the applicable threshold.” PC 4 at 6. The Agency believes that this proposed language 

would not subject sources to additional requirements. Id. The Agency elaborates that existing 

language requires exempt sources

to submit a certification to the Agency setting forth calculations that demonstrate 

that the source does not exceed the applicability threshold. Complying with this 

requirement necessarily entails maintaining sufficient record to support emissions 

calculations, including those necessary to demonstrate that cleaning solutions 

satisfy the criteria for use of the emission adjustment factor. Id.

The Agency adds that, even in the absence of this requirement, “sources are always required to 

demonstrate compliance.” Id. at 6-7. The Agency argues that its amendment “simply clarifies 

this obligation, as required by the USEPA.” Id. at 7.

Finally, in its second post-hearing comments filed June 1, 2011, the Agency reported that 

USEPA required the addition of certain recordkeeping requirements to address the additional 

exemptions added in response to industry comments. PC 4 at 7-8, 10-12, 14-16. The Agency 

also noted USEPA’s “suggestion that the Illinois EPA amend references to cleaning operations 

being ‘subject to’ exclusions, in order to avoid causing confusion.” Id. at 8. The Agency 

proposed to refer to sources that “fall under” those exemptions. See id. at 10-11, 14-15. The 

Board concurs in these revisions, which are reflected in its order below.

Subsection (f). Existing Section 218/219.187(f) addresses monitoring requirements 

applicable to the category of “other industrial solvent cleaning operations.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.187(f), 219.187(f). In its second post-hearing comments filed June 1, 2011, the Agency 

notes USEPA’s request to amend this subsection “regarding monitoring requirements for sources 

subject to Section 218/219.187(b)(3).” PC 4 at 16; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(b)(3), 

219.187(b)(3). The Agency states that, regarding industrial adhesives, USEPA had insisted upon 

an amendment requiring the addition of continuous monitoring equipment when a carbon 

adsorber is used to demonstrate compliance. PC 4 at 16, citing USEPA Attachment. The 

Agency adds that USEPA noted that industrial cleaning solvent provisions present the same 

issue. PC 4 at 16. Accordingly, the Agency proposes to add a new subsection (f)(2) providing in 

its entirety that,

[i]f a carbon adsorber is used to demonstrate compliance, the owner or operator of 

a source subject to Section 218[/219].187(b)(3) of this Subpart shall used Agency 

and USEPA approved continuous monitoring equipment which is installed, 

calibrated, maintained, and operated according to vendor specifications at all 

times the control device is in use. The continuous monitoring equipment shall 

monitor the VOM concentration of each carbon adsorption bed exhaust or the 

exhaust of the bed next in sequence to be desorbed. Id. at 17, 18.

The Agency states that it does not expect this provision to have a negative effect on subject 

sources, “as such sources are most likely already complying with these monitoring procedures.” 
53

Id. at 16. The Board concurs with the Agency’ recommendation, and this revision is reflect dint 

he order below.

Subsection (g). In this subsection providing testing requirements, the Agency proposed

to add language clarifying that, “[i]n the event of any inconsistency between a Method 24 test 

and the manufacturer’s specifications, the Method 24 test shall govern.” Prop. 218 at 40, Prop,. 

219 at 39; see SR at 11; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.112(d) (incorporating Method 24 by 

reference), USEPA Attachment at 2.

Subpart F: Coating Operations.

Subpart F of Part 218/219 addresses coating operations using VOM. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.204-219, 219.204-219.

Section 218/219.204: Emission Limitations.

Subsection (a). In this subsection addressing automobile or light-duty truck coating, the 

Agency proposed to amend language regarding compliance with the VOM content limitation for 

final repair coat operations by adding a definition of “occurrence.” SR at 12; see USEPA 

Attachment at 5. The Agency recommended defining the term as “the application of the 

combination of coatings that constitute a final repair coat for a single automobile or light-duty 

truck.” Prop. 218 at 45-46; Prop. 219 at 44. The Agency also sought to add language providing 

that Section 218/219.205 “does not apply to the final repair coat limitation.” Prop. 218 at 46; 

Prop. 219 at 44; see SR at 12; see USEPA Attachment at 5; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.205, 

219.205 (Daily-Weighted Average Limitations). Finally, the Agency also proposed in Section 

218.204(a)(2) to correct the compliance date from May 1, 2011, to May 1, 2012. SR at 12; see

Prop. 218 at 43.

Subsection (q)(1). In this subsection addressing metal parts and products, the Agency 

proposed to strike the definition of “marine engine coating.” SR at 12; Prop. 218 at 59; Prop. 

219 at56. The Agency separately proposed to delete this category and limitations applicable to it 

because “USEPA indicated that the extreme performance coatings category is sufficient to 

address such coatings.” SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 62; Prop. 219 at 59.

Subsection (q)(1)(A). In this subsection addressing general one component coatings, the 

Agency proposed to delete subsection (q)(1)(A)(iii) providing limitations applicable to clear 

coatings, effectively changing the limitations to those established by the CTG. SR at 12; see

Prop. 218 at 59; see USEPA Attachment at 5. The Agency noted that the Board has adopted 

these limitations in rulemaking docket R10-20 in response to comments by Electro-Motive 

Diesel. SR at 12; see Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic 

Material Emissions from Group IV Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments 

to 35 Il. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R10-20, slip op at 66-67, 188 (Sept. 2, 2010). The 

Agency noted USEPA’s position “that the limit must conform to the recommendations in the 

CTG.” SR at 12.
54

Subsection (q)(1)(H). In Section 218.204(q)(1)(H) establishing limitations applicable to 

heat-resistant coatings, the Agency proposed “to delete the previously-applicable VOM content 

limitation, which was inadvertently left in the rule.” SR at 12; see Prop. 218 at 60; see USEPA 

Attachment at 5.

Subsection (q)(1)(I). In this subsection addressing high performance architectural 

coatings, the Agency proposed to amend VOM limitations. The Agency stated that, although the 

current limitations reflect the recommendations of the CTG, “USEPA has indicated that such 

limits constitute backsliding, and that the proposed, stricter limits are therefore necessary.” SR 

at 12; see Prop. 218 at 60; Prop. 219 at 57; see USEPA Attachment at 5.

Subsection (q)(1)(Z). The Agency proposed to delete this subsection addressing steel 

pail and drum interior coatings, “as such coatings fall within other categories contained in the 

CTG.” SR at 12; see Prop. 218 at 62; Prop. 219 at 59; USEPA Attachment at 5; see also 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.204(q)(1)(Y), 219.204(q)(1)(Y).

Subsection (q)(1)(AA). The Agency proposed to delete this subsection addressing 

marine engine coatings, “as the USEPA indicated that the extreme performance coatings 

category is sufficient to address such coatings.” SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 62; Prop. 219 at 59; 

see USEPA Attachment at 5.

Subsection (q)(3)(E). In this subsection addressing automotive/transportation plastic 

parts and products, the Agency proposed “to delete certain specialty coating categories that were

carried over from existing regulations, as they are encompassed by categories contained in the 

CTG.” SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 65-66; Prop. 219 at 62-63; see USEPA Attachment at 5. The 

Agency reports that “USEPA determined that it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that such 

coatings could not meet the limitations set forth in the CTG.” SR at 13.

In the motion to amend its proposal, the Agency noted that it had proposed to delete “the 

specialty coating category and limit for texture basecoats” in response to a USEPA comment that 

the limit lacked an adequate basis. Mot. Amend at 4. The Agency noted, however, that the 

category and limit appeared in the first-notice version published in the Illinois Register. Id., 

citing 35 Ill. Reg. 4887, 5185. Citing USEPA’s position, the Agency recommends deleting the 

term “texture basecoats” from this subsection. Mot. Amend at 4-5. Having granted the 

Agency’s motion, the Board’s order below reflects this recommendation.

Subsection (q)(3)(F). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing red, 

yellow, and black coatings by correcting an error in a cross-reference. SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 

66; Prop. 219 at 63; see USEPA Attachment at 5.

Subsection (q)(4)(A). In this subsection addressing business machine plastic parts and 

products, the Agency proposed “to increase the VOM content limitation for primers to the limit 

recommended in the CTG.” SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 66; Prop. 219 at 63; see USEPA 

Attachment at 5. The Agency stated that “USEPA approved the higher limit in light of the 

deletion of the specialty coatings categories in subsection (q)(4)(I). SR at 13.
55

Subsection (q)(4)(I). The Agency proposed to delete this subsection addressing specialty 

coatings. SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 67; Prop. 219 at 64; see USEPA Attachment at 5. The 

Agency stated that “USEPA determined that it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that these 

specialty coatings could not meet the limitations set forth in the CTG.” SR at 13.

Subsection (q)(5). Existing subsection (q)(5) establishes VOM emission limitations 

applicable to pleasure craft surface coatings. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(q)(5), 219.204(q)(5).

Subsection (q)(5)(A). In comments submitted on behalf of the ACA, Mr. Sell states that 

the category of extreme high gloss coatings is a relatively small but very important element of 

the pleasure craft coatings. Sell Test. at 7. He indicates, however, that low-VOM coatings 

“available at this time do not provide the appearance and functionality required. . . .” Id. 

(emphasis in original). He states that high solids topcoats have not been well-received and found 

“to be inferior to traditional, higher VOC containing products.” Id. He further states that lowVOM coatings may be less durable and cost significantly more than higher-VOM products. Id. 

Mr. Sell explains that the extreme high gloss topcoat accounts for less than 10% of total coatings 

and less than 40% of overall VOM burden on an annualized basis. Id. He also emphasizes that 

the SCAQMD regulations were adopted for a nonattainment area characterized as “serious” and 

not as “moderate.” Id.; see Townsend Test. at 3 (claiming regulations not RACT for other 

areas); Tr.2 at 13. He adds that the controlled application conditions available to industries such 

as aviation and car refinishing are not possible in the pleasure craft industry. Sell Test. at 7. Mr.

Sell concludes by requesting that the limit for this subcategory be increased to 600 g/l on a 

permanent basis, as industry does not foresee development of coatings that can meet both the 

current standard and the expectations of the pleasure craft market. Id.

In its first post-hearing comment filed May 16, 2011, the Agency reported that USEPA 

would allow amendments to the VOM limitations for pleasure craft surface coatings, “provided 

that the existing averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10-11; PC 4 at 3. 

The Agency states that “[t]he averaging alternative was intended to satisfy the pleasure craft 

coating industry’s need for higher emission limitations.” PC 2 at 11. The Agency argued that, 

“[i]f higher limits are instead implemented, there is no further need for an averaging option.” Id. 

The Agency reports that, “[b]ased on subsequent discussions with the ACA, in which the ACA 

expressed a preference for high VOM limitations, the Illinois EPA proposes eliminating the 

emissions averaging alternative and amending certain limits. . . .” Id.; but see Townsend Test at 

4; Tr.2 at 14-15 (proposing consideration of averaging alternative).

Specifically, the Agency proposed to amend the limit for “extreme high gloss coating -

topcoat” from 0.49 kg/l (4.1 lb/gal) coatings (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(q)(5)(A), 

219.204(q)(5)(A)) to 0.60 kg/l (5.0 lb/gal) coatings. PC 2 at 11, 21. The Agency also proposed 

to amend the limit from 1.10 kg/l (9.2 lb/gal) solids to 1.88 kg/l (15.6 lb/gal) solids. Id. at 11, 21. 

The Agency indicates that USEPA accepts this amendment, “provided that the existing 

emissions averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10-11. The Agency 

reports that ACA prefers higher VOM limits to maintaining the existing averaging option. Id. at 

11. The Board concurs with this revisions, which is reflected in its order below.
56

Subsection (q)(5)(D). In his testimony on behalf of the ACA, Mr. Sell claims that 

owners expect the finish of their boats to be durable, smooth, and glossy. Sell Test. at 6. He 

indicates that these coatings may be applied by brush, roller, or spray and must flow out to 

produce the desired finish. Id. He argues that these effects require products with higher solvent 

content for primers and topcoats. Id. Mr. Sell claims that low-VOM products require time to 

develop and evaluate, may cost significantly more than high-VOM products, and often 

necessitate changing work practices and increased labor costs. Id. He proposes that, for a fouryear period, the limit for this subcategory be raised from 420 g/l to 600 g/l. Id.

In its first post-hearing comment filed May 16, 2011, the Agency reported that USEPA 

would allow amendments to the VOM limitations for pleasure craft surface coatings, “provided 

that the existing averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10-11; PC 4 at 3. 

The Agency states that “[t]he averaging alternative was intended to satisfy the pleasure craft 

coating industry’s need for higher emission limitations.” PC 2 at 11. The Agency argued that, 

“[i]f higher limits are instead implemented, there is no further need for an averaging option.” Id. 

The Agency reports that, “[b]ased on subsequent discussions with the ACA, in which the ACA 

expressed a preference for high VOM limitations, the Illinois EPA proposes eliminating the 

emissions averaging alternative and amending certain limits. . . .” Id.; but see Townsend Test at 

4; Tr.2 at 14-15 (proposing consideration of averaging alternative).

Sepcifically, the Agency proposed to amend the limit for “finish primer/surfacer” 

applicable prior to January 1, 2014 from 0.42 kg/l (3.5 lb/gal) coatings (35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.204(q)(5)(D), 219.204(q)(5)(D)) to 0.60 kg/l (5.0 lb/gal) coatings. PC 2 at 11, 21. The 

Agency also proposed to amend the limit applicable prior to January 1, 2014, from 0.80 kg/l (6.7 

lb/gal) solids (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(q)(5)(D), 219.204(q)(5)(D)) to 1.88 kg/l (15.6 lb/gal) 

solids. PC 2 at 11, 21. Also in its post-hearing comment, the Agency proposed to amend this 

subsection by setting the limit for “finish primer/surfacer” applicable on and after January 1, 

2014 at 0.42 kg/l (3.5 lb/gal) coatings and 0.80 kg/l (6.7 lb/gal) solids. PC 2 at 11, 21.

The Agency states that, on May 26, 2011, Mr. Sell again “requested that the stricter 

VOM content limitations for finish primer/surface be delayed four years, as opposed to the 

approximate two and a half year extension proposed by the Agency.” PC 4 at 4. Noting an 

indication from USEPA “that extending the compliance date any further is unacceptable,” the 

Agency “opposes this amendment.” Id. The Board concurs with the Agency, and these 

recommendations are reflected in its order below.

Subsection (q)(5)(G). In his testimony on behalf of the ACA, Mr. Sell stated that the 

pleasure craft industry has invested significant time and effort in developing low-VOM 

antifoulant coatings. Sell Test. at 8. He indicated that “[f]ormulations are currently registered 

with the EPA on the basis of the percentage weight of biocide in the wet paint.” Id. He argued 

that, as the VOM content of the solvent is reduced, it “must be replaced with something nonvolatile, effectively reducing the percentage of biocide in the dry film.” Id. He further argued 

that this substitution would reduce the performance and lifetime of the applied coating. Id. He 

added that low-VOM antifoulant coatings may also result in a rougher surface and increase drag. 

Id.
57

Mr. Sell noted that the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAPs limit antifoulant coatings 

to VOM content of 400 g/l. Sell Test. at 9, citing 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart II. He argues that 

“[i]ndustry believes this limit is more suitable to represent RACT for this coating category, given 

the current state of the existing technology.” Id. He indicated that a limit of 400 g/l “is therefore 

required.” Id.

In its first post-hearing comment filed May 16, 2011, the Agency reported that USEPA 

would allow amendments to the VOM limitations for pleasure craft surface coatings, “provided 

that the existing averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10-11; PC 4 at 3. 

The Agency states that “[t]he averaging alternative was intended to satisfy the pleasure craft 

coating industry’s need for higher emission limitations.” PC 2 at 11. The Agency argued that, 

“[i]f higher limits are instead implemented, there is no further need for an averaging option.” Id. 

The Agency reports that, “[b]ased on subsequent discussions with the ACA, in which the ACA 

expressed a preference for high VOM limitations, the Illinois EPA proposes eliminating the 

emissions averaging alternative and amending certain limits. . . .” Id.; but see Townsend Test at 

4; Tr.2 at 14-15 (proposing consideration of averaging alternative). 

Specifically, the Agency proposed to amend the limit for “other substrate antifoulant 

coating” from 0.33 kg/l (2.8 lb/gal) coatings (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(q)(5)(G), 

219.204(q)(5)(G)) to 0.40 kg/l (3.3 lb/gal) coatings. PC 2 at 12, 21. The Agency also proposed 

to amend the limit from 0.53 kg/l (4.4 lb/gal) solids to 0.73 kg/l (5.8 lb/gal) solids. Id. at 12, 21. 

The Board concurs with this proposal, which is reflected in its order below.

Subsection (q)(5)(H). In testimony on behalf of the ACA, Mr. Sell suggested that the 

SCAQMD regulations are outdated and do not fully reflect current pleasure craft coatings. Sell 

Test. at 10. He specified that “[a] new category is required as a result of the International 

Maritime Organisation Antifouling Systems convention. . . .” Id. He states that the convention 

was ratified in 2007 and lists substances banned from use in antifoulings in an Annex 1. Id. He 

indicates that Tri Butyl Tin (TBT) is the first substance listed in Annex 1, and its use “in 

antifoulings on the hulls of any marine vessels entering the waters of countries which are 

signatories to the convention is controlled. . . .” Id.; see Townsend Test. at 3-4; Tr.2 at 15-16. 

He added that “[a] specialized coating type is required to seal in old TBT containing antifoulings 

and to promote adhesion of biocide-free, non-stick foul release coatings when applied to 

vessels.” Sell Test at 10.

Mr. Sell argues that this subcategory should be entitled “antifouling sealer/tie coat” with 

a VOM content limit of 420 g/l. Sell Test. at 10. He further argues that this limit is necessary 

“in order to facilitate adequate penetration into an underlying paint film for maximum adhesion.” 

Id. He added that, because these coatings contain a high degree of polymeric material, this limit 

is necessary to maintain appropriate application viscosity and “so the coating can form a flexible 

yet complete barrier over an underlying paint film.” Id.

In its first post-hearing comment filed May 16, 2011, the Agency proposes to add this 

subsection in order to establish limits for “antifoulant sealer/tie coat.” The Agency proposed to 

set these limit at 0.42 kg/l (3.5 lb/gal) coatings and 0.80 kg/l (6.7 lb/gal) solids. PC 2 at 12, 21; 

see also supra at __ (defining term). The Agency also proposes to re-designate as subsection 
58

(q)(5)(I) the existing subsection (q)(5)(H) addressing “all other pleasure craft surface coatings for 

metal or plastic.” Id. at 12, 21. The Board concurs with these proposals, which are reflected in 

its order below.

Section 218/219.207: Alternative Emission Limitations.

