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 CounselBEFORE 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 tosupport 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

2rollers, 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

3Transcript 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"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

5governed 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

6requirement, 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

7exemption 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:

8i) 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;

9xiv) 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

10Section 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~**

112&) 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;

12C) 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;

13xiii) 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;

14B) 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

15commercially 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

16f) 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:

17A) 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.

18The 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

19BEFORE 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 CounselTimothy 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.comILLINOIS 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 2 11, 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 (J CAR) 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 Environmenta l 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 respon d s to comments by the United State s Environm ental Protection Agency (USEPA) by proposing amend ments 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 pack aging printing materials, lithographic printing materials, letterpress printing materials, miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, auto and light

- duty truck coatings, mis cellaneous 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 3 5 Ill. Reg. 4887 ( Apr. 1

, 2011); see also P.A. 96

- 0308 (subsection (e)).

In addition, after reviewing te stimony 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 Boa rd’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. Co de 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 matter s . The Board then briefly summariz es the statutory and2

regulatory ba ckground 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 o rder following the opinion sets forth the proposed amendments for second

- notice review by JCAR.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 7 , 201 1 , 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 N on

- 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 f or waiver of copy requirements.

In an order dated March 17 , 201 1 , the Board accepted the Ag ency’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 1 7 , 201 1 , the Board requested that the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) conduct an e conomic 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 fr om 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, 201 1 , the hearing of ficer scheduled three hearings: the first beginning Wednesday, April 2 7 , 201 1 , in Chicago with pre

- filed testimony due on or before Friday, April 1 5 , 201 1 ; the second beginning Wednesday, May 1 8 , 201 1 , in Chicago with pre

filed testimony due on or before Friday, May 6 , 201 1 ; and the third beginning Wednesday, June 1 , 2010, in Chicago with pre

- filed testimony due on or before Friday, May 2 0 , 201 1

. See P.A. 96

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

First notice of the proposed rules appeared in the Illinois Register on April 1 , 201 1

. 3 5 Ill. Reg. 4887 ( Apr. 1 , 201 1 ); 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.) a nd 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 pl ace as scheduled on April 27, 2011, in Chicago. Also on April 27, 2011, t he 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. Blo omberg (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 h earing. 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 o ne 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 J une 1, 2011, the Agency filed post

- hearing comments (PC 4).4

PRELIMINARY MATTER S

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. Amen d. 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 amend s the rulemaking proposal as requested.

The Board summarizes the substance of the Agency’s amendments on a section

- by

section 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 moti on.” 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 Agenc y’s motion.

STAUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

The Agency states that its proposal is intended to satisf y Illinois’ obligation to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing sources of VOM 1

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 res pect 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) f or 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). Sp ecifically, 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 an d above.” SR at 4 , citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(1), 7511a(b)(2) ;

see Mahajan Test. at 2 . The Agency defin es 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 techni ques 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 Comm ercial Products.” SR at 4. The Agency also reports that, “[o]n October 7, 2008, the US EPA issued final CTGs for Group IV Consumer and Commercial Product s.” Id

. ; see Mahajan Test. at 2. USEPA required submission of SIP revisions responding to the CTGs w ithin one year. SR at 4, citing 7 3 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 21 1, 218, 219 . The Agency notes that the Board subsequent ly 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 21 1, 218, and 219 , R 10

- 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 “agree d 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. B loomberg 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 Attach ment

. Mr. Bloomberg listed the follo wing general issue s 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 Attach ment . 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 sou rces.” Bloomberg Test. at 3; see Mahajan Test. at 3

. The Agency state s 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 attain ment 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 re visions 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 Illinoi s’ 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 issu es 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 A gency concludes that it “strongly opposes any changes to the rules that have not been first approved in writing by the USEPA.”

DESCRIPTION S OF POTENTIALL Y AFFECTED SOURCES AND PROJECTED VOM EMISSIONS7

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 R1 0

- 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 category

by

- category basis i n 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 appl ied 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 be en 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; a utomobile and light

- duty truck assembly coatings; flatwood8

paneling coatings; miscellaneous industrial adhesives; fiberglass boat manufacturing materials; and paper, film, and foil coatings.” Id

. Potentially Affected Sources

The Agency stated that it r elied 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 tot al 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 fr om 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 recommendati ons 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 coa ting, 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 operat ion” for the purposes of that section as9

the process of cleaning products, product components, to o ls, equipment, or general work areas during production, repair, maintenance, or servicing, including but not limited to spray gun cleaning, spray booth clean ing, 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 include s 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 “VO M 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: “auto motive, 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 clea ning, 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 maj ority 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 emphasi zed, however, that the regulations proposed in R10

- 8 d id 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 th e 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 Con sumer & 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 s olvent 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 a re estimated to be 2293 MG/yr (2528 tpy) of VOM. TSD Group II at 20. The Agency further stated that this estimate include d “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 solvent10

is potentially affected, depending on t he 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 emi ssion 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 Affect ed 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 th at 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 coat ings.” 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 paneli ng 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 plywoo d 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’ c oats, 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 (fi ling 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 operati ons. 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 p roposed 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 tha t 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, liner s, 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

- li ne 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, decora tive 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 m ay 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 . T he 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 . The12

Agency claimed that “VOM emissions for both type s 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 inst allations 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

o mitted) . 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, t he Agency stated that its proposal in docket R10