Subsection (a). In its first post-hearing comment, the Agency proposes to strike 

language providing that pleasure craft surface coating operations subject to Section 

218/219.204(q)(f)(A-G) “may also comply with subsection (o) of this Section” rather than 

Section 218/219. PC 2 at 12; see id. at 10-11, 22 (proposing elimination of emissions averaging 

alternative for pleasure craft surface coating operations); see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.207(o), 

219.207(n) (Emissions Averaging Alternative for Pleasure Craft Surface Coating Operations). 

The Board concurs and reflects this proposal in its order below.

Subsection (b). Section 218/219.206 addresses alternative emission limitations and 

provides an equation for expressing limitations in terms of kg (lbs) of VOM emissions per 1 (gal) 

of solids, or “S”. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.206, 219.206 (Solids Basis Calculation). Section 

218/219.207(b)(2) addresses alternative add-on control methodologies and refers to this equation 

in language regarding determination of overall efficiency. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.207(b)(2), 

219.207(b)(2). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “to clarify that, for coating lines 

subject to an emission limitation in Section 218/219.204 that is already expressed in terms of 

weight of VOM per volume of solids, ‘S’ is equal to such emission limitation.” SR at 13; see

Prop. 218 at 70; Prop. 219 at 66-67; see USEPA Attachment at 2, 5.

Subsection (n). In its first post-hearing comment, the Agency reported that USEPA 

would allow amendments to the VOM limitations for pleasure craft surface coatings, “provided 

that the existing averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10-11. The 

Agency states that “[t]he averaging alternative was intended to satisfy the pleasure craft coating 

industry’s need for higher emission limitations.” Id. at 11. The Agency argued that, “[i]f higher 

limits are instead implemented, there is not further need for an averaging option.” Id. The 

Agency reports that, “[b]ased on subsequent discussions with the ACA, in which the ACA 

expressed a preference for high VOM limitations, the Illinois EPA proposes eliminating the 

emissions averaging alternative and amending certain limits. . . .” Id. at 11, 12-15 (Part 218), 22-

24 (Part 219). The Board concurs with this proposal and reflects it in its order below.

Section 218/219.208: Exemptions from Emission Limitations.

In pre-filed testimony on behalf of the ACA, Mr. Sell argued that a number of coating 

regulations addressing VOM “include a small container exemption confined to not exceed a litre 

or a quart.” Sell. Test. at 11. He stated that the basis for these exemptions “is to allow for small 

repairs and touches ups to existing coatings that if done in a timely manner can often avoid larger 

paint jobs later.” Id. He argued that these limited uses of “the higher VOC materials actually 

reduce overall VOC emissions by allowing such repairs and touch ups to avoid complete overall 

or redo paint jobs.” Id.
59

The Agency’s first post-hearing comment notes ACA’s pre-filed testimony requesting a 

“small container exemption.” PC 2 at 10; see Sell Test. at 11. The Agency states that USEPA 

indicated that it would accept a small container exemption. PC 2 at 10; PC 4 at 3. Accordingly, 

the Agency proposed to amend Section 218/219.208(c) and (e). See id. at 17, 26-27 (adding 

references to Section 218/219.187(q)(5)). However, the Agency’s original proposal did not seek 

to amend this section (see SR; Prop. 218; Prop. 219),

The Board has not submitted Section 218.208 or 219.208 to first notice publication in this 

proceeding. See Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Group II and Group IV Consumer and Commercial Products: Proposed 

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R11-23 (Mar. 17, 2011); see also 5 ILCS

100/5-40(b) (2010) (“Each agency shall give at least 45 days' notice of its intended action to the 

general public. This first notice period shall commence on the first day the notice appears in the 

Illinois Register.”); 35 Ill. Reg. 4887 (Apr. 1, 2011). Accordingly, the Board cannot move these 

two sections to second notice, as it does below with the remainder of the proposal. Under these 

circumstances, the Board believes that the best procedure is to open a subdocket A to provide 

first notice of Sections 218.208 and 219.208 while allowing the remainder of the proposal to 

proceed to second notice. See Steel and Foundry Industry Amendments to the Landfill 

Regulations (Parts 810 through 815 and 817), R90-26 (A, B), slip op. at 3 (Mar. 31, 1994). 

Interested participants may view the Board’s opinion and order of this same date in subdocket A, 

which directs the Clerk to cause first-notice publication of the proposed small container 

exemption.

Section 218/219.211: Recordkeeping and Reporting.

Subsection (c). The Agency proposed “to clarify that certain recordkeeping requirements 

pertain to each coating applied each day on each coating line.” SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 79, 81; 

Prop. 219 at 76, 78; see USEPA Attachment at 3, 5. The Agency also proposed amendments 

requiring “additional recordkeeping for sources subject to the final repair coating limitation set 

forth in Section 218/219.204(a)(2)(E).” SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 80-81; Prop. 219 at 77-78; see

USEPA Attachment at 6.

Subsection (d). In this subsection addressing compliance through daily-weighted 

average limitations, the Agency proposed “to clarify that certain recordkeeping requirements 

pertain to each coating applied each day on each coating line.” SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 83-84; 

Prop. 219 at 80-81; see USEPA Attachment at 3.

Subsection (f). In this subsection addressing primer surfacer operations, topcoat 

operations, and combined primer surface and topcoat operations, the Agency proposed to add 

language requiring “that sources collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate 

compliance with the topcoat protocol referenced in Section 218/219.105(b).” SR at 14; see Prop. 

218 at 87; Prop. 219 at 84; see USEPA Attachment at 6; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.105(b), 

219.105(b) (Test Methods and Procedures).

Subsection (j). In this provision addressing pleasure craft surface coating operations

complying through an emissions averaging alternative, the Agency proposed an amendment 
60

specifying “that subject sources shall collect and record the coating category of each pleasure 

craft surface coating used in each subject coating operation.” SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 90; 

Prop. 219 at 87; see USEPA Attachment at 6.

In its first post-hearing comment, the Agency reported that USEPA would allow 

amendments to the VOM limitations for pleasure craft surface coatings, “provided that the 

existing averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10-11. The Agency 

states that “[t]he averaging alternative was intended to satisfy the pleasure craft coating 

industry’s need for higher emission limitations.” Id. at 11. The Agency argued that, “[i]f higher 

limits are instead implemented, there is no further need for an averaging option.” Id. The 

Agency reports that, “[b]ased on subsequent discussions with the ACA, in which the ACA 

expressed a preference for high VOM limitations, the Illinois EPA proposes eliminating the 

emissions averaging alternative and amending certain limits. . . .” Id. The Agency proposes to 

strike the entire subsection (j), which addresses recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

applicable to the owner or operator of a pleasure craft surface coating operation complying 

through an emissions averaging alternative. Id. at 19-20, 29-30. The Board concurs and reflects 

this proposal in its order below.

Section 218/219.217: Wood Furniture Coating Work Practice Standards.

The Agency first proposed to correct an error in the title of this section in Part 218 by 

referring to work practice standards for flat wood paneling coatings in addition to wood furniture 

coatings. SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 91. In addition, the Agency proposed to amend subsection 

(d) “by adding an additional work product requirement regarding conveying coatings, thinners, 

and cleaning materials, as recommended in the CTG.” SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 92; Prop. 219 

at 89; see USEPA Attachment at 3.

Subpart H: Printing and Publishing.

Section 218/219.401: Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing.

In subsection (b)(3) addressing a weighted averaging alternative, the Agency proposed to 

amend certain terms in equations to refer only to units of weight. SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 96-

97; Prop. 219 at 94; see USEPA Attachment at 3.

Section 218.402: Applicability.

In Section 218.402(a), the Agency proposed an amendment specifying “that the 25 tons 

per year applicability threshold regards combined emissions from all flexographic and 

rotogravure printing lines at the source.” SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 101; see USEPA Attachment 

at 3.

Section 218/219.404: Recordkeeping and Reporting.

Subsection (b). In this subsection addressing exempt printing lines, the Agency first 

proposed amending the compliance date to January 1, 2012. SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 102-03; 
61

Prop. 219 at 99-100; see USEPA Attachment at 3. The Agency also proposed to amend 

subsection (b) “by requiring that exempt sources include in their certification calculations that 

demonstrate that the source does not exceed the 25 tons per year threshold, and notify the Illinois 

EPA of any record showing that the source exceeded the 25 tons per year applicability 

threshold.” SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 102-04; see USEPA Attachment at 3; see also Prop. 219 

at 100.

Subsection (d). In this subsection addressing a weighted averaging alternative, the 

Agency proposed to add a requirement “that sources identify in their certifications the method 

used to calculate the weight of each coating or ink.” SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 106; Prop. 219 at 

102-03; see USEPA Attachment at 3.

Subsection (f). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “to add more specific 

recordkeeping requirements for sources that are exempt pursuant to the 15 lb/day applicability 

threshold.” SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 109; Prop. 219 at 106; see USEPA Attachment at 3.

Section 218/219.409: Testing for Lithographic Printing.

The Agency proposed to amend subsection (a) “by clarifying that testing must be done by 

the compliance date.” SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 110; see Prop. 219 at 107; see USEPA 

Attachment at 4.

In their public comment filed April 15, 2011, SGIA and PII state that the Agency’s 

proposal to require testing of oxidizers on heatset web offset presses by January 1, 2012 unless 

they had been tested since January 1, 2010, “needs to be revised.” PC 1 at 4. They argue that 

these presses have been required to obtain operating permits, which “rely on an oxidizer’s 

operating temperature to gauge if the control device is operating within permitted emission 

control limits.” Id. SGIA and PII also cite the $10,000-15,000 cost of stack testing to 

demonstrate compliance to claim that duplicate testing is not economically reasonable, 

particularly when temperature monitoring data exists. Id. SGIA and PII also argue that USEPA 

documents support a revision. Id. (citation omitted). Finally, SGIA and PII argue that, “since 

the effective date of compliance with the proposed rule for new presses is the installation date of 

the new press, the proposed rule needs to be revised to provide 180 days to demonstrate 

compliance. . . . “ Id. They indicate that this additional time would allow owners and operators 

to establish typical operating conditions for testing. Id., citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.409(b)(5). 

Specifically, SGIA and PII propose to amend subsection (a) as follows:

[t]esting to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Section 218.407 of 

this Subpart shall be conducted by January 1, 2012, unless such prior testing has 

been conducted within the two years immediately preceding January 1, 2012

demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 218.407 has been 

conducted in accordance with an existing operating permit.. Thereafter, testing 

shall be conducted by the owner or operator within 90 180 days after a request by 

the Agency, or as otherwise specified in this Subpart. Such testing shall be 

conducted at the expense of the owner of operator and the owner or operator shall 
62

notify the Agency in writing 30 days in advance of conducting such testing to 

allow the Agency to be present during such testing. PC 1 at 4-5.

In its motion to amend, the Agency responds to a comment by an industry representative 

by recommending revision of this subsection. Mot. Amend at 2-3. Specifically, the Agency 

seeks “to specify that lithographic printing lines that conducted testing to demonstrate 

compliance with the requirements in Section 218/219.407 on or after May 9, 1995, and that 

satisfy certain other requirements, are not required to retest by January 1, 2012.” Id. at 2. The 

Agency also seeks to specify “that sources that conducted testing prior to May 9, 1995, are also 

not required to retest if such sources submit specified information” to the Agency. Id. The 

Agency proposes that subsection (a) provide in its entirety that

[t]esting to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Section 218.407 of 

this Subpart shall be conducted by January 1, 2012, unless such testing was 

conducted on or after May 9, 1995, the test was conducted pursuant to a test 

method approved by USEPA, the current operating conditions and operating 

capacity of the press are consistent with the operation of the press during such 

testing, and the test results were submitted to the Agencyhas been conducted 

within the two years immediately preceding January 1, 2012. If an owner or 

operator of a printing line performed such testing prior to May 9, 1995, the owner 

or operator shall either retest pursuant to this Section, or submit to the Illinois 

EPA all information necessary to demonstrate that the prior testing was conducted 

pursuant to a test method approved by the USEPA, and that the current operating 

conditions and operating capacity of the press are consistent with the operation of 

the press during prior testing. Thereafter, testing shall be conducted by the owner 

of operator within 90 days after a request by the Agency, or as otherwise specified 

in this Subpart. Such testing shall be conducted at the expense of the owner or 

operator and the owner or operator shall notify the Agency in writing 30 days in 

advance of conducting such testing to allow the Agency to be present during such 

testing. Id. at 2-3.

The Board concurs and reflects this language n its order below.

The Agency notes that SGIA and PII had proposed a revision “to eliminate retesting 

requirements completely for printing lines that have previously tested ‘in accordance with an 

existing operating permit.’” Mot. Amend at 3. The Agency reports that USEPA has indicated 

“that the applicable ‘cut-off date’ for retesting requirements is May 9, 1995, the original effective 

date of the requirements in Section 218/219.407.” Id. The Agency also indicates that USEPA 

“advised that other requirements must be met as well to ensure that prior tests still accurately 

reflect the current operation of the press.” Id. Based on USEPA’s insistence upon and approval 

of its proposed subsection (a) above, the Agency requests that the Board not adopt the language 

proposed by SGIA and PII. Id.; see PC 2 at 1.

The Agency also notes that SGIA and PII had recommended increasing from 90 days to 

180 days “the amount of time sources are given to conduct a test after a request by the Agency or 

after startup of a new press/control device.” Mot. Amend at 3. The Agency stresses that the 90-
63

day requirement has been in effect “for many years” and argues that SGIA and PII have not 

shown that an additional 90 days are warranted. Id. at 4. The Agency adds that “it is unclear 

whether this change would be acceptable to the USEPA.” PC 2 at 1-2. The Agency states that it 

“opposes this revision.” Id. at 3; see PC 2 at 1. The Board concurs with the Agency on these 

issues, and the proposed changes are not reflected in its order below.

Section 218/219.411: Recordkeeping and Reporting for Lithographic Printing.

Subsection (b). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “to add more specific 

recordkeeping requirements for sources that utilize the material use threshold alternative to 

demonstrate that they are exempt.” SR at 16; see Prop. 218 at 118; Prop. 219 at 115; see USEPA 

Attachment at 4.

In their public comment filed April 15, 2011, SGIA and PII argued that the Agency’s 

proposed amendment to subsection (b)(1)(F) “creates a burden that contradicts the purpose of 

allowing facilities to determine exemption based on material use thresholds.” PC 1 at 5. They 

elaborate that requiring recordkeeping beyond the amount of materials used “creates a significant 

recordkeeping burden while providing no additional benefit.” Id. SGIA and PII suggest that, if a 

facility must demonstrate that it has not exceeded the material use threshold, then subsection 

(b)(1)(B) includes the calculations to do so. See PC 1 at 5. SGIA and PII request that the 

proposal delete references to “the name, identification number, and VOM content of each 

cleaning solvent and fountain solution additive used per calendar month.” PC 1 at 5.

In its first post-hearing comment, the Agency notes the recommendation by SGIA and PII 

to “delete the requirement that sources’ material use records include the name, identification 

number, and VOM content of each cleaning solvent and fountain solution additive used per 

calendar month.” PC 2 at 4-5. The Agency states that USEPA requires these records “in order 

to determine whether the material use thresholds are exceeded.” Id. at 5, citing USEPA Attach. 

Based on the USEPA’s position, the Agency opposed the recommendation by SGIA and PII. PC 

2 at 5. The Board concurs with the Agency, and the order below does not reflect the 

recommendation of SGIA and PII.

Also in its first post-hearing comment filed May 16, 2011, the Agency noted that it had 

proposed to add an adjustment factor for industrial solvent cleaning operations “based upon a 

similar provision in the existing rule for lithographic printing operations.” PC 2 at 5; see id. at 2-

4 (proposing amendment to Section 218/219.187(e)(1)(A)(ii)). The Agency states that,

[t]o remain consistent with the language recommended by the Illinois EPA above 

for industrial cleaning solvents, and in compliance with a recommendation by the 

USEPA, the Illinois EPA proposes amending Section 218/219.411(b)(1) and (2) 

to specify that lithographic printing sources wishing to utilize the emission 

adjustment factor for cleaning materials must demonstrate that the vapor pressure 

falls below the specified threshold. PC 2 at 5-8; see Tr.2 at 23-24.

During the second hearing on May 18, 2011, the Agency indicated that it would respond 

in post-hearing comments to a question by the Board about any requirement to demonstrate that 
64

vapor pressure falls below a specified threshold. Tr.2 at 22-23. The Agency’s post-haering 

comment filed on June 1, 2011, states that the proposal simply requires “that sources be able to 

demonstrate, through recordkeeping, that their cleaning solutions satisfy the criteria for use of 

the emission adjustment factor, i.e., that the solution have a vapor pressure below the applicable 

threshold.” PC 4 at 6. The Agency believes that this proposed language would not subject 

sources to additional requirements. Id. The Agency elaborates that existing language requires 

exempt sources

to submit a certification to the Agency setting forth calculations that demonstrate 

that the source does not exceed the applicability threshold. Complying with this 

requirement necessarily entails maintaining sufficient record to support emissions 

calculations, including those necessary to demonstrate that cleaning solutions 

satisfy the criteria for use of the emission adjustment factor. Id.

The Agency adds that, even in the absence of this requirement, “sources are always required to 

demonstrate compliance.” Id. at 6-7. The Agency argues that its amendment “simply clarifies 

this obligation, as required by the USEPA.” Id. at 7.

Subsection (g). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “by adding 

recordkeeping requirements for sources making use of the exclusions set forth in Section 

218/219.405(c)(3).” Prop. at 16; see Prop. 218 at 129-30; Prop, 219 at 126-27; see USEPA 

Attachment at 4; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.405(c)(3), 219.405(c)(3) (exclusions for 

lithographic printing lines).

Section 218/219.415: Testing for Letterpress Printing Lines.

The Agency proposed to amend subsection (a) by clarifying “that testing shall be 

performed by the compliance date.” SR at 16; see Prop. 218 at 132; Prop. 219 at 129; see

USEPA Attachment at 4.

Section 218/219.417: Recordkeeping and Reporting for Letterpress Printing Lines.

Subsection (b). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection by adding “more specific 

recordkeeping requirements for sources that utilize the material use threshold alternative to 

demonstrate that they are exempt.” SR at 16; see Prop. at 137; Prop. 219 at 134; see USEPA 

Attachment at 4.

Subsection (c). The Agency proposes to amend this subsection by clarifying which 

sources are subject to its recordkeeping requirements. SR at 16; see Prop. 218 at 137; Prop. 219 

at 134; see USEPA Attachment at 4.
65

Subpart II: Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials.

Section 218/219.891: Emission Limitations and Control Requirements.

Subsection (a). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing emission 

limitations and control requirements by deleting an unnecessary equation and adding “an 

equation specifying how excess non-monomer will be calculated.” SR at 16; see Prop. 218 at 

144; Prop. 219 at 141-42; see USEPA Attachment at 6.

Subsection (c). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing an emissions 

averaging alternative by clarifying “that the monomer VOM emissions calculated using Equation 

3 cannot exceed the limit calculated using Equation 2.” SR at 16; see Prop. 218 at 147; Prop, 

219 at 144; see USEPA Attachment at 7. The Agency also proposed “to clarify that the formulas

in subsection (c)(3) calculate emission rates in terms of VOM/Mg resin or gel coat.” SR at 16-

17; see Prop. 218 at 150; Prop. 219 at 146. In addition, the Agency proposed to define “VOM%” 

as “the monomer VOM content as supplied, expressed as a weight percent value between 0 and 

100 percent.” Prop. 218 at 150; Prop. 219 at 146; see SR at 17; see USEPA Attachment at 7.

In its post-hearing comment, the Agency states that “it recently noticed that plus sign 

(“+”) is missing between the third and fourth terms of Equation 3” in this subsection. PC 2 at 30. 

The Agency recommends amending the subsection by adding that plus sign. Id. at 30, 31. The 

Board concurs with the addition, which is reflected in its order below.

Subsection (d). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing capture 

system and control device requirements “to provide that control device alternatives must be 

approved as a SIP revision.” SR at 17; see Prop. 218 at 151; Prop. 219 at 147; see USEPA 

Attachment at 7.

Subsection (e). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing filled resins

“to reiterate that, if a source is complying with subsection (c), the value of a certain term in 

Equation 5 shall also be used as the value of a certain term in Equation 4.” SR at 17; see Prop. 

218 at 151; Prop. 219 at 148; see USEPA Attachment at 7. The Agency also proposed to correct 

a cross-reference. SR at 17; see Prop. 218 at 152; Prop. 219 at 148.

Section 218/219.892: Testing and Monitoring Requirements.

Subsection (a). The agency proposed to amend this subsection “to clarify when testing 

must occur.” SR at 17; see Prop. 218 at 153; Prop. 219 at 149; see USEPA Attachment at 7.

Subsection (c). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “to clarify the 

monitoring requirements applicable to sources utilizing an afterburner versus those utilizing a 

carbon adsorber.” SR at 17; see Prop. 218 at 155-56; Prop. 219 at 152; see USEPA Attachment 

at 7.

Subsection (d). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “to further clarify when 

a Method 24 test must be used.” SR at 17; see Prop. 218 at 156; Prop. 219 at 153. The Agency 
66

sought to add language providing that, “[i]n the event of any inconsistency between a Method 24 

test and the manufacturer’s specifications, the Method 24 test shall govern.” Prop. 218 at 156; 

Prop. 219 at 153.

Section 218/219.894: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.

Subsection (a). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection to add “recordkeeping 

requirements for exempt sources.” SR at 17; see Prop. 218 at 157-58; Prop. 219 at 154; see

USEPA Attachment at 7.

Subsection (c). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection deleting the word “daily” 

and providing “that sources shall collect and record the mass of each open molding resin or gel 

coat as applied each day by each subject fiberglass boat manufacturing operation.” SR at 17; see

Prop. 218 at 159-60; Prop. 219 at 156; see USEPA Attachment at 7.

Subsection (g). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “by adding ‘including 

water’ to the recordkeeping provision concerning cleaning solvents used in fiberglass boat 

manufacturing operations.” SR at 18; see Prop. 218 at 163; Prop. 219 at 160; see USEPA 

Attachment at 7.

Subpart JJ: Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives.

Section 218/219.901: Emission Limitations and Control Requirements.

Subsection (b). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “to provide that the 

emission limitations are in terms of mass of VOM per volume of adhesives or adhesive primer, 

excluding water and compounds exempted from the definition of VOM.” SR at 18; see Prop. 

218 at 164; Prop. 219 at 160; see USEPA Attachment at 6.

Subsection (c). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing dailyweighted averaging “to correct two equations in which ‘mass’ should have been ‘volume,’ and to 

correct a subscript error.” SR at 18; see Prop. 218 at 166-67; Prop. 219 at 162-63; see USEPA 

Attachment at 6.

In subsection (c)(2), the Agency states that its original proposal “recommended changing 

‘Mi’ to ‘Vi’ in the equation and changing the definition of ‘Vi’ to reference only units of volume, 

not units of mass.” Mot. Amend at 4. The Agency notes, however, that the first-notice version 

of the proposal published in the Illinois Register deleted the units of volume from the definition 

of ‘Vi’ instead of the units of mass. Id., citing 35 Ill. Reg. 4887, 5101. The Agency assumes 

“that this was an unintentional transcription error” and recommends correction. Mot. Amend at 

4. Having granted the Agency’s motion, the Board includes this correction in its order below.

Subsection (d). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing capture 

systems and control devices “to provide that control device alternatives must be approved as a 

SIP revision.” SR at 18; see Prop. 218 at 167; Prop. 219 at 164; see USEPA Attachment at 6.
67

Section 218/219.902: Testing Requirements.

The Agency proposed to amend subsection (a) addressing testing to determine 

compliance “to clarify when testing must occur.” SR at 18; see Prop. 218 at 169; Prop. 219 at 

165; see USEPA Attachment at 6.

Section 218/219.903: Monitoring Requirements.

The Agency proposed to amend subsections (a) and (b) “to clarify the monitoring 

requirements applicable to sources utilizing an afterburner versus those utilizing a carbon 

adsorber.” SR at 18; see Prop. 218 at 171; Prop. 219 at 167; see USEPA Attachment at 6.

Section 218/219.904: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

The Agency proposed to amend subsection (d) addressing daily-weighted averaging “to 

require that sources collect and record the volume of each adhesive applied by each subject 

adhesive application operation.” SR at 18; see Prop. 218 at 174; Prop. 219 at 17; see USEPA 

Attachment at 6.

CONCLUSION

The Board proposes for second notice review by JCAR amendments to its air pollution 

regulations in Parts 211, 218, and 219 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, 219) governing VOM 

emissions contained in its order below.

In addition, after reviewing comments by ACA and the Agency, the Board today opens a 

subdocket A in this rulemaking. See Proposed Amendments to Regulation of Petroleum Leaking 

Underground Storage Tanks (35 Ill. Adm. Code 732), R04-22, 04-23 (A,B) (consolidated) (Dec. 

1, 2005); Livestock Waste Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 506, R97-15 (A,B) (Mar. 20, 1997); 

Steel and Foundry Industry Amendments to the Landfill Regulations (Parts 810 through 815 and 

817), R90-26 (A,B), slip op. at 3 (Mar. 31, 1994). In subdocket A, the Board intends specifically 

to address only a proposed small container exemption in Sections 218.208 and 219.208, neither 

of which the Board included in its first-notice opinion and order. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.208, 

219.208; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Emissions 

from Group II and Group IV Consumer and Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R11-23 (Mar. 17, 2011); see also 5 ILCS 100/5-40(b) (2010); 

35 Ill. Reg. 4887 (Apr. 1, 2011).

ORDER

The Board directs the Clerk to file the following proposed amendments with JCAR for 

second-notice review. The Board has underlined proposed additions and struck through 

proposed deletions.
j .L.&KS OFFICE

July 12, 2011

‘:1

JJL 1 2011

jj LE OF ILLINOIS E)jUj(l 1-COfltroJ BoafrJ

Tai-ner Girard, Chairman

Poiijtion Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Dear Chairman Girard:

This is to notify you that JCAR considered the following proposed rulemakings at its 7/12/11

meeting:

Definitions and General Provisions (35 Ill. Adm. Code 211)

35 111. Reg. 4887 -4,1/11

Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the Chicago Area (35 Ill. Adm.

Code 218)

35111. Reg. 4910—4.11/11

Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the Metro East Area (35 111.

Adm. Code 219)

35111. Reg. 5111 —4/1/11

If your agency has agreed to any substantive modifications during its discussions with JCAR,

the’: are described in the “Agreements’ attached to the certification. Based on these agreements,

as well as the other responses you have provided the Committee during the review of these

rulernakings, JCAR has determined that No Objection will be issued. Enclosed you will find

fonnal certification of this action.
Sincerely,

‘-‘iSenator Maggie Crotty

Co-Chairman

SMC:RBH:DC:rm

cc: Tim FoxEnc.

4’

Repreñtative

Co-irman

“Skip” Saviano
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

CERTIFICATION OF NO OBJECTION

TO PROPOSED RULEMAKING

CLEç OFFICE

JUL 142011

olftj,

ST1’T OF

Control ILLINQI 8Boatd

This is to certify that the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, at its 7/12/11 meeting,

considered Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the Metro East Area (35 Ill.

Ad: 1. Code 219). proposed by the Pollution Control Board and published in the 4/1/Il issue of

the Illinois Register. After consideration, and based upon the agreements, if any, for

modification of the rulemaking made by the agency and attached to this document, the

Conniittee determined that no Objection will be issued to the above-mentioned rulemaking.

JuL’ 12. 2011

Vii Thomas

Executive Director

Attachments: Agreements
g

g

Area (35 Ill. Adm. Code 219; 35 III. Reg. 5111)

Changes:

1. In line 1269, change “above” to “of this subsection (b)(3)”.

2. In line 1356, change “jjp” to “p”.

3. In line 1360, change the comma to a period.

4. In lines 1607, 1615-1616, 1623, 1626 and 1633, change”Section 219.187” to

“subsection”.

5. In line 1609, change “Section 219.187(aXl) ofthis Subpart” to “subsection (a)(l)”.

6. In line 1670, change” Section 219.187(b)(3) of this Subpart” to “subsection (b)(3)”.

7. In line 1672, change “which” to “that”.

8. In line 2610, strike the comma and add “or” and strike “, or”.

9. In line 2611, strike “(i)(l)”.

10. In line 2614, strike the commas and “or (i)” and after “(c)’ add “or”.11. Reinstate lines 2915-2969.

12. In line 3546, delete the comma and change “Illinois EPA” to “Agency”.

13. In line 3548, after “by” delete “thc”.

7/7/11
g

g

g

Area (35 Iii. Adm. Code 218; 35 Ill. Reg. 4910)

Changes:

1. Inline 1249, strike “and”.

2. In line 1251, strike the period and add a semicolon.

3. In line 1315, change “above” to “of this subsection (b)(3)”.

4. In line 1403, change to “pp”.

5. In line 1406, change the comma to a period.

6. In lines 1654, 1662-1663, 1670, 1673 and 1680, change “Section 218.187” to

“subsection”.

7. In line 1656, change “Section 218.187(a)(l) of this Subpart” to “subsection (a)(1)”.8. In line 1717, change” Section 218.187(b)(3) of this Subpart” to “subsection (b)(3)”.

9. In line 1719, change “which” to “that”.

10. In line 3689, delete the comma and change “Illinois EPA” to “Agency”.

11. In line 3691, after “by” delete “thc”.

7/7/’]
4887)

Changes:

1. After line 668, add “(Source: Added at 35 Ill. Reg.

effective

6/2 7/11
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

CERTIFICATION OF NO OBJECTION

TO PROPOSED RULEMAKING 5 OF •‘IlU!I:fl Control 8oj

This is to certify that the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, at its 7/12/11 meeting, considered Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the Chicago Area (35 Iii.

Adm. Code 21S), proposed by the Pollution Control Board and published in the 4/1/11 issue of

the Illinois Register. After consideration, and based upon the agreements, if any, for modification of the rulemaking made by the agency and attached to this document, theComittec determined that no Objection will be issued to the above-mentioned rulemaking.

July 12, 2011

Executive Director

Attachments: Agreements
OFFICE

c)FfLL OIitjo Control E3oaftJ

This is to certify that the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, at its 7/12/11 meeting,

considered Definitions and General Provisions (35 111. Adrn. Code 211), proposed by the

Pollution Control Board and published in the 4/1/11 issue of the Illinois Register. Afterconsideration, and based upon the agreements, if any, for modification of the rulemaking made

by the agency and attached to this document, the Committee determined that no Objection will

be issued to the above-mentioned rulemaking.

Jui’ 12. 2011

Vicki Thomas

Executive Director

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

CERTIFICATION OF NO OBJECTION

TO PROPOSED RULEMAKING

Attachments: Agreements
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 21, 2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL 

TECHNOLOGY (RACT) FOR VOLATILE 

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FROM 

GROUP II AND GROUP IV CONSUMER & 

COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS: PROPOSED 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 

211, 218, and 219

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 R11-23

 (Rulemaking - Air)

Adopted Rule. Final Notice.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by A.S. Moore):

The Board today adopts amendments to its air pollution regulations. On March 7, 2011, 

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency or Illinois EPA) originated this 

proceeding by filing a rulemaking proposal under provisions including the “fast-track” authority 

of Section 28.5 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act). See 415 ILCS 5/10, 27, 28, 28.5

(2010). Responding to comments by the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA), the Agency proposed amendments to recently-promulgated rules controlling emission 

of volatile organic material (VOM) from the following Group II and Group IV Consumer and 

Commercial Product Categories: industrial cleaning solvents, flat wood paneling coatings, 

flexible packaging printing materials, lithographic printing materials, letterpress printing 

materials, miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, auto and light-duty truck coatings, 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials.

On March 17, 2011, the Board adopted its first-notice opinion and order without 

commenting on the substantive merits of the Agency’s proposal. See 35 Ill. Reg. 4887 (Apr. 1, 

2011); see also 5 ILCS 100/5-40(b) (2010); 415 ILCS 5/28.5(e) (2010). On June 16, 2011, the 

Board adopted its second-notice opinion and order.1

 See 415 ILCS 5/28.5(n) (2010). At its 

meeting on August 12, 2011, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) issued its 

Certificate of No Objection to the Board’s proposal. JCAR made a limited number of nonsubstantive changes, which are not specifically addressed in this opinion and which are reflected 

in the order below. The Board today adopts its final order in this rulemaking.

 1

 Also on June 16, 2011, the Board opened a subdocket A in order to address a small container 

exemption in Sections 218.208 and 219.208, neither of which was included in the Board’s firstnotice opinion and order. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile 

Organic Emissions from Group II and Group IV Consumer and Commercial Products: Proposed 

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R11-23(A) (June 16, 2011); see 35 Ill. 

Reg. 10189, 10207 (July. 1, 2011).
2

In this opinion, the Board first provides the procedural history of this rulemaking. The 

Board then briefly summarizes the statutory and regulatory background of VOM regulation. The 

opinion next addresses sources addressed in this rulemaking and VOM emissions from them. 

The Board then considers the economic reasonableness and technical feasibility of the adopted 

rules before summarizing them on a section-by-section basis. Finally, the order following the 

opinion sets forth the text of the rules.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 7, 2011, the Agency filed a proposal to amend Parts 211, 218, and 219 of the 

Board’s air pollution regulations (Prop. 211, Prop. 218, and Prop. 219, respectively). A number 

of documents accompanied the proposal, including a Statement of Reasons (SR), a “Technical 

Support Document for Controlling VOM Emissions from Lithographic Printing, Letterpress 

Printing, Flexible Package Printing, Flat Wood Paneling Coating, and Industrial Cleaning 

Operations” (TSD Group II) and a “Technical Support Document for Control of Volatile Organic 

Material Emissions in Non-Attainment Areas from Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Coatings; Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial 

Adhesives; and Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials” (TSD Group IV). The Agency also 

filed a motion for waiver of copy requirements.

In an order dated March 17, 2011, the Board accepted the Agency’s proposal for hearing

and submitted the proposal to first-notice publication in the Illinois Register without commenting 

on its substantive merits. See 415 ILCS 5/28.5(e) (2010). In the same order, the Board also 

granted the Agency’s motion for waiver of copy requirements.

In a letter dated March 17, 2011, the Board requested that the Department of Commerce 

and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) conduct an economic impact study of the Agency’s 

rulemaking proposal. See 415 ILCS 5/27(b) (2010). The letter requested that DCEO determine 

whether it would conduct a study and respond to the Board by April 6, 2011. On May 23, 2011, 

the Board received a response from DCEO. In a letter dated May 5, 2011, DCEO Director 

Warren Ribley stated that, “[a]t this time, the Department is unable to undertake such an 

economic impact study. Therefore, I must respectfully decline your request.”

In an order dated March 18, 2011, the hearing officer scheduled three hearings: the first 

beginning Wednesday, April 27, 2011, in Chicago with pre-filed testimony due on or before 

Friday, April 15, 2011; the second beginning Wednesday, May 18, 2011, in Chicago with prefiled testimony due on or before Friday, May 6, 2011; and the third beginning Wednesday, June 

1, 2010, in Chicago with pre-filed testimony due on or before Friday, May 20, 2011. See 415 

ILCS 5/28.5(e), (f) (2010).

First notice of the proposed rules appeared in the Illinois Register on April 1, 2011. 35

Ill. Reg. 4887 (Apr. 1, 2011); see 5 ILCS 100/5-40(b) (2010) (establishing 45-day comment

period).

On April 14, 2011, the Agency pre-filed for the first hearing testimony by Mr. David 

Bloomberg (Bloomberg Test.) and Mr. Yoginder Mahajan (Mahajan Test.). Both witnesses 
3

included an Exhibit A, a letter from USEPA to the chief of the Agency’s air bureau (Exh. A). 

Exhibit A included an attachment entitled “Required Corrections to Volatile Organic Compound 

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Rules Submitted to U.S. EPA on July 29, 

2010 by Illinois EPA” (USEPA Attachment).

On April 15, 2011, the Board received a public comment (PC 1) on the Agency’s 

proposal from the Specialty Graphics Imaging Association (SGIA) and the Printing Industry of 

Illinois/Indiana Association (PII).

On April 25, 2011, the Agency filed a motion to amend its rulemaking proposal (Mot. 

Amend). The Board granted the motion in its second-notice opinion and order. Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Emissions from Group II and Group 

IV Consumer and Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, 

and 219, R11-23, slip op. at 4 (June 16, 2011).

The first hearing took place as scheduled on April 27, 2011, in Chicago. Also on April 

27, 2011, the Board received the transcript of the first hearing (Tr.1). During the first hearing, 

the hearing officer admitted into the record two exhibits, the pre-filed testimony of Mr. 

Bloomberg (Exh. 1) and the pre-filed testimony of Mr. Mahajan (Exh. 2).

In an order dated April 27, 2011, the hearing officer stated that the Board would hold 

open the statutory seven-day period during which any person may request that the second 

hearing be held. See 415 ILCS 5/28.5(f)(1) (2010). On May 3, 2011, Mr. James Sell filed a 

request on behalf of American Coatings Association (ACA) that the second hearing take place as 

scheduled.

On May 6, 2011, Mr. Sell pre-filed testimony (Sell Test.) on behalf of ACA for the 

second hearing. On May 16, 2011, the Agency filed post-hearing comments (PC 2). On May

17, 2011, Mr. David Shanks of Boeing Environmental Policy Analysis filed comments on behalf 

of The Boeing Company (Boeing) (PC 3).

The second hearing took place as scheduled on May 18, 2011. Also on May 18, 2011, 

the Board received the transcript of the second hearing (Tr.2). During the second hearing, the 

hearing officer admitted into the record two exhibits. The first was prepared by ACA and 

compared the application of one coat and two coats of both solvent-based and water-based 

coating (Exh. 3), and the second consisted of testimony by Mr. Scott Townsend, Vice President 

of International Paint Yacht Division of Akzo Nobel (Townsend Test. or Exh. 4), who appeared 

on behalf of Mr. Sell. Townsend Test. at 1.

On May 19, 2011, the Agency filed a “Request to Cancel Hearing.” In an order dated 

May 20, 2011, the hearing officer cancelled the third hearing and set a deadline of June 1, 2011 

to file post-hearing comments. Also on May 19, 2011, the Agency filed a motion to correct the 

transcript of the second hearing. The Board granted the motion in its second notice opinion and 

order. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Group II and Group IV Consumer and Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R11-23, slip op. at 4 (June 16, 2011).
4

On June 1, 2011, the Agency filed post-hearing comments (PC 4).

On June 16, 2011, the Board adopted its second-notice opinion and order. In e-mail 

correspondence on June 20, 2011, counsel for the Agency addressed the substance of the Board’s 

June 16, 2011 second-notice opinion and order (PC 5). At its meeting on July 11, 2011, JCAR 

issued its certificate of no objection to the Board’s proposal.

STAUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

The Agency stated that it intended its proposal to satisfy Illinois’ obligation to submit a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing sources of VOM2 emissions in areas designated as 

nonattainment with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. 

SR at 1-2, 6, citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502, 7511a. The Agency reported that two Illinois areas, 

Chicago and St. Louis/Metro East, have been designated as moderate nonattainment areas 

(NAA) for the 8-hour ozone standard.3

These nonattainment designations trigger Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements “for 

adopting regulations that reduce emissions sufficiently to demonstrate attainment of the 

standard.” SR at 3, citing 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1). The Agency claimed that the CAA requires 

Illinois “to submit VOM regulations constituting RACT [reasonably available control 

technology] for Group II and Group IV Consumer and Commercial Product Categories in ozone 

NAAs classified as moderate and above.” SR at 4, citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(1), 7511a(b)(2); 

see Mahajan Test. at 2. The Agency defined RACT “as the lowest emission limitation that a 

particular source can meet by applying a control technique that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic feasibility.” SR at 3, citing 44 Fed. Reg. 53762 (Sept. 

17, 1979); see Mahajan Test. at 2.

Specifically, the Agency stated that the CAA requires states to revise SIPs “to include 

RACT for sources of VOM emissions covered by a control techniques guideline (CTG) issued 

between November 15, 1990, and the date of attainment.” SR at 2, citing 42 U.S.C. § 

7511a(b)(2); see Mahajan Test. at 2. The Agency reported that, “[o]n October 5, 2006, the 

USEPA issued final CTGs for Group II Consumer and Commercial Products.” SR at 4. The 

Agency also reported that, “[o]n October 7, 2008, the USEPA issued final CTGs for Group IV 

Consumer and Commercial Products.” Id.; see Mahajan Test. at 2. USEPA required submission 

of SIP revisions responding to the CTGs within one year. SR at 4, citing 73 Fed. Reg. 58484, 71 

Fed. Reg. 58745-53.

 2

 The Agency stated that VOM “is effectively the same as volatile organic compounds” (VOC). 

SR at 1.

3

 The Chicago nonattainment area includes the following Illinois jurisdictions: Cook, DuPage, 

Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties, Goose Lake and Aux Sable Townships in Grundy 

County, and Oswego Township in Kendall County. SR at 7, citing 40 C.F.R. 81.314. The St. 

Louis/Metro East nonattainment area includes the following Illinois counties: Jersey, Madison, 

Monroe, and St. Clair. SR at 7, citing 40 C.F.R. 81.31.
5

The Agency stated that, in response to the Group II and Group IV CTGs, it submitted to 

the Board proposed amendments to the VOM regulations. SR at 4, citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 

218, 219. The Agency noted that the Board subsequently adopted amendments. Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group IV 

Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Il. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 

219, R10-20 (Sept. 2, 2010); Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile 

Organic Material Emissions from Group II Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed 

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R10-8 (June 17, 2010); see Mahajan Test. 

at 2.

The Agency indicated that, on July 29, 2010, it “submitted the adopted rules to the 

USEPA and requested that USEPA approve them as amendments to Illinois’ SIP.” SR at 4; see

Bloomberg Test. at 3, Mahajan Test. at 2; see also Tr.1 at 10. The Agency reported that the 

USEPA determined “that the revisions were insufficient and that USEPA would not approve 

them without additional amendments.” SR at 4; see Mahajan Test. at 2. The Agency stated that, 

while the USEPA ultimately “agreed that several of its suggested revisions were not necessary,” 

it insisted on a number of changes necessary for SIP approval. SR at 5; see Bloomberg Test. at 

3; Mahajan Test. at 2, 3; USEPA Attachment.

In testimony pre-filed for the first hearing, Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Mahajan noted that 

USEPA specified deficiencies that it required the Agency to address. Bloomberg Test. at 3, 

Mahajan Test. at 2-3; see Exh. A (USEPA letter to chief of Agency air bureau), USEPA 

Attachment. Mr. Bloomberg listed the following general issues identified by USEPA: 

“[i]nadequate recordkeeping requirements for exempt sources, insufficient VOM limitations in 

certain categories, typographical errors, provisions requiring clarification, failure to include 

definitions for certain terms, and failure to implement certain recommendations set forth in the 

CTGs.” Bloomberg Test. at 3; see also Mahajan Test. at 2. Mr. Bloomberg’s pre-filed 

testimony stated that the Agency’s proposal addressed the issues specified by USEPA in its 

Attachment. Bloomberg Test. at 3; see Mahajan Test. at 3, USEPA Attachment. Mr. Bloomberg 

also reported that the Agency proposed additional changes “in order to clarify and simplify some 

sections of the rules that were found to cause confusion for affected sources.” Bloomberg Test. 

at 3; see Mahajan Test. at 3.

The Agency stated that “Illinois is required to submit these SIP revisions before the 

USEPA can re-designate the Chicago and Metro East NAAs to attainment of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS.” SR at 6, citing 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(3)(E). The Agency noted that, on July 2, 2007, it 

“submitted to the USEPA an attainment demonstration for the Metro East nonattainment area for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.” SR at 7. The Agency further noted that it submitted an 

attainment demonstration for the Chicago nonattainment area on March 19, 2009. Id. The 

Agency argued that “[t]hese areas cannot be redesignated to attainment, however, unless and 

until the Illinois EPA submits the additional USEPA-mandated amendments as SIP revisions and 

the USEPA approves such revisions.” Id. at 7; see Bloomberg Test. at 2, 3, Mahajan Test. at 3.
6

POTENTIALLY AFFECTED SOURCES AND PROJECTED VOM EMISSIONS

In proceeding to second notice on June 16, 2011, the Board adopted a 67-page opinion 

followed by a 348-page order. This order adopting regulations does not substantively amend the 

Board’s second-notice proposal. Accordingly, significant portions of the second-notice opinion, 

including its review of the record concerning potentially-affected sources, support the Board’s 

adoption of regulations in this order. The Board has not duplicated here today its earlier review 

of the record on these potentially affected sources and instead refers the reader to the secondnotice opinion with regard to these issues. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 

for Volatile Organic Emissions from Group II and Group IV Consumer and Commercial 

Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R11-23, slip op. at 7-

20 (June 16, 2011).

Specifically, the Board’s second-notice opinion and order address the record regarding 

potentially affected miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings at pages 7-8, industrial 

cleaning solvents at pages 8-10, flat wood paneling coatings at pages 10-11, flexible packaging 

coatings at pages 11-13, lithographic printing lines at pages 13-16, letterpress printing at page 

17, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings at page 18, miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives at pages 19-20, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials at page 20.

TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY AND ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS

Review of Record on Feasibility and Reasonableness

The Agency indicated in its Statement of Reasons that “[t]he technology for controlling 

VOM emissions from Group II and Group IV product categories is both technically feasible and 

economically reasonable.” SR at 8. The Agency stated that the TSDs filed in rulemaking 

dockets R10-8 and R10-20, which it had incorporated by reference into this rulemaking, 

“included a thorough discussion of the control techniques available to subject sources.” Id.; see

TSD Group II, TSD Group IV.

In proceeding to second notice on June 16, 2011, the Board adopted a 67-page opinion 

followed by a 348-page order. This order adopting regulations does not substantively amend the 

Board’s second-notice proposal. Accordingly, significant portions of the second-notice opinion, 

including its review of the record concerning technical feasibility and economic reasonableness, 

support the Board’s adoption of regulations in this order. The Board has not duplicated here 

today its earlier review of technical feasibility and economic reasonableness and instead refers 

the reader to the second-notice opinion with regard to these issues. Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Emissions from Group II and Group IV 

Consumer and Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, 

and 219, R11-23, slip op. at 20-38 (June 16, 2011).

Specifically, the Board’s second-notice opinion and order address the record regarding 

technical feasibility of regulations for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings at pages 21-

23, industrial cleaning solvents at pages 23-25, flat wood paneling coatings at pages 25-26, 

flexible packaging coatings at page 26, lithographic printing lines at pages 26-28, letterpress 
7

printing at page 28, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings at pages 28-29, 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives at pages 29-31, and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials at 

pages 31-33.

In addition, the Board’s second-notice opinion and order address the record regarding the 

economic reasonableness and cost effectiveness of regulations for miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts coatings at pages 33-34, both industrial cleaning solvents and flat wood paneling 

coatings at page 34, flexible packaging coatings at pages 34-35, lithographic printing lines at 

page 35, letterpress printing at page 35-36, both automobile and light-duty truck assembly 

coatings and miscellaneous industrial adhesives at page 36, and fiberglass boat manufacturing 

materials at page 37.

Board Discussion of Technical Feasibility and Economic Reasonableness

In a letter dated March 17, 2011, the Board requested that DCEO determine by April 6, 

2011, whether it would conduct an economic impact study of the rulemaking proposal. See 415 

ILCS 5/27(b) (2010). On May 23, 2011, the Board received from the DCEO Director a response 

dated May 5, 2011, and stating that, “[a]t this time, the Department is unable to undertake such 

an economic impact study. Therefore, I must respectfully decline your request.”

Although the hearing officer during both hearings sought testimony on the Board’s 

request to DCEO, no participant offered such testimony. Tr.1 at 23-24; Tr. 2 at 26-27.

In adopting VOM RACT regulations in docket R10-8, the Board based on its review of 

the record found that the regulations were both technically feasible and economically reasonable. 

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions 

from Group II Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

211, 218, and 219, R10-8, slip op. at 17-18 (June 17, 2010). Similarly, in adopting regulations in 

docket R10-20, the Board based on its review of the record, and particularly in light of 

amendments proposed by the Agency, found that the regulations were both technically feasible 

and economically reasonable. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile 

Organic Material Emissions from Group IV Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed 

Amendments to 35 Il. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R 10-20, slip op. at 23 (Sept. 2, 2010).

During the course of this proceeding, the Agency moved to amend its proposal. See Mot. 

Amend. The Board granted that motion, adopting amendments including, but not limited to, a 

clarification of testing obligations for lithographic printing operations and a revision of a 

definition pertaining to pleasure craft coatings. See id. at 2-3, 5. The Board notes that the 

Agency proposed these amendments in response to regulated entities. See id. at 2, 5.

In addition, the Agency’s post-hearing comments recommended additional amendments 

for the Board’s consideration. These recommendations included, but were not limited to, the 

addition of an emission adjustment factor for solvent cleaning operations and amended emission 

limits applicable to pleasure craft coating operations. See PC 4 at 5, 10-11. Again, the Board 

notes that these recommendations stem from requests by regulated entities. See id. at 5, 10-11. 
8

In all significant respects, the Agency’s recommendations are reflected in the Board’s order 

below.

Having reviewed the record in this proceeding, and particularly in light of amendments 

such as those described in the preceding paragraphs, the Board finds that the adopted regulations 

are economically reasonable and technically feasible.

In the following section of its opinion, the Board summarizes the proposal on a sectionby-section basis.

SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF BOARD’S SECOND-NOTICE PROPOSAL

Part 211: Definitions and General Provisions

“All terms defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201 which appear in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211 

through 219 have the definitions specified by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.102. Otherwise, the 

definitions specified in this Part shall apply.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.121; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

201.102 (Definitions). In its original proposal, the Agency sought to amend one definition and 

add six new definitions in this Part. The Agency’s motion to amend addressed one other 

definition. See Mot. Amend at 5. The Agency’s post-hearing comment recommended the 

addition of one more definition to Part 211. PC 4 at 4-5. The following subsections of the 

opinion separately address the adopted amendments to Part 211.

Section 211.493: Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat

The Agency’s original proposal did not include a definition of this term. See Prop. 211. 

In his testimony on behalf of ACA, Mr. Sell proposed a definition of “antifouling sealer/tie coat” 

providing that the term means “a coating applied over Biocidal antifouling coating for the 

purpose of preventing release of biocides into the environment and/or to promote adhesion 

between an antifouling and a primer or other antifoulings.” Sell. Test. at 10; see Tr.2 at 25.

In its second post-hearing comments filed on June 1, 2011, the Agency noted ACA’s 

request to adopt a definition of this term. PC 4 at 4. The Agency reported that USEPA had

approved that proposed definition, and the Agency recommended adding that language to its 

proposal. Id. at 4-5. The Board has concurred with the Agency, and the definition is included in 

its order below.

Section 211.2200: Extreme High-Gloss Coating

On September 2, 2010, the Board adopted a definition of “extreme high-gloss coating” 

providing in its entirety that the term means

[f]or purposes of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(q)(1) regarding metal parts and 

products coatings, a coating that, when tested by ASTM D 523-80, incorporated 

by reference in Section 211.101 of this Part, shows a reflectance of 75 or more on 

a 60° meter;
9

[f]or purposes of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(q)(5) regarding pleasure craft 

coatings, any coating that achieves at least 95 percent reflectance on a 60° meter 

when tested using ASTM D 523-89, incorporated by reference in Section 211.101 

of this Part. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.2200; see Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group IV 

Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Il. Adm. Code 

211, 218, and 219 R 10-20, slip op. at 37-38 (Sept. 2, 2010).

The Agency’s original proposal did not seek to amend this definition. See Prop. 211.

In its motion to amend, however, the Agency recommended an amendment to this 

definition in response to a comment by an industry representative. Specifically, the Agency 

proposed that the second element of the definition provide as follows: “[f]or purposes of 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.204(q)(5) regarding pleasure craft coatings, any coating that achieves greater 

than 90at least 95 percent reflectance on a 60° meter when tested using ASTM D 523-89, 

incorporated by reference in Section 211.101 of this Part.” Mot. Amend at 5; but see Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group IV 

Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Il. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 

219, R 10-20, slip op. at 38 (Sept. 2, 2010) (declining to amend definition to 90 percent 

reflectance).

On behalf of the ACA, Mr. Sell stated that “application of topcoats is undertaken in a 

variety of environmental conditions that can have an effect on the final gloss level of the product 

at the point of application. To manage this variation it is suggested that the gloss level stated in 

the definition of the Extreme High Glass Topcoats category be lowered slightly. . . .” Sell Test. 

at 7. He proposed that, for purposes of pleasure craft coatings, the definition means “any coating 

which achieves greater than 90 percent reflectance on a 60o meter when tested by ASTM 

Method D523-89.” Id. (emphasis in original); see Townsend Test. at 5; Tr.2 at 15.

In its first post-hearing comment filed May 16, 2011, the Agency acknowledged ACA’s 

proposed revision of this definition. PC 2 at 10; see Sell. Test. at 7. Noting that it had proposed 

the same revision in its motion to amend (see Mot. Amend at 5), the Agency stated that USEPA 

accepted the language offered by the ACA. PC 2 at 10; PC 4 at 3. The Board has granted the 

Agency’s motion to amend, and the amended definition is included below in the Board’s order.

Section 211.2358: Flat Wood Paneling

On June 17, 2010, the Board adopted a definition of “flat wood paneling” providing that 

the term “means natural finish hardwood plywood panels, hardwood panels with Class II 

finishes, tileboard, exterior siding, and printed interior panels made of hardwood, plywood, or 

thin particleboard.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.2358; see Reasonably Available Control Technology 

(RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group II Consumer & Commercial 

Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R10-8, slip op. at 19, 

69 (June 17, 2010); 34 Ill. Reg. 9090 (July 9, 2010).
10

The Agency sought to revise this definition “by correcting a punctuation error.” SR at 9. 

Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘[f]lat wood paneling’ means natural finish hardwood 

plywood panels, hardwood panels with Class II finishes, tileboard, exterior siding, and printed 

interior panels made of hardwood plywood or thin particleboard.” Prop. 211 at 15; see USEPA 

Attachment at 2.

Section 211.2800: Hardwood Plywood

In its original proposal, the Agency sought to define the term “hardwood plywood,” to 

which the existing definition of “flat wood paneling” refers. SR at 9; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

211.2358. Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘hardwood plywood’ means plywood whose 

surface layer is a veneer of hardwood.” Prop. 211 at 15; see USEPA Attachment at 2.

Section 211.3985: Natural Finish Hardwood Plywood Panel

In its original proposal, the Agency sought to define the term “natural finish hardwood 

plywood panel,” to which the existing definition of “flat wood paneling” refers. SR at 9; see 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 211.2358. Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘natural finish hardwood 

plywood panel’ means a panel whose original grain pattern is enhanced by essentially 

transparent finishes frequently supplemented by filters and toners.” Prop. 211 at 15; see USEPA 

Attachment at 2.

Section 211.4460: Panel

In its original proposal, the Agency sought to define the term “panel,” to which the 

existing definition of “flat wood paneling” refers. SR at 9; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.2358. 

Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘panel’ means a flat piece of wood or wood product 

usually rectangular and used inside homes and mobile homes for wall decorations.” Prop. 211 at 

15; see USEPA Attachment at 2.

Section 211.5062: Pretreatment Wash Primer

The existing definition of “pretreatment wash primer” provides that the term means,

[f]or purposes of Subparts HH of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218 and 219, the first coating 

applied to bare metal if solventborne primers will be applied. This coating 

contains a minimum of 0.5 percent acid, by weight, is necessary to provide 

surface etching, and provides corrosion resistance and adhesion;

For purposes of Subparts F of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218 and 219, a coating that 

contains no more than 12 percent solids by weight and at least 0.50 percent acids 

by weight, is used to provide surface etching, and is applied directly to fiberglass 

and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent 

coatings. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.5062; see Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group IV 

Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments to 35 Il. Adm. Code 
11

211, 218, and 219, R10-20, slip op. at 52 (Sept. 2, 2010) (re-numbering section 

and adding definition applicable for purposes of Subpart F of Parts 218 and 219.)

In his pre-filed testimony on behalf of ACA, Mr. Sell argued that the definition derived 

from South Coast Air Quality Management District regulations hinders the development of less 

toxic materials. See Sell Test. at 11. He stated that products meeting the current definition 

contain known carcinogens because those materials have “excellent anti-corrosive properties.” 

Id. Mr. Sell elaborated that the CTG generally defines controls in terms of product attributes. 

Id. He cites the definition of “high gloss topcoat,” which refers specifically to the product 

attribute of gloss result. Id. In this definition, he claimed that “the approach has been to define 

the category both in terms of the formulation parameters (acid content and solids content) and 

the performance attribute of the product (surface etching).” Id. He argued that this approach has 

“tied industry to the current, well established but very toxic zinc-based etch primers.” Id. Mr. 

Sell concluded that the definition must be amended “to allow for the introduction of safer, 

alternative etch systems which are not based on zinc tetroxy chromate.” Id. (emphasis in 

original).

Specifically, Mr. Sell proposed to amend this definition to provide that the term “means a 

coating which contains no more than 25 percent solids by weight, and at least 0.1 percent acids, 

by weight; is used to provide surface etching; and is applied directly to fiberglass and metal 

surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent coatings.” Sell Test. at 11. 

He explained that increasing the “percent solids” would “allow for an increased quantity of safer 

(non-carcinogenic) replacement pigment[,] which is required for equivalent coating 

performance.” Id. He continued that “[t]hese replacement formulations require a reduced level 

of acid to perform adequately[,] therefore it is also necessary to reduce the de minimus value 

associated to ‘percent acids’ from 0.5 to 0.1.” Id. (emphasis in original).

In its post-hearing comment, the Agency indicated that USEPA might accept ACA’s 

proposed revision but “needs more information regarding how the revision will impact VOM 

emissions.” PC 2 at 10; PC 4 at 3. The Agency added that it “intends to work with the ACA and 

USEPA regarding this issue.” PC 2 at 10; see Tr.2 at 21.

In its second post-hearing comments filed June 1, 2011, the Agency reported that the 

ACA supplied additional information regarding its proposed definition of this term. PC 4 at 4. 

The Agency reported that USEPA did not approve ACA’s amendment, “[a]s there is already an 

existing definition for pretreatment wash primer, and the information provided by the ACA did 

not indicate what impact the proposed revision will have on VOM emission.” Id. The Agency 

stated that it “therefore recommends against revising the definition at this time.” Id. The Board 

has concurred with the Agency and declines to include this amendment in its order below.

Section 211.5140: Printed Interior Panel

In its original proposal, the Agency sought to define the term “printed interior panel,” to 

which the existing definition of “flat wood paneling” refers. SR at 9; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

211.2358. Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘printed interior panel’ means a panel whose 
12

grain or natural surface is obscured by filters and basecoats upon which a simulated grain or 

decorative pattern is printed.” Prop. 211 at 15-16; see USEPA Attachment at 2.

Section 211.6587: Thin Particleboard

In its original proposal, the Agency sought to define the term “thin particleboard,” to 

which the existing definition of “flat wood paneling” refers. SR at 9; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

211.2358. Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘thin particleboard’ is a manufactured board 

1/4 inch or less in thickness made of individual wood particles which have been coated with a 

binder and formed into flat sheets by pressure.” Prop. 211 at 16; see USEPA Attachment at 2.

Section 211.6635: Tileboard

In its original proposal, the Agency sought to define the term “tileboard,” to which the 

existing definition of “flat wood paneling” refers. SR at 9-10; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.2358. 

Specifically, the Agency proposed that “‘tileboard’ means paneling that has a colored waterproof 

surface coating.” Prop. 211 at 16; see USEPA Attachment at 2.

Part 218: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations

for the Chicago Area

Part 219: Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations

for the Metro East Area

Subpart A: General Provisions.

Section 218/219.105: Test Methods and Procedures.

Existing Section 218/219.105(e)(2) provides an equation for calculating the equivalent 

overall efficiency of a capture system and control device, which is applicable to owners or 

operators of coating lines complying with specified alternative emission limitations. 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.105(e)(2), 219.105(e)(2). The Agency sought to amend this provision by adding 

references to Section 218.207(m) and (n) and Section 219.207(l) and (m) as alternative emission 

limitations to which the equation applies. SR at 10; see Prop. 218 at 23, Prop. 219 at 22; see

USEPA Attachment at 2. Sections 218.207(m) and 219.207(l) address flat wood paneling 

coating lines equipped with a capture system and control device. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.207(m), 

219.207(l). Section 218.207(n) and 219.207(m) address miscellaneous metal parts and products 

coating lines equipped with a capture system and control device. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.207(n), 

219.207(m). The Agency stated that these references “were mistakenly omitted from the Illinois 

EPA’s prior rulemaking.” SR at 10.

Subpart E: Solvent Cleaning.

Subpart E of Part 218/219 addresses solvent cleaning operations using VOM. 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.181-187, 219.181-187.
13

Section 218/219.187: Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations. Section 

218/219.182 addresses cold cleaning degreasing operations, Section 218/219.183 addresses open 

top vapor degreasing operations, and Section 218/219.184 addresses conveyorized degreasing 

operations. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218/219.182-184. On June 17, 2010, the Board adopted Section 

218/219.187, which addresses other industrial solvent cleaning operations. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218/219.187; see Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic 

Material Emissions from Group II Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments 

to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R10-8, slip op. at 26-30, 77-89 (June 17, 2010); 34 Ill. 

Reg. 9111-25 (July 9, 2010).

Subsection (a). In subsection (a), which addresses applicability, the Agency proposed to 

extend the compliance deadline from April 1, 2011, to January 1, 2012. SR at 10; Prop. 218 at 

27; Prop. 219 at 27.

Subsection (a)(1). In subsection (a)(1), the Agency proposed to change the applicability 

threshold from a daily standard of 15 pounds of VOM emissions to a monthly standard of 500 

pounds. SR at 10; Prop. 218 at 27; Prop. 219 at 27; see USEPA Attachment at 1. In addition, 

the Agency suggested adding to this subsection language “specifying that emissions from 

cleaning operations identified in subsection (a)(2) are not included in the calculation to 

determine applicability.” SR at 10; see Prop. 218 at 27; Prop. 219 at 27; USEPA Attachment at 

1.

Subsection (a)(2). In subsection (a)(2), which provides various exemptions from the 

requirements of this section, the Agency proposed to add “two references to subsection (e) [of 

this Section] to specify that certain sources exempt from other requirements in this Section are 

also exempt from recordkeeping and reporting requirements.” SR at 10; Prop. 218 at 27-28; 

Prop. 219 at 27; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218/219.187(e).

Subsection (a)(2)(A). In this provision establishing exemptions for specified cleaning 

operations, the Agency sought to delete from subsection (a)(2)(A)(iii) “exemptions for screen 

reclamation activities, in response to a USEPA comment that the screen printing emission 

limitation is sufficiently high to accommodate screen reclamation activities.” SR at 10; Prop. 

218 at 28; Prop. 219 at 27; see USEPA Attachment at 1.

Subsection (a)(2)(B). This existing provision establishes exemptions for cleaning 

operations within specified source categories. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(B), 

219.187(a)(2)(B). During the first hearing, Mr. Alec Davis on behalf of IERG asked whether the 

Agency intended “to exclude emissions from cleaning operations associated with the source 

categories listed in Section 218.187(a)(2)(B) from being counted towards the 500 pounds per 

calendar month applicability threshold contained in Section 218.187(a)(1)?” Tr.1 at 12; see

Prop. 218 at 27, Prop. 219 at 27 (subsections (a)(1)). Mr. Bloomberg responded “[y]es” and 

indicated that the Agency’s proposal included such language. Tr.1 at 12. In response to an 

additional question, Mr. Bloomberg clarified that facilities having only cleaning operations listed 

in subsection (a)(2)(B) would not have recordkeeping and reporting obligations under subsection 

(e) if the Board adopted the Agency’s proposal. Id. at 13. Mr. Davis further asked that, “[i]f a 

facility has only cleaning operations associated with the source categories listed in Section 
14

218.187(a)(2)(B), what are that facilities’ obligations, if any, under the full Section 218.187?” 

Id. at 12. Mr. Bloomberg responded that, if the Board adopted the Agency’s proposal, it would 

have “[n]one.” Id. Mr. Davis also inquired about requirements applicable to non-exempt 

facilities that include cleaning operations exempt under subsection (a)(2)(B). Id. at 14. Mr. 

Bloomberg responded that the exempt operations would not trigger any additional requirements, 

but he recommended that facilities maintain records demonstrating eligibility for an exemption. 

Id.

Mr. Davis also addressed the issue of certification. Tr.1 at 14. Mr. Bloomberg indicated 

that fully exempt cleaning operations such as those under subsection (a)(2)(B) “don’t need to 

send in another certification.” Id. at 15. He further indicated that most subject sources will need 

to re-certify by January 1, 2012, for reasons including a change in the applicability threshold 

from 15 pounds per day to 500 pounds per month. Id. He stressed that USEPA has insisted on 

certifying exemptions. Id.; see USEPA Attachment at 2.

Finally, in its second post-hearing comments filed June 1, 2011, the Agency noted that an 

industry group had “indicated that the introductory language to Section 218/219.187(a)(2)(B) 

should be amended to clarify that the exemptions in this subsection apply to emission units that 

fall within the specified categories; such emission units need not be located at sources that, as a 

whole, fall within such categories, and indeed sources may have operations that fall within 

multiple categories at the same location.” PC 4 at 7. The Agency proposed simply to strike the 

word “source” from the language of this introductory language. Id. at 8, 12. The Board has

concurred, and this amendment is reflected in its order below.

Subsection (a)(2)(B)(i). In this provision exempting cleaning operations at emission 

units within specified source categories, the Agency sought to strike an exemption for aerospace 

coatings “in response to a USEPA comment that the exemptions should not be included because 

Illinois has no rules for such coatings.” SR at 10; Prop. 218 at 28; Prop. 219 at 27-28; see

USEPA Attachment at 1.

In his comment on behalf of Boeing, Mr. Shanks stated that Boeing had recently begun 

its first Illinois manufacturing operation near Mascoutah in the Metro East ozone nonattainment 

area. PC 3 at 1. He indicated that Boeing’s operations in a nonattainment area ordinarily “would 

be regulated by an Aerospace VOM RACT rule, usually based on the US EPA Control 

Techniques Guideline (CTG) for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework.” Id. He added that, 

“[o]n October 11, 1996, Illinois EPA submitted a negative declaration to US EPA, saying that an 

Aerospace RACT rule was not needed at that time, because metro east did not have any 

aerospace facilities with potential to emit greater than the Aerospace CTG applicability 

threshold.” Id.

Mr. Shanks noted that the Agency’s proposal sought to amend Section 219.187(a)(2)(B) , 

which exempts cleaning operations addressed by industry-specific RACT rules, by deleting an 

exemption for “aerospace coating.” PC 3 at 1; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 219.187(a)(2)(B); 35 Ill. 

Reg. 5145 (Apr. 1, 2011) (first-notice publication). Mr. Shanks argued that, if the Board deletes 

the exemption and Boeing increases “manufacturing activity to exceed the proposed 500 

lb/month solvent cleaning threshold, the Boeing facility would be subject to a rule that does not 
15

represent presumptive RACT, as described in the Aerospace CTG.” PC 3 at 2 (citation omitted). 

Mr. Shanks briefly compared the aerospace rules based upon the CTG and in effect in most 

nonattainment areas and those applicable under the Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations 

regulations. Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 219.187.

Noting that Boeing may increase its manufacturing in the state, Mr. Shanks stated that 

Boeing in a separate proceeding intends “to petition Illinois to consider adopting an aerospace 

RACT rule and/or amendments to existing rules to clarify applicability of metro east VOM rules 

to aerospace.” PC 3 at 1. “Boeing requests that this deletion be deferred until such time that 

aerospace solvent cleaning operations can be subject to a regulation that is RACT for aerospace 

manufacturing.” PC 3 at 1; see id. at 2 (“Please retain the aerospace exemption. . . .”). Mr. 

Shanks stated that Boeing “will follow up with a separate rulemaking petition regarding an 

Aerospace RACT rule for metro east and a request for interim determination of RACT rule 

applicability, understanding that rulemaking does take some time to complete.” Id. at 2.

In its second post-hearing comments filed June 1, 2011, the Agency acknowledged 

Boeing’s request to retain an exemption for aerospace coatings. PC 4 at 5. The Agency reported

that it contacted Boeing and confirmed that Boeing’s facility is not subject to the industrial 

cleaning solvents rule because its projected emissions do not exceed 15 lb/day. Id. Boeing 

indicated that its position stems from concern that future expansion may cause it to exceed that 

threshold. Id. The Agency argued that USEPA requires removal of this exemption, “as the 

exemptions listed in this subsection are reserved for emission units already governed by 

regulations that contain their own set of cleaning requirements.” Id. at 5-6. The Agency argued

that the possibility of implementing the aerospace CTG in the future should have no effect on 

adoption of the current proposal. Id. at 5. The Agency concluded that, until an aerospace 

coatings rule is proposed, the Board should comply “with USEPA’s requirement that the 

exemption be removed, particularly as the removal has no current impact upon the facility at 

issue.” Id. The Board has concurred with the Agency and will not restore this exemption in its 

order below.

Subsection (a)(2)(B)(x). In this provision exempting cleaning operations at emission 

units within specified source categories, the Agency sought to strike an exemption for 

shipbuilding and repair coating “in response to a USEPA comment that the exemptions should 

not be included because Illinois has no rules for such coatings.” SR at 10; Prop. 218 at 28; Prop. 

219 at 27-28; see USEPA Attachment at 1.

Subsection (a)(2)(C). In this provision establishing exemptions for cleaning operations, 

the Agency proposed to amend “the exemption for medical device and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing operations to be consistent with language used in other exclusions.” SR at 10-11; 

Prop. 218 at 29; Prop. 219 at 28-29.

In their public comment filed April 15, 2011, SGIA and PII noted that subsection 

(a)(2)(C) exempts specified cleaning operations from the requirements of subsections (b), (c), (f), 

and (g) of this Section but not from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of subsection 

(e). PC 1 at 2; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(C), 219.187(a)(2)(C). SGIA and PII argued

that the only recordkeeping and reporting requirement applicable to sources exempt under 
16

subsection (a)(2)(C) is subsection (e)(2)(vii), which requires a description of cleaning operations 

and a listing of exempt emission units. PC 1 at 2. SGIA and PII claimed that, “[a]s this 

information does not limit or reduce emissions in any way, it creates an unnecessary 

recordkeeping burden for exempt sources and requires both exempt sources and the department 

to dedicate time to a task that does not improve air quality.” SGIA and PII requested that Board 

revise subsection (a)(2)(C) “to indicate that the listed cleaning operations are completely exempt 

from Section 218.187(e).” Id. at 2, 3. As an alternative, SGIA and PII proposed that subsection 

(a)(2)(c) could be merged with subsection (a)(2)(B). Id. at 2.

In its post-hearing comment, the Agency noted this request to exclude specified cleaning 

operations from recordkeeping obligations. PC 2 at 2. The Agency stated that USEPA “has 

advised, however, that exempting such cleaning operations from the recordkeeping requirements 

in subsection (e) is not acceptable.” Id. The Agency “strongly opposes” the proposed change, 

“as the USEPA could once again disapprove the rule if such changes are made.” Id. at 3. The 

Board has concurred and has not included this change in its order below.

During the first hearing, Mr. Davis on behalf of IERG noted that cleaning operations 

listed in subsection (a)(2)(C) are not exempt from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

at subsection (e). Tr.1 at 15. Mr. Bloomberg accounted for this by stating that two of the 

exemptions are based upon specific material use thresholds. Id.; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.187(a)(2)(C)(v, xiii); 219.187(a)(2)(C)(v, xiii). He noted USEPA’s position that exempting 

the sources listed in subsection (a)(2)(C) from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements “is 

not acceptable.” Tr.1 at 16, 21. In its first post-hearing comment, the Agency noted USEPA’s 

position “that sources with cleaning operations subject to (a)(2)(C)(v) and (a)(2)(C)(xiii) must 

comply with the additional recordkeeping/reporting requirements set forth in Section 

218/219.187(e)(7) of the Illinois EPA’s proposal.” PC 2 at 2-3. Based on this position, the 

Agency “strongly opposes” any change to its proposed language, “as the USEPA could once 

again disapprove the rules if such changes are made.” Id. at 3. The Board has concurred and has 

not included this change in its order below.

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(v). This subsection exempts from the requirements of subsection 

(b), (d), (f), and (g) of this Section the “[c]leaning of medical device and pharmaceutical 

manufacturing operations if the facility uses no more than 1.5 gallons per day of solvents for 

such cleaning. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(C)(v), 219.187(a)(2)(C)(v). In its second posthearing comments filed on June 1, 2011, the Agency proposed to amend this subsection only by 

adding to the existing daily limit a metric equivalent “mistakenly omitted from the Agency’s 

original proposal.” PC 4 at 7; see id. at 9, 13.

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(xiii). This subsection exempts from the requirements of subsection 

(b), (d), (f), and (g) of this Section the “[c]leaning of sterilization indicating ink application 

equipment if the facility uses no more than 1.5 gallons per day of solvents for such cleaning.” 35 

Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(C)(xiii), 219.187(a)(2)(C)(xiii). In its second post-hearing 

comments filed on June 1, 2011, the Agency proposed to amend this subsection only by adding 

to the existing daily limit a metric equivalent “mistakenly omitted from the Agency’s original 

proposal.” PC 4 at 7; see id. at 9, 14.
17

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(xiv). In their public comment filed April 15, 2011, SGIA and PII 

stated that subsection (a)(2)(C)(xiv) exempts from the requirements of subsections (b), (c), (f), 

and (g) the “[c]leaning of metering rollers, dampening rollers, and printing plates.” PC 1 at 2; 

see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(C)(xiv), 219.187(a)(2)(C)(xiv). SGIA and PII stated that 

“these cleaning operations take place at lithographic printing operations.” PC 1 at 2. SGIA and 

PII argued that subsection (a)(2)(B)(ii) exempts lithographic printing from the requirements of 

subsection (b) through (g). Suggesting that it is unnecessary, SGIA and PII claimed that 

subsection (a)(2)(C)(xiv) “should be deleted to avoid confusion regarding the applicability of 

Sections 218.187(d) and (e) to cleaning of metering rollers, dampening rollers, and printing 

plates.” PC 1 at 2.

During the first hearing, Mr. Bloomberg indicated that the Agency had discussed this 

issue with USEPA and that this proposed change was “fine.” Tr.1 at 19-20; see PC 4 at 2. He 

added that the Agency would further address this request in its response to the comments from 

SGIA and PII. Id. at 20.

In its first post-hearing comments filed May 16, 2011, the Agency noted the request from 

SGIA and PII to remove this exemption. PC 2 at 2. The Agency acknowledged indicating

during the first hearing that it was likely to agree with this request. Id.; see PC 4 at 2. However, 

the Agency stated that another industry group had since opposed this change. PC 2 at 2; see PC 

4 at 2 (noting sources intending to utilize exemption). The Agency further stated that it “needs to 

work with the other group and USEPA to determine the proper course of action, and thus does 

not have a specific response to this issue at the present time.” Id.

In its second post-hearing comments filed on June 1, 2011, the Agency reported learning 

“that can coating operations, and potentially other types of operations as well, utilize 

lithographic-type presses that are not necessarily covered by the regulations governing 

lithographic printing lines. . . .” PC 4 at 2, citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.405-411, 219.405-411. 

The Agency argued that these sources would not fall under the lithographic printing exemption 

in Section 218/219.187, “as this exemption was intended to relieve only lithographic printers that 

are already otherwise regulated from additional cleaning obligations.” PC 4 at 2; see 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(B)(ii). 219.187(a)(2)(B)(ii). As these other printers would be able to 

rely on the existing exemption for metering rollers, dampening rollers, and printing plates, the 

Agency argued that it is necessary to retain it and recommends against striking it. PC 4 at 2-3. 

The Agency added that it “does not believe that the risk of confusion for lithographic printers is

great enough to justify depriving other sources of the benefit of this exemption.” Id. at 3. The 

Board has concurred and declines to strike this provision from its order below.

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(xvii). In its second post-hearing comments filed June 1, 2011, the 

Agency reported receiving “additional comments from an industry group regarding industrial 

cleaning solvents.” PC 4 at 7. Specifically, the group “requested that an exemption be added for 

cleaning performed with aerosol products if such use falls below a specified threshold.” Id. 

Having obtained USEPA’s approval of such a change, the Agency proposed to amend existing 

Section 218/219.187(a)(2)(C), which provides that various cleaning operations are exempt from 

the requirements of subsections (b), (c), (f), and (g) of this Section. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.187(a)(2)(C), 219.187(a)(2)(C). The Agency recommended adding the following language 
18

as an additional exempt category under subsection (a)(2)(C)(xvii): “[c]leaning with aerosol 

products if the facility uses no more than 4.7 liters (1.25 gallons) per day of such products.” PC 

4 at 10, 14. The Board has concurred, and this addition is reflected in its order below.

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(xviii). In their public comment filed April 15, 2011, SGIA and PII 

stated that “[t]he rule does not specifically address substrate cleaning for screen printing.” PC 1 

at 2. SGIA and PII further stated that “[s]ubstrate cleaning is necessary to insure the ink will

properly adhere to the surface of the substrate, which frequently has residue on the surface of the 

as-received that must be removed prior to printing.” Id. SGIA and PII acknowledged that 

material and control requirements at subsection (b)(1)(A) refer to product cleaning, but they 

argued that those requirements address electrical and electronic components and medical and 

pharmaceutical manufacturing. PC 1 at 2; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(b)(1)(A), 

219.187(b)(1)(A). SGIA and PII further argued that, although the exemption in subsections 

(a)(2)(A)(iv) and (a)(2)(C)(xvi) address pre-press cleaning operations and cleaning operations 

associated with digital printing, no exemption addresses “substrate cleaning for screen printing 

operations.” PC 1 at 2; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(A)(iv), 218(a)(2)(C)(xvi), 

219.187(a)(2)(A)(iv), 219.187(a)(2)(C)(xvi). SGIA and PII requested that the Board add a new 

subsection (a)(2)(A)(v) providing an exemption from various requirements for “cleaning of 

substrates prior to screen printing.” PC 1 at 2; see Tr.1 at 18-19.

In its first post-hearing comments filed on May 16, 2011, the Agency noted the request 

that substrate cleaning for screen printing be exempted. PC 2 at 2. The Agency reported, 

however, that “USEPA indicated that there is not currently a sufficient basis for the exemption, 

and requested additional information in order to further evaluate the proposed amendment.” Id. 

The Agency stated that, although it has sought this information and believes that SGIA and PII 

are preparing a response, it had not yet received one. Id. The Agency indicated that, “[u]nless 

and until PII/SGIA submits the requested information and the USEPA approves the amendment, 

the Illinois EPA opposes adding the exemption.” Id.

In its second post-hearing comments filed on June 1, 2011, the Agency again noted the 

request that substrate cleaning for screen printing be exempted. PC 4 at 1. The Agency 

indicated that SGIA and PII supplied information supporting this proposed amendment. Id. The 

Agency reported USEPA’s response that SGIA and PII “still did not provide sufficient 

documentation to support their requested amendment. . . .” Id. at 1-2. USEPA also noted that 

the CTG is based upon Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations, which do not 

include such an exemption. Id. at 2. The Agency stated that SGIA and PII ultimately requested 

a limited exemption, which USEPA accepted. Id.

Existing Section 218/219.187(a)(2)(C) provides that various cleaning operations are 

exempt from the requirements of subsections (b), (c), (f), and (g) of this Section. 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.187(a)(2)(C), 219.187(a)(2)(C). The Agency recommended adding the following 

language as an additional exempt category under subsection (a)(2)(C)(xviii): “[c]leaning of 

plastic-based or vinyl-based substrates for use in the screen printing process when using UV 

curable ink and coating systems.” PC 4 at 10, 14. The Board has concurred, and this addition is 

reflected in its order below.
19

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(xix). In its second post-hearing comments filed on June 1, 2011, 

the Agency noted that an “industry group recommended that an exemption be added to Section 

218/219.187(a)(2)(C) for cleaning associated with performance testing conducted on production 

lines.” PC 4 at 7. After USEPA requested and received information in support of this proposal, 

it “approved a limited exemption.” Id. Existing Section 218/219.187(a)(2)(C) provides that 

various cleaning operations are exempt from the requirements of subsections (b), (c), (f), and (g) 

of this Section. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(C), 219.187(a)(2)(C). The Agency 

recommended adding the following language as an additional exempt category under subsection 

(a)(2)(C)(xix):

[c]leaning conducted as part of performance tests on coatings, adhesives, or inks 

that are in research and development and that are not yet commercially used for 

the applications for which they are being tested. This exemption is limited to the 

use of up to a total of 90.9 liters (24 gallons) of cleaning solvent per calendar 

month and 416.3 liters (110 gallons) of cleaning solvent per calendar year for 

such cleaning. Id. at 10, 14.

The Board has concurred, and this addition is reflected in its order below.

Subsection (b). In this subsection, which provides material and control requirements, the 

Agency sought “to add USEPA-approved additional compliance alternatives” for sources that 

manufacture coatings, inks, adhesives, or resins. SR at 11; Prop. 218 at 30-32; Prop. 219 at 30-

32; see USEPA Attachment at 1-2.

Subsection (b)(1). In this subsection, the Agency proposed to add a VOM limitation 

applicable to the “[c]leaning of equipment used in the manufacture of coatings, inks, adhesives, 

or resins.” Prop. 218 at 31; Prop. 219 at 30; see SR at 11, USEPA Attachment at 1. In addition, 

because it proposed to remove an exemption for screen reclamation activities, the Agency 

recommended “specifying that the VOM limitation for screen printing includes such activities.” 

SR at 11; see Prop. 218 at 31; Prop. 219 at 30.

Subsection (b)(2). In its motion to amend the proposal, the Agency responded to a 

request from an industry representative by recommending an addition to this compliance 

alternative. Specifically, the Agency sought “to add the term ‘VOM’ to a reference to composite 

vapor pressure.” Mot. Amend at 1-2. The Agency indicated that it had mistakenly omitted this 

term from its original proposal. Id. at 1. Having granted the Agency’s motion to amend, the 

Board includes this addition in its order below.

Subsection (b)(3). The Agency proposed to amend the add-on device compliance 

alternative to address cleaning operations at sources manufacturing coatings, inks, adhesives, or 

resins. Prop. 218 at 31; Prop. 219 at 30; see SR at 11; USEPA Attachment at 1.

Subsection (b)(4). The Agency proposed to add a new subsection establishing work 

practice requirements “[f]or sources that manufacture coatings, inks, adhesives, or resins.” Prop. 

218 at 32; Prop. 219 at 31; see SR at 11; USEPA Attachment at 1-2.
20

Subsection (b)(5). The Agency proposed to add a new subsection providing that sources 

manufacturing coatings, inks, adhesives, or resins may use solvents that do not meet VOM 

content or composite vapor pressure requirements if they meet requirements including a material 

use restriction. Prop. 218 at 32; Prop. 219 at 31-32; USEPA Attachment at 2.

Subsection (d). In this subsection providing operating requirements for subject sources, 

the Agency proposed to add work practice requirements for the use of cleaning solvents for wipe 

cleaning at sources that manufacture coatings, inks, adhesives, or resins.” SR at 11; see Prop. 

218 at 32-33; Prop. 219 at 32, USEPA Attachment at 1.

Subsection (e). In this subsection providing recordkeeping and reporting requirements, 

the Agency first proposed to change the compliance date from April 1, 2011, to January 1, 2012. 

Prop. 218 at 33-39; Prop. 219 at 32-38; see SR at 11. The Agency also proposed to change the 

applicability standard from a daily to a monthly limit. SR at 11; Prop. 218 at 33-34; Prop. 219 at 

33. In addition, the Agency recommended “adding monthly recordkeeping requirements for 

exempt sources.” SR at 11; see Prop. 218 at 34, Prop. 219 at 33, USEPA Attachment at 2. In a 

provision addressing sources changing the method of compliance, the Agency also recommended

adding cross-references to new compliance alternatives for sources manufacturing coatings, inks, 

adhesives, or resins. SR at 11; Prop. 218 at 35, Prop. 219 at 34. Finally, the Agency also 

proposed to add “recordkeeping requirements for sources complying pursuant to subsection 

(b)(5) and for sources with cleaning operations subject to one or more of the exclusions in 

subsection (a)(2)(C)(v) or (xiii) of this Section.” SR at 11; see Prop. 218 at 38-39, Prop. 219 at 

37-38; see USEPA Attachment at 1.

In their public comment filed April 15, 2011, SGIA and PII stated that VOM regulations 

do “not include a provision for retention of cleaning solvent in shop towels.” PC 1 at 3. SGIA 

and PII noted that the recordkeeping requirement applicable to lithographic printers “provides for 

50 percent retention of cleaning solutions used with shop towels kept in closed containers that 

have a vapor pressure of 10 mm Hg or less at 20 oC (68oF).” Id. citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.411(b)(1)(B)(iv). SGIA and PII cited USEPA documents to argue that “[t]he same VOM 

retention factor should be included in this rule.” PC 1 at 3. Specifically, they proposed a new 

subsection (e)(10) providing in its entirety that

[a]ll emission calculations required by this subsection (e) shall use an emission 

adjustment factor of 0.50 in calculating emissions from used shop towels if the 

VOM composite vapor pressure of each associated cleaning solution is less than 

10 mmHg measured at 20oC (68oF) and the shop towels are kept in closed 

containers. For cleaning solutions with VOM composite vapor pressure of equal 

to or greater than 10 mmHg measured at 20oC (68oF) and for shop towels that are 

not kept in closed containers, no emission adjustment factor is used. PC 1 at 3.

During the first hearing, Mr. Bloomberg indicated that the Agency was still discussing this 

proposed language and would address it in written comments. Tr.1 at 21-22.

In its first post-hearing comment filed May 16,. 2011, the Agency noted the request to 

include a retention factor “for cleaning solvents that have a vapor pressure of 10 mm Hg or less 
21

and that are kept in closed containers.” PC 2 at 3. The Agency stated that it “does not object to 

the revision, but recommends that it be included in a different subsection . . .” Id. at 3-4 

(proposing amendment to subsection (e)(1)(A)(ii)). The Agency added that “USEPA has 

advised that the revision is acceptable, provided that sources must demonstrate that the vapor 

pressure falls below the specified threshold.” Id. at 3; see Tr.2 at 22-23. Accordingly, the 

Agency proposed to amend Section 218/219.187(e)(1)(A)(ii) as follows:

1) The owner or operator of a source exempt from the limitations of this Section 

because of the criteria in Section 218[/219].187(a)(1) of this Subpart shall comply with 

the following:

A) By January 1, 2012, or upon initial start-up of the source, whichever is 

later, submit a certification to the Agency that includes:

ii) Calculations that demonstrate that combined emissions of VOM 

from cleaning operations at the source, other than cleaning operations 

identified in subsection (a)(2) of this Section, never equal or exceed 226.8 

kg/month (500 lbs/month), in the absence of air pollution control 

equipment. An emission adjustment factor of 0.50 shall be used in 

calculating emissions from used shop towels if the VOM composite vapor 

pressure of each associated cleaning solution is demonstrated to be less 

than 10 mmHg measured at 20oC (68oF) and the shop towels are kept in 

closed containers. For cleaning solutions with VOM composite vapor 

pressures of equal to or greater than 10 mmHg measured at 20oC (68oF) 

and for shop towels that are not kept in closed containers, no emission 

adjustment factor shall be used;

PC 2 at 3-4.

During the second hearing on May 18, 2011, the Agency indicated that it would respond 

in post-hearing comments to a question by the Board about any requirement to demonstrate 

vapor pressure. Tr.2 at 22-23. The Agency’s comment stated that the proposal simply requires 

“that sources be able to demonstrate, through recordkeeping, that their cleaning solutions satisfy 

the criteria for use of the emission adjustment factor, i.e., that the solutions have a vapor pressure 

below the applicable threshold.” PC 4 at 6. The Agency believeed that this proposed language 

would not subject sources to additional requirements. Id. The Agency elaborated that existing 

language requires exempt sources

to submit a certification to the Agency setting forth calculations that demonstrate 

that the source does not exceed the applicability threshold. Complying with this 

requirement necessarily entails maintaining sufficient records to support 

emissions calculations, including those necessary to demonstrate that cleaning 

solutions satisfy the criteria for use of the emission adjustment factor. Id.
22

The Agency added that, even in the absence of this requirement, “sources are always required to 

demonstrate compliance.” Id. at 6-7. The Agency argued that its amendment “simply clarifies 

this obligation, as required by the USEPA.” Id. at 7.

Finally, in its second post-hearing comments filed June 1, 2011, the Agency reported that 

USEPA required the addition of certain recordkeeping requirements to address the additional 

exemptions added in response to industry comments. PC 4 at 7-8, 10-12, 14-16. The Agency 

also noted USEPA’s “suggestion that the Illinois EPA amend references to cleaning operations 

being ‘subject to’ exclusions, in order to avoid causing confusion.” Id. at 8. The Agency 

proposed to refer to sources that “fall under” those exemptions. See id. at 10-11, 14-15. The 

Board has concurred in these revisions, which are reflected in its order below.

Subsection (f). Existing Section 218/219.187(f) addresses monitoring requirements 

applicable to the category of “other industrial solvent cleaning operations.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.187(f), 219.187(f). In its second post-hearing comments filed June 1, 2011, the Agency 

noted USEPA’s request to amend this subsection “regarding monitoring requirements for sources 

subject to Section 218/219.187(b)(3).” PC 4 at 16; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(b)(3), 

219.187(b)(3). The Agency stated that, regarding industrial adhesives, USEPA had insisted upon 

an amendment requiring the addition of continuous monitoring equipment when a carbon 

adsorber is used to demonstrate compliance. PC 4 at 16, citing USEPA Attachment. The 

Agency added that USEPA noted that industrial cleaning solvent provisions present the same 

issue. PC 4 at 16. Accordingly, the Agency proposed to add a new subsection (f)(2) providing 

in its entirety that,

[i]f a carbon adsorber is used to demonstrate compliance, the owner or operator of 

a source subject to Section 218[/219].187(b)(3) of this Subpart shall use Agency 

and USEPA approved continuous monitoring equipment which is installed, 

calibrated, maintained, and operated according to vendor specifications at all 

times the control device is in use. The continuous monitoring equipment shall 

monitor the VOM concentration of each carbon adsorption bed exhaust or the 

exhaust of the bed next in sequence to be desorbed. Id. at 17, 18.

The Agency stated that it does not expect this provision to have a negative effect on subject 

sources, “as such sources are most likely already complying with these monitoring procedures.” 

Id. at 16. The Board has concurred with the Agency’ recommendation, and this revision is 

reflect dint he order below.

Subsection (g). In this subsection providing testing requirements, the Agency proposed

to add language clarifying that, “[i]n the event of any inconsistency between a Method 24 test 

and the manufacturer’s specifications, the Method 24 test shall govern.” Prop. 218 at 40, Prop. 

219 at 39; see SR at 11; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.112(d) (incorporating Method 24 by 

reference), USEPA Attachment at 2.
23

Subpart F: Coating Operations.

Subpart F of Part 218/219 addresses coating operations using VOM. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.204-219, 219.204-219.

Section 218/219.204: Emission Limitations.

Subsection (a). In this subsection addressing automobile or light-duty truck coating, the 

Agency proposed to amend language regarding compliance with the VOM content limitation for 

final repair coat operations by adding a definition of “occurrence.” SR at 12; see USEPA 

Attachment at 5. The Agency recommended defining the term as “the application of the 

combination of coatings that constitute a final repair coat for a single automobile or light-duty 

truck.” Prop. 218 at 45-46; Prop. 219 at 44. The Agency also sought to add language providing 

that Section 218/219.205 “does not apply to the final repair coat limitation.” Prop. 218 at 46; 

Prop. 219 at 44; see SR at 12; see USEPA Attachment at 5; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.205, 

219.205 (Daily-Weighted Average Limitations). Finally, the Agency also proposed in Section 

218.204(a)(2) to extend the compliance date from May 1, 2011, to May 1, 2012. SR at 12; see

Prop. 218 at 43.

Subsection (q)(1). In this subsection addressing metal parts and products, the Agency 

proposed to strike the definition of “marine engine coating.” SR at 12; Prop. 218 at 59; Prop. 

219 at56. The Agency separately proposed to delete this category and limitations applicable to it 

because “USEPA indicated that the extreme performance coatings category is sufficient to 

address such coatings.” SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 62; Prop. 219 at 59.

Subsection (q)(1)(A). In this subsection addressing general one component coatings, the 

Agency proposed to delete subsection (q)(1)(A)(iii) providing limitations applicable to clear 

coatings, effectively changing the limitations to those established by the CTG. SR at 12; see

Prop. 218 at 59; see USEPA Attachment at 5. The Agency noted that the Board had adopted 

these limitations in rulemaking docket R10-20 in response to comments by Electro-Motive 

Diesel. SR at 12; see Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic 

Material Emissions from Group IV Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendments 

to 35 Il. Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, R10-20, slip op at 66-67, 188 (Sept. 2, 2010). The 

Agency noted USEPA’s position “that the limit must conform to the recommendations in the 

CTG.” SR at 12.

Subsection (q)(1)(H). In Section 218.204(q)(1)(H) establishing limitations applicable to 

heat-resistant coatings, the Agency proposed “to delete the previously-applicable VOM content 

limitation, which was inadvertently left in the rule.” SR at 12; see Prop. 218 at 60; see USEPA 

Attachment at 5.

Subsection (q)(1)(I). In this subsection addressing high performance architectural 

coatings, the Agency proposed to amend VOM limitations. The Agency stated that, although the 

current limitations reflect the recommendations of the CTG, “USEPA has indicated that such 

limits constitute backsliding, and that the proposed, stricter limits are therefore necessary.” SR 

at 12; see Prop. 218 at 60; Prop. 219 at 57; see USEPA Attachment at 5.
24

Subsection (q)(1)(Z). The Agency proposed to delete this subsection addressing steel 

pail and drum interior coatings, “as such coatings fall within other categories contained in the 

CTG.” SR at 12; see Prop. 218 at 62; Prop. 219 at 59; USEPA Attachment at 5; see also 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.204(q)(1)(Y), 219.204(q)(1)(Y).

Subsection (q)(1)(AA). The Agency proposed to delete this subsection addressing 

marine engine coatings, “as the USEPA indicated that the extreme performance coatings 

category is sufficient to address such coatings.” SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 62; Prop. 219 at 59; 

see USEPA Attachment at 5.

Subsection (q)(3)(E). In this subsection addressing automotive/transportation plastic 

parts and products, the Agency proposed “to delete certain specialty coating categories that were

carried over from existing regulations, as they are encompassed by categories contained in the 

CTG.” SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 65-66; Prop. 219 at 62-63; see USEPA Attachment at 5. The 

Agency reported that “USEPA determined that it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that 

such coatings could not meet the limitations set forth in the CTG.” SR at 13.

In its motion to amend its proposal, the Agency noted that it had proposed to delete “the 

specialty coating category and limit for texture basecoats” in response to a USEPA comment that 

the limit lacked an adequate basis. Mot. Amend at 4. The Agency noted, however, that the 

category and limit appeared in the first-notice version published in the Illinois Register. Id., 

citing 35 Ill. Reg. 4887, 5185. Citing USEPA’s position, the Agency recommended deleting the 

term “texture basecoats” from this subsection. Mot. Amend at 4-5. Having granted the 

Agency’s motion, the Board’s order below reflects this recommendation.

Subsection (q)(3)(F). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing red, 

yellow, and black coatings by correcting an error in a cross-reference. SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 

66; Prop. 219 at 63; see USEPA Attachment at 5.

Subsection (q)(4)(A). In this subsection addressing business machine plastic parts and 

products, the Agency proposed “to increase the VOM content limitation for primers to the limit 

recommended in the CTG.” SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 66; Prop. 219 at 63; see USEPA 

Attachment at 5. The Agency stated that “USEPA approved the higher limit in light of the 

deletion of the specialty coatings categories in subsection (q)(4)(I). SR at 13.

Subsection (q)(4)(I). The Agency proposed to delete this subsection addressing specialty 

coatings. SR at 13; see Prop. 218 at 67; Prop. 219 at 64; see USEPA Attachment at 5. The 

Agency stated that “USEPA determined that it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that these 

specialty coatings could not meet the limitations set forth in the CTG.” SR at 13.

Subsection (q)(5). Existing subsection (q)(5) establishes VOM emission limitations 

applicable to pleasure craft surface coatings. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(q)(5), 219.204(q)(5).

Subsection (q)(5)(A). In comments submitted on behalf of the ACA, Mr. Sell stated that 

the category of extreme high gloss coatings is a relatively small but very important element of 
25

pleasure craft coatings. Sell Test. at 7. He indicated, however, that low-VOM coatings 

“available at this time do not provide the appearance and functionality required. . . .” Id. 

(emphasis in original). He stated that high solids topcoats have not been well-received and found 

“to be inferior to traditional, higher VOC containing products.” Id. He further stated that lowVOM coatings may be less durable and cost significantly more than higher-VOM products. Id. 

Mr. Sell explained that the extreme high gloss topcoat accounts for less than 10% of total 

coatings and less than 40% of overall VOM burden on an annualized basis. Id. He also 

emphasized that the SCAQMD regulations were adopted for a nonattainment area characterized 

as “serious” and not as “moderate.” Id.; see Townsend Test. at 3 (claiming regulations not 

RACT for other areas); Tr.2 at 13. He added that the controlled application conditions available 

to industries such as aviation and car refinishing are not possible in the pleasure craft industry. 

Sell Test. at 7. Mr. Sell concluded by requesting that the limit for this subcategory be increased 

to 600 g/l on a permanent basis, as industry does not foresee development of coatings that can 

meet both the current standard and the expectations of the pleasure craft market. Id.

In its first post-hearing comment filed May 16, 2011, the Agency reported that USEPA 

would allow amendments to the VOM limitations for pleasure craft surface coatings, “provided 

that the existing averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10-11; PC 4 at 3. 

The Agency stated that “[t]he averaging alternative was intended to satisfy the pleasure craft 

coating industry’s need for higher emission limitations.” PC 2 at 11. The Agency argued that, 

“[i]f higher limits are instead implemented, there is no further need for an averaging option.” Id. 

The Agency reported that, “[b]ased on subsequent discussions with the ACA, in which the ACA 

expressed a preference for high VOM limitations, the Illinois EPA proposes eliminating the 

emissions averaging alternative and amending certain limits. . . .” Id.; but see Townsend Test at 

4; Tr.2 at 14-15 (proposing consideration of averaging alternative).

Specifically, the Agency proposed to amend the limit for “extreme high gloss coating -

topcoat” from 0.49 kg/l (4.1 lb/gal) coatings (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(q)(5)(A), 

219.204(q)(5)(A)) to 0.60 kg/l (5.0 lb/gal) coatings. PC 2 at 11, 21. The Agency also proposed 

to amend the limit from 1.10 kg/l (9.2 lb/gal) solids to 1.88 kg/l (15.6 lb/gal) solids. Id. at 11, 21. 

The Agency indicated that USEPA accepts this amendment, “provided that the existing 

emissions averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10-11. The Agency 

reported that ACA prefers higher VOM limits to maintaining the existing averaging option. Id. 

at 11. The Board has concurred with these revisions, which are reflected in its order below.

Subsection (q)(5)(D). In his testimony on behalf of the ACA, Mr. Sell claimed that 

owners expect the finish of their boats to be durable, smooth, and glossy. Sell Test. at 6. He 

indicated that these coatings may be applied by brush, roller, or spray and must flow out to 

produce the desired finish. Id. He argued that these effects require products with higher solvent 

content for primers and topcoats. Id. Mr. Sell claimed that low-VOM products require time to 

develop and evaluate, may cost significantly more than high-VOM products, and often 

necessitate changing work practices and increased labor costs. Id. He proposed that, for a fouryear period, the limit for this subcategory be raised from 420 g/l to 600 g/l. Id.

In its first post-hearing comment filed May 16, 2011, the Agency reported that USEPA 

would allow amendments to the VOM limitations for pleasure craft surface coatings, “provided 
26

that the existing averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10-11; PC 4 at 3. 

The Agency stated that “[t]he averaging alternative was intended to satisfy the pleasure craft 

coating industry’s need for higher emission limitations.” PC 2 at 11. The Agency argued that, 

“[i]f higher limits are instead implemented, there is no further need for an averaging option.” Id. 

The Agency reported that, “[b]ased on subsequent discussions with the ACA, in which the ACA 

expressed a preference for high VOM limitations, the Illinois EPA proposes eliminating the 

emissions averaging alternative and amending certain limits. . . .” Id.; but see Townsend Test at 

4; Tr.2 at 14-15 (proposing consideration of averaging alternative).

Specifically, the Agency proposed to amend the limit for “finish primer/surfacer” 

applicable prior to January 1, 2014 from 0.42 kg/l (3.5 lb/gal) coatings (35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.204(q)(5)(D), 219.204(q)(5)(D)) to 0.60 kg/l (5.0 lb/gal) coatings. PC 2 at 11, 21. The 

Agency also proposed to amend the limit applicable prior to January 1, 2014, from 0.80 kg/l (6.7 

lb/gal) solids (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(q)(5)(D), 219.204(q)(5)(D)) to 1.88 kg/l (15.6 lb/gal) 

solids. PC 2 at 11, 21. Also in its post-hearing comment, the Agency proposed to amend this 

subsection by setting the limit for “finish primer/surfacer” applicable on and after January 1, 

2014 at 0.42 kg/l (3.5 lb/gal) coatings and 0.80 kg/l (6.7 lb/gal) solids. PC 2 at 11, 21.

The Agency stated that, on May 26, 2011, Mr. Sell again “requested that the stricter 

VOM content limitations for finish primer/surface be delayed four years, as opposed to the 

approximate two and a half year extension proposed by the Agency.” PC 4 at 4. Noting an 

indication from USEPA “that extending the compliance date any further is unacceptable,” the 

Agency “opposes this amendment.” Id. The Board has concurred with the Agency, and these 

recommendations are reflected in its order below.

Subsection (q)(5)(G). In his testimony on behalf of the ACA, Mr. Sell stated that the 

pleasure craft industry has invested significant time and effort in developing low-VOM 

antifoulant coatings. Sell Test. at 8. He indicated that “[f]ormulations are currently registered 

with the EPA on the basis of the percentage weight of biocide in the wet paint.” Id. He argued 

that, as the VOM content of the solvent is reduced, it “must be replaced with something nonvolatile, effectively reducing the percentage of biocide in the dry film.” Id. He further argued 

that this substitution would reduce the performance and lifetime of the applied coating. Id. He 

added that low-VOM antifoulant coatings may also result in a rougher surface and increase drag. 

Id.

Mr. Sell noted that the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAPs limit antifoulant coatings 

to VOM content of 400 g/l. Sell Test. at 9, citing 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart II. He argued that 

“[i]ndustry believes this limit is more suitable to represent RACT for this coating category, given 

the current state of the existing technology.” Id. He indicated that a limit of 400 g/l “is therefore 

required.” Id.

In its first post-hearing comment filed May 16, 2011, the Agency reported that USEPA 

would allow amendments to the VOM limitations for pleasure craft surface coatings, “provided 

that the existing averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10-11; PC 4 at 3. 

The Agency stated that “[t]he averaging alternative was intended to satisfy the pleasure craft 

coating industry’s need for higher emission limitations.” PC 2 at 11. The Agency argued that, 
27

“[i]f higher limits are instead implemented, there is no further need for an averaging option.” Id. 

The Agency reported that, “[b]ased on subsequent discussions with the ACA, in which the ACA 

expressed a preference for high VOM limitations, the Illinois EPA proposes eliminating the 

emissions averaging alternative and amending certain limits. . . .” Id.; but see Townsend Test at 

4; Tr.2 at 14-15 (proposing consideration of averaging alternative). 

Specifically, the Agency proposed to amend the limit for “other substrate antifoulant 

coating” from 0.33 kg/l (2.8 lb/gal) coatings (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.204(q)(5)(G), 

219.204(q)(5)(G)) to 0.40 kg/l (3.3 lb/gal) coatings. PC 2 at 12, 21. The Agency also proposed 

to amend the limit from 0.53 kg/l (4.4 lb/gal) solids to 0.73 kg/l (5.8 lb/gal) solids. Id. at 12, 21. 

The Board has concurred with this proposal, which is reflected in its order below.

Subsection (q)(5)(H). In testimony on behalf of the ACA, Mr. Sell suggested that the 

SCAQMD regulations are outdated and do not fully reflect current pleasure craft coatings. Sell 

Test. at 10. He specified that “[a] new category is required as a result of the International 

Maritime Organisation Antifouling Systems convention. . . .” Id. He stated that the convention 

was ratified in 2007 and lists substances banned from use in antifoulings in an Annex 1. Id. He 

indicated that Tri Butyl Tin (TBT) is the first substance listed in Annex 1, and its use “in 

antifoulings on the hulls of any marine vessels entering the waters of countries which are 

signatories to the convention is controlled. . . .” Id.; see Townsend Test. at 3-4; Tr.2 at 15-16. 

He added that “[a] specialized coating type is required to seal in old TBT containing antifoulings 

and to promote adhesion of biocide-free, non-stick foul release coatings when applied to 

vessels.” Sell Test at 10.

Mr. Sell argued that this subcategory should be entitled “antifouling sealer/tie coat” with 

a VOM content limit of 420 g/l. Sell Test. at 10. He further argued that this limit is necessary 

“in order to facilitate adequate penetration into an underlying paint film for maximum adhesion.” 

Id. He added that, because these coatings contain a high degree of polymeric material, this limit 

is necessary to maintain appropriate application viscosity and “so the coating can form a flexible 

yet complete barrier over an underlying paint film.” Id.

In its first post-hearing comment filed May 16, 2011, the Agency proposed to add this 

subsection in order to establish limits for “antifoulant sealer/tie coat.” The Agency proposed to 

set these limit at 0.42 kg/l (3.5 lb/gal) coatings and 0.80 kg/l (6.7 lb/gal) solids. PC 2 at 12, 21. 

The Agency also proposed to re-designate as subsection (q)(5)(I) the existing subsection 

(q)(5)(H) addressing “all other pleasure craft surface coatings for metal or plastic.” Id. at 12, 21. 

The Board has concurred with these proposals, which are reflected in its order below.

Section 218/219.207: Alternative Emission Limitations.

Subsection (a). In its first post-hearing comment, the Agency proposed to strike 

language providing that pleasure craft surface coating operations subject to Section 

218/219.204(q)(f)(A-G) “may also comply with subsection (o) of this Section” rather than 

Section 218/219. PC 2 at 12; see id. at 10-11, 22 (proposing elimination of emissions averaging 

alternative for pleasure craft surface coating operations); see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.207(o), 
28

219.207(n) (Emissions Averaging Alternative for Pleasure Craft Surface Coating Operations). 

The Board has concurred and reflects this proposal in its order below.

Subsection (b). Section 218/219.206 addresses alternative emission limitations and 

provides an equation for expressing limitations in terms of kg (lbs) of VOM emissions per 1 (gal) 

of solids, or “S”. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.206, 219.206 (Solids Basis Calculation). Section 

218/219.207(b)(2) addresses alternative add-on control methodologies and refers to this equation 

in language regarding determination of overall efficiency. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.207(b)(2), 

219.207(b)(2). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “to clarify that, for coating lines 

subject to an emission limitation in Section 218/219.204 that is already expressed in terms of 

weight of VOM per volume of solids, ‘S’ is equal to such emission limitation.” SR at 13; see

Prop. 218 at 70; Prop. 219 at 66-67; see USEPA Attachment at 2, 5.

Subsection (n). In its first post-hearing comment, the Agency reported that USEPA 

would allow amendments to the VOM limitations for pleasure craft surface coatings, “provided 

that the existing averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10-11. The 

Agency stated that “[t]he averaging alternative was intended to satisfy the pleasure craft coating 

industry’s need for higher emission limitations.” Id. at 11. The Agency argued that, “[i]f higher 

limits are instead implemented, there is not further need for an averaging option.” Id. The 

Agency reported that, “[b]ased on subsequent discussions with the ACA, in which the ACA 

expressed a preference for high VOM limitations, the Illinois EPA proposes eliminating the 

emissions averaging alternative and amending certain limits. . . .” Id. at 11, 12-15 (Part 218), 22-

24 (Part 219). The Board has concurred with this proposal and reflects it in its order below.

Section 218/219.211: Recordkeeping and Reporting.

Subsection (c). The Agency proposed “to clarify that certain recordkeeping requirements 

pertain to each coating applied each day on each coating line.” SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 79, 81; 

Prop. 219 at 76, 78; see USEPA Attachment at 3, 5. The Agency also proposed amendments 

requiring “additional recordkeeping for sources subject to the final repair coating limitation set 

forth in Section 218/219.204(a)(2)(E).” SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 80-81; Prop. 219 at 77-78; see

USEPA Attachment at 6.

Subsection (d). In this subsection addressing compliance through daily-weighted 

average limitations, the Agency proposed “to clarify that certain recordkeeping requirements 

pertain to each coating applied each day on each coating line.” SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 83-84; 

Prop. 219 at 80-81; see USEPA Attachment at 3.

Subsection (f). In this subsection addressing primer surfacer operations, topcoat 

operations, and combined primer surface and topcoat operations, the Agency proposed to add 

language requiring “that sources collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate 

compliance with the topcoat protocol referenced in Section 218/219.105(b).” SR at 14; see Prop. 

218 at 87; Prop. 219 at 84; see USEPA Attachment at 6; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.105(b), 

219.105(b) (Test Methods and Procedures).
29

Subsection (j). In this provision addressing pleasure craft surface coating operations

complying through an emissions averaging alternative, the Agency proposed an amendment 

specifying “that subject sources shall collect and record the coating category of each pleasure 

craft surface coating used in each subject coating operation.” SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 90; 

Prop. 219 at 87; see USEPA Attachment at 6.

In its first post-hearing comment, the Agency reported that USEPA would allow 

amendments to the VOM limitations for pleasure craft surface coatings, “provided that the 

existing averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10-11. The Agency 

stated that “[t]he averaging alternative was intended to satisfy the pleasure craft coating 

industry’s need for higher emission limitations.” Id. at 11. The Agency argued that, “[i]f higher 

limits are instead implemented, there is no further need for an averaging option.” Id. The 

Agency reported that, “[b]ased on subsequent discussions with the ACA, in which the ACA 

expressed a preference for high VOM limitations, the Illinois EPA proposes eliminating the 

emissions averaging alternative and amending certain limits. . . .” Id. The Agency proposed to 

strike the entire subsection (j), which addresses recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

applicable to the owner or operator of a pleasure craft surface coating operation complying 

through an emissions averaging alternative. Id. at 19-20, 29-30. The Board has concurred and 

reflects this proposal in its order below.

Section 218/219.217: Wood Furniture Coating Work Practice Standards.

The Agency first proposed to correct an error in the title of this section in Part 218 by 

referring to work practice standards for flat wood paneling coatings in addition to wood furniture 

coatings. SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 91. In addition, the Agency proposed to amend subsection 

(d) “by adding an additional work product requirement regarding conveying coatings, thinners, 

and cleaning materials, as recommended in the CTG.” SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 92; Prop. 219 

at 89; see USEPA Attachment at 3.

Subpart H: Printing and Publishing.

Section 218/219.401: Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing.

In subsection (b)(3) addressing a weighted averaging alternative, the Agency proposed to 

amend certain terms in equations to refer only to units of weight. SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 96-

97; Prop. 219 at 94; see USEPA Attachment at 3.

Section 218.402: Applicability.

In Section 218.402(a), the Agency proposed an amendment specifying “that the 25 tons 

per year applicability threshold regards combined emissions from all flexographic and 

rotogravure printing lines at the source.” SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 101; see USEPA Attachment 

at 3.

Section 218/219.404: Recordkeeping and Reporting.
30

Subsection (b). In this subsection addressing exempt printing lines, the Agency first 

proposed amending the compliance date to January 1, 2012. SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 102-03; 

Prop. 219 at 99-100; see USEPA Attachment at 3. The Agency also proposed to amend 

subsection (b) “by requiring that exempt sources include in their certification calculations that 

demonstrate that the source does not exceed the 25 tons per year threshold, and notify the Illinois 

EPA of any record showing that the source exceeded the 25 tons per year applicability 

threshold.” SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 102-04; see USEPA Attachment at 3; see also Prop. 219 

at 100.

Subsection (d). In this subsection addressing a weighted averaging alternative, the 

Agency proposed to add a requirement “that sources identify in their certifications the method 

used to calculate the weight of each coating or ink.” SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 106; Prop. 219 at 

102-03; see USEPA Attachment at 3.

Subsection (f). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “to add more specific 

recordkeeping requirements for sources that are exempt pursuant to the 15 lb/day applicability

threshold.” SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 109; Prop. 219 at 106; see USEPA Attachment at 3.

Section 218/219.409: Testing for Lithographic Printing.

The Agency proposed to amend subsection (a) “by clarifying that testing must be done by 

the compliance date.” SR at 15; see Prop. 218 at 110; see Prop. 219 at 107; see USEPA 

Attachment at 4.

In their public comment filed April 15, 2011, SGIA and PII stated that the Agency’s 

proposal to require testing of oxidizers on heatset web offset presses by January 1, 2012, unless 

they had been tested since January 1, 2010, “needs to be revised.” PC 1 at 4. They argued that 

these presses have been required to obtain operating permits, which “rely on an oxidizer’s 

operating temperature to gauge if the control device is operating within permitted emission 

control limits.” Id. SGIA and PII also cited the $10,000-15,000 cost of stack testing to 

demonstrate compliance to claim that duplicate testing is not economically reasonable, 

particularly when temperature monitoring data exists. Id. SGIA and PII also argued that 

USEPA documents support a revision. Id. (citation omitted). Finally, SGIA and PII argued that, 

“since the effective date of compliance with the proposed rule for new presses is the installation 

date of the new press, the proposed rule needs to be revised to provide 180 days to demonstrate 

compliance. . . . “ Id. They indicated that this additional time would allow owners and operators 

to establish typical operating conditions for testing. Id., citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.409(b)(5).

Specifically, SGIA and PII proposed to amend subsection (a) as follows:

[t]esting to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Section 218.407 of 

this Subpart shall be conducted by January 1, 2012, unless such prior testing has 

been conducted within the two years immediately preceding January 1, 2012

demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 218.407 has been 

conducted in accordance with an existing operating permit.. Thereafter, testing 

shall be conducted by the owner or operator within 90 180 days after a request by 
31

the Agency, or as otherwise specified in this Subpart. Such testing shall be 

conducted at the expense of the owner of operator and the owner or operator shall 

notify the Agency in writing 30 days in advance of conducting such testing to 

allow the Agency to be present during such testing. PC 1 at 4-5.

In its motion to amend, the Agency responded to a comment by an industry 

representative by recommending revision of this subsection. Mot. Amend at 2-3. Specifically, 

the Agency sought “to specify that lithographic printing lines that conducted testing to 

demonstrate compliance with the requirements in Section 218/219.407 on or after May 9, 1995, 

and that satisfy certain other requirements, are not required to retest by January 1, 2012.” Id. at 

2. The Agency also sought to specify “that sources that conducted testing prior to May 9, 1995, 

are also not required to retest if such sources submit specified information” to the Agency. Id. 

The Agency proposed that subsection (a) provide in its entirety that

[t]esting to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Section 218.407 of 

this Subpart shall be conducted by January 1, 2012, unless such testing was 

conducted on or after May 9, 1995, the test was conducted pursuant to a test 

method approved by USEPA, the current operating conditions and operating 

capacity of the press are consistent with the operation of the press during such 

testing, and the test results were submitted to the Agencyhas been conducted 

within the two years immediately preceding January 1, 2012. If an owner or 

operator of a printing line performed such testing prior to May 9, 1995, the owner 

or operator shall either retest pursuant to this Section, or submit to the Illinois 

EPA all information necessary to demonstrate that the prior testing was conducted 

pursuant to a test method approved by the USEPA, and that the current operating 

conditions and operating capacity of the press are consistent with the operation of 

the press during prior testing. Thereafter, testing shall be conducted by the owner 

of operator within 90 days after a request by the Agency, or as otherwise specified 

in this Subpart. Such testing shall be conducted at the expense of the owner or 

operator and the owner or operator shall notify the Agency in writing 30 days in 

advance of conducting such testing to allow the Agency to be present during such 

testing. Id. at 2-3.

The Board has concurred and reflects this language in its order below.

The Agency noted that SGIA and PII had proposed a revision “to eliminate retesting 

requirements completely for printing lines that have previously tested ‘in accordance with an 

existing operating permit.’” Mot. Amend at 3. The Agency reported that USEPA has indicated 

“that the applicable ‘cut-off date’ for retesting requirements is May 9, 1995, the original effective 

date of the requirements in Section 218/219.407.” Id. The Agency also indicated that USEPA 

“advised that other requirements must be met as well to ensure that prior tests still accurately 

reflect the current operation of the press.” Id. Based on USEPA’s insistence upon and approval 

of its proposed subsection (a) above, the Agency requested that the Board not adopt the language 

proposed by SGIA and PII. Id.; see PC 2 at 1.
32

The Agency also noted that SGIA and PII had recommended increasing from 90 days to 

180 days “the amount of time sources are given to conduct a test after a request by the Agency or 

after startup of a new press/control device.” Mot. Amend at 3. The Agency stressed that the 90-

day requirement has been in effect “for many years” and argued that SGIA and PII have not 

shown that an additional 90 days are warranted. Id. at 4. The Agency added that “it is unclear 

whether this change would be acceptable to the USEPA.” PC 2 at 1-2. The Agency stated that it 

“opposes this revision.” Id. at 3; see PC 2 at 1. The Board has concurred with the Agency on 

these issues, and the proposed changes are not reflected in its order below.

Section 218/219.411: Recordkeeping and Reporting for Lithographic Printing.

Subsection (b). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “to add more specific 

recordkeeping requirements for sources that utilize the material use threshold alternative to 

demonstrate that they are exempt.” SR at 16; see Prop. 218 at 118; Prop. 219 at 115; see USEPA 

Attachment at 4.

In their public comment filed April 15, 2011, SGIA and PII argued that the Agency’s 

proposed amendment to subsection (b)(1)(F) “creates a burden that contradicts the purpose of 

allowing facilities to determine exemption based on material use thresholds.” PC 1 at 5. They 

elaborated that requiring recordkeeping beyond the amount of materials used “creates a 

significant recordkeeping burden while providing no additional benefit.” Id. SGIA and PII 

suggested that, if a facility must demonstrate that it has not exceeded the material use threshold, 

then subsection (b)(1)(B) includes the calculations to do so. See PC 1 at 5. SGIA and PII 

requested that the proposal delete references to “the name, identification number, and VOM 

content of each cleaning solvent and fountain solution additive used per calendar month.” PC 1 

at 5.

In its first post-hearing comment, the Agency noted the recommendation by SGIA and 

PII to “delete the requirement that sources’ material use records include the name, identification 

number, and VOM content of each cleaning solvent and fountain solution additive used per 

calendar month.” PC 2 at 4-5. The Agency stated that USEPA requires these records “in order 

to determine whether the material use thresholds are exceeded.” Id. at 5, citing USEPA Attach. 

Based on the USEPA’s position, the Agency opposed the recommendation by SGIA and PII. PC 

2 at 5. The Board has concurred with the Agency, and the order below does not reflect the 

recommendation of SGIA and PII.

Also in its first post-hearing comment filed May 16, 2011, the Agency noted that it had 

proposed to add an adjustment factor for industrial solvent cleaning operations “based upon a 

similar provision in the existing rule for lithographic printing operations.” PC 2 at 5; see id. at 2-

4 (proposing amendment to Section 218/219.187(e)(1)(A)(ii)). The Agency stated that,

[t]o remain consistent with the language recommended by the Illinois EPA above 

for industrial cleaning solvents, and in compliance with a recommendation by the 

USEPA, the Illinois EPA proposes amending Section 218/219.411(b)(1) and (2) 

to specify that lithographic printing sources wishing to utilize the emission 
33

adjustment factor for cleaning materials must demonstrate that the vapor pressure 

falls below the specified threshold. PC 2 at 5-8; see Tr.2 at 23-24.

During the second hearing on May 18, 2011, the Agency indicated that it would respond 

in post-hearing comments to a question by the Board about any requirement to demonstrate that 

vapor pressure falls below a specified threshold. Tr.2 at 22-23. The Agency’s post-hearing

comment filed on June 1, 2011, stated that the proposal simply requires “that sources be able to 

demonstrate, through recordkeeping, that their cleaning solutions satisfy the criteria for use of 

the emission adjustment factor, i.e., that the solution have a vapor pressure below the applicable 

threshold.” PC 4 at 6. The Agency believed that this proposed language would not subject 

sources to additional requirements. Id. The Agency elaborated that existing language requires 

exempt sources

to submit a certification to the Agency setting forth calculations that demonstrate 

that the source does not exceed the applicability threshold. Complying with this 

requirement necessarily entails maintaining sufficient records to support 

emissions calculations, including those necessary to demonstrate that cleaning 

solutions satisfy the criteria for use of the emission adjustment factor. Id.

The Agency added that, even in the absence of this requirement, “sources are always required to 

demonstrate compliance.” Id. at 6-7. The Agency argued that its amendment “simply clarifies 

this obligation, as required by the USEPA.” Id. at 7.

Subsection (g). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “by adding 

recordkeeping requirements for sources making use of the exclusions set forth in Section 

218/219.405(c)(3).” Prop. at 16; see Prop. 218 at 129-30; Prop, 219 at 126-27; see USEPA 

Attachment at 4; see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.405(c)(3), 219.405(c)(3) (exclusions for 

lithographic printing lines).

Section 218/219.415: Testing for Letterpress Printing Lines.

The Agency proposed to amend subsection (a) by clarifying “that testing shall be 

performed by the compliance date.” SR at 16; see Prop. 218 at 132; Prop. 219 at 129; see

USEPA Attachment at 4.

Section 218/219.417: Recordkeeping and Reporting for Letterpress Printing Lines.

Subsection (b). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection by adding “more specific 

recordkeeping requirements for sources that utilize the material use threshold alternative to 

demonstrate that they are exempt.” SR at 16; see Prop. at 137; Prop. 219 at 134; see USEPA 

Attachment at 4.

Subsection (c). The Agency proposes to amend this subsection by clarifying which 

sources are subject to its recordkeeping requirements. SR at 16; see Prop. 218 at 137; Prop. 219 

at 134; see USEPA Attachment at 4.
34

Subpart II: Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials.

Section 218/219.891: Emission Limitations and Control Requirements.

Subsection (a). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing emission 

limitations and control requirements by deleting an unnecessary equation and adding “an 

equation specifying how excess non-monomer will be calculated.” SR at 16; see Prop. 218 at 

144; Prop. 219 at 141-42; see USEPA Attachment at 6.

Subsection (c). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing an emissions 

averaging alternative by clarifying “that the monomer VOM emissions calculated using Equation 

3 cannot exceed the limit calculated using Equation 2.” SR at 16; see Prop. 218 at 147; Prop, 

219 at 144; see USEPA Attachment at 7. The Agency also proposed “to clarify that the formulas

in subsection (c)(3) calculate emission rates in terms of VOM/Mg resin or gel coat.” SR at 16-

17; see Prop. 218 at 150; Prop. 219 at 146. In addition, the Agency proposed to define “VOM%” 

as “the monomer VOM content as supplied, expressed as a weight percent value between 0 and 

100 percent.” Prop. 218 at 150; Prop. 219 at 146; see SR at 17; see USEPA Attachment at 7.

In its post-hearing comment, the Agency stated that “it recently noticed that plus sign 

(“+”) is missing between the third and fourth terms of Equation 3” in this subsection. PC 2 at 30. 

The Agency recommended amending the subsection by adding that plus sign. Id. at 30, 31. The 

Board has concurred with the addition, which is reflected in its order below.

Subsection (d). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing capture 

system and control device requirements “to provide that control device alternatives must be 

approved as a SIP revision.” SR at 17; see Prop. 218 at 151; Prop. 219 at 147; see USEPA 

Attachment at 7.

Subsection (e). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing filled resins

“to reiterate that, if a source is complying with subsection (c), the value of a certain term in 

Equation 5 shall also be used as the value of a certain term in Equation 4.” SR at 17; see Prop. 

218 at 151; Prop. 219 at 148; see USEPA Attachment at 7. The Agency also proposed to correct 

a cross-reference. SR at 17; see Prop. 218 at 152; Prop. 219 at 148.

Section 218/219.892: Testing and Monitoring Requirements.

Subsection (a). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “to clarify when testing 

must occur.” SR at 17; see Prop. 218 at 153; Prop. 219 at 149; see USEPA Attachment at 7.

Subsection (c). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “to clarify the 

monitoring requirements applicable to sources utilizing an afterburner versus those utilizing a 

carbon adsorber.” SR at 17; see Prop. 218 at 155-56; Prop. 219 at 152; see USEPA Attachment 

at 7.

Subsection (d). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “to further clarify when 

a Method 24 test must be used.” SR at 17; see Prop. 218 at 156; Prop. 219 at 153. The Agency 
35

sought to add language providing that, “[i]n the event of any inconsistency between a Method 24 

test and the manufacturer’s specifications, the Method 24 test shall govern.” Prop. 218 at 156; 

Prop. 219 at 153.

Section 218/219.894: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.

Subsection (a). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection to add “recordkeeping 

requirements for exempt sources.” SR at 17; see Prop. 218 at 157-58; Prop. 219 at 154; see

USEPA Attachment at 7.

Subsection (c). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection deleting the word “daily” 

and providing “that sources shall collect and record the mass of each open molding resin or gel 

coat as applied each day by each subject fiberglass boat manufacturing operation.” SR at 17; see

Prop. 218 at 159-60; Prop. 219 at 156; see USEPA Attachment at 7.

Subsection (g). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “by adding ‘including 

water’ to the recordkeeping provision concerning cleaning solvents used in fiberglass boat 

manufacturing operations.” SR at 18; see Prop. 218 at 163; Prop. 219 at 160; see USEPA 

Attachment at 7.

Subpart JJ: Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives.

Section 218/219.901: Emission Limitations and Control Requirements.

Subsection (b). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection “to provide that the 

emission limitations are in terms of mass of VOM per volume of adhesives or adhesive primer, 

excluding water and compounds exempted from the definition of VOM.” SR at 18; see Prop. 

218 at 164; Prop. 219 at 160; see USEPA Attachment at 6.

Subsection (c). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing dailyweighted averaging “to correct two equations in which ‘mass’ should have been ‘volume,’ and to 

correct a subscript error.” SR at 18; see Prop. 218 at 166-67; Prop. 219 at 162-63; see USEPA 

Attachment at 6.

In subsection (c)(2), the Agency stated that its original proposal “recommended changing 

‘Mi’ to ‘Vi’ in the equation and changing the definition of ‘Vi’ to reference only units of volume, 

not units of mass.” Mot. Amend at 4. The Agency noted, however, that the first-notice version 

of the proposal published in the Illinois Register deleted the units of volume from the definition 

of ‘Vi’ instead of the units of mass. Id., citing 35 Ill. Reg. 4887, 5101. The Agency assumed

“that this was an unintentional transcription error” and recommended correction. Mot. Amend at 

4. Having granted the Agency’s motion, the Board includes this correction in its order below.

Subsection (d). The Agency proposed to amend this subsection addressing capture 

systems and control devices “to provide that control device alternatives must be approved as a 

SIP revision.” SR at 18; see Prop. 218 at 167; Prop. 219 at 164; see USEPA Attachment at 6.
36

Section 218/219.902: Testing Requirements.

The Agency proposed to amend subsection (a) addressing testing to determine 

compliance “to clarify when testing must occur.” SR at 18; see Prop. 218 at 169; Prop. 219 at 

165; see USEPA Attachment at 6.

Section 218/219.903: Monitoring Requirements.

The Agency proposed to amend subsections (a) and (b) “to clarify the monitoring 

requirements applicable to sources utilizing an afterburner versus those utilizing a carbon 

adsorber.” SR at 18; see Prop. 218 at 171; Prop. 219 at 167; see USEPA Attachment at 6.

Section 218/219.904: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

The Agency proposed to amend subsection (d) addressing daily-weighted averaging “to 

require that sources collect and record the volume of each adhesive applied by each subject 

adhesive application operation.” SR at 18; see Prop. 218 at 174; Prop. 219 at 17; see USEPA

Attachment at 6.

CONCLUSION

The Board adopts regulations governing VOM emissions in Parts 211, 218, and 219 of its 

air pollution regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218, 219). Substantively, the Board adopts its 

second-notice proposal with a limited number of changes by JCAR.

ORDER

The Board directs the Clerk to file the following adopted rules with the Secretary of State 

for publication in the Illinois Register. Additions to the rules are underlined, and deletions from 

them appear stricken.

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SUBTITLE B: AIR POLLUTION

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SUBCHAPTER c: EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS

FOR STATIONARY SOURCES

PART 211

DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBPART A: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 

211.101 Incorporated and Referenced Materials 

211.102 Abbreviations and Conversion Factors