- 8 separate d flexible packaging printing from the existing flexographic an d 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 I I 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 difficult ies 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
rot ogravure 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 effi ciency, 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 negli gible 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 flex ible 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 water

based inks that should meet the newly proposed requirements as well a s 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). Th e 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

Descr iption 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 l ithography a s “ a planographic method of printing; that is, th e 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 repe llent 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.” TS D 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 offset14

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, continuo us 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 pigment s 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 method s 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 VO M 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 unrecep tive 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 quantit ies 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 dampen ing 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 perc ent.” 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 e xcess 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 thes e “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 co ntrols.” 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 belief15

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 a t 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 a t 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 I ll. Adm. Code 218.407, 219.407 . Finally, the Agency also stated that “[a]ll such sources will also be able to use up to 11 0 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 st ated 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 applicab le 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 fact or 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 sto red 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

. T he Agency also noted that its “proposal adds emission adjustment factors to be used in other16

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 propose d 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 exist ing 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 di fficult 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 clea ning 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 th os e sources in the Chicago NAA and all three of th os e sources in the Metro East NA A emit less than 100 PPD and were potentially affected b y the proposed regulations. Id

.

For th o se 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 wa s 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 e mission 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 furt her stated that, compared with lithographic, flexographic, and rotogravure printing, “[l]etterpress operation s make up a very small percentage of the printing industry.” Id . Based on its source inventory, the Agency indicated that “no letterpress printin g 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, t he Agency stated that its proposal addresse d “both heatset and non

- heatset letterpress operations.” TSD Gro up 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 mat erial 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 contain ing 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 tha t 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 A gency characterized automobile and light

- duty tr u ck 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 Agen cy 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 faci lities, 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 t he 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 a ffected 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 Emi ssions

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 applica tion, 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 so urce 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 miscell aneous 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 ad hesives 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 argu ed 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 f rom 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 u ltraviolet

- 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, b rush 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 ad hesive, 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 numbe r 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 operat ed 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 to tal VOM emissions directly related to the category at any given source.” Id . The Agency determined, however, that there are 12 potentially affected20

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 af

ter 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 con sistent 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 manufacturi ng 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 REA SONABLENESS

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 t he TSDs file d 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 Age ncy 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 feasib ility 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 Distric t ” (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

- fil ed 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 ado ption 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 inc lude 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 manuf acturers and owners. ” Townsend Test. at 3 , 4 ; see Tr.2 at 9

- 10, 15

. Mr. Sell also states that SC A QMD adopted regulations “before the ban on TBT containing antifouling coatings and thus failed to include a coatings category that is designed to contain the ir 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 stat es 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 develo pment 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 h ave seen that22

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 s urface coating. The Board summarizes those proposed revisions below in its section

- by

section 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 (includ ing 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 th e 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 c ontent 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 fac ilities 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 derive d 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, di p 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 T SD expected this option to achieve VOM emissions reductions “that are equal to or greater than the limits” under the two preceding compliance options. Id

. S ources complying through this option23

need not meet VOM content limits described above or employ re commended 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 CT G 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

- con taining 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 V OM

- 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 mat erials including the following:

(1) store all VOM

- containing cl eaning 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 cl eaning 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 are as.” 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 solvents2 4

and used cleaning rags; minimizing air circulation around all cleani ng 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 emission s . 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 th at 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, wh ich is reflected in the proposed rule.” Id

. ; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(b)(3), 219.187(b)(3).

Exclusions. T he 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 pa rts, 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 mate rials; 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 d evelopment 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

cle aning of adhesive application equipment used for thin metal laminating; touch

up 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 adhes ive 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 thre e 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 high

VOM 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 coatin gs.’” 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 su ch 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 close d container s, 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 exc ept 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 adopt ed some of these requirements through regulations for wood furniture coaters. Id . The Agency fu rther stated that its proposal applies those requirements and other specific requirements to flat wood paneling coaters. Id

. Flexible Packaging Printing Line s

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 adhes ives 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. Th e 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 adsorb ers 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 Ag ency 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 i f 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 Ag ency 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 print ing lines: add

- on controls, fountain solution27

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: combustio n 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 achieva ble 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 characteriz ed 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 e xisting equipm ent, 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 reformu lations 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 3 5 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.” TS D 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 lim it 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]le aning solutions with28

[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 Agen cy 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 I I reg ulations, 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 “le tterpress 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 solut ions. ” 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 argu ed, 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 th at 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 o f 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 f or 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 we re 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 proce ss 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 (R T ). That ratio “is defined as the ratio of total volume of coating solids that is added to the EDP system in a calendar month29

divided by the total design capacity of the EDP system.” TSD Group IV at 26; see 35 Ill. Ad m. Code 211.6065 (definition) . The Agency also recommend ed 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, adh esive, 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 recommend ed 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 followi ng work practices for coating

related and cleaning ac tivities :

(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, thinn ers, 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, th inners, 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 re commends 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) . Th e 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 r elied 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 effici ency 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 emissio ns, 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 Age ncy 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 adh esive 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 indicate d that, in addition to emission limits recommended by the CTG and inc orporated into the proposal, the it also recommended work practices to reduce VOM emissions from this category

. TSD Group IV at 34 . The Agency report ed that its proposal includes these recommended practices “in their entirety.” Id

. at 35. Specifically, the CTG recommend ed 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

- containi ng adhesives, adhesive primers, and process

related 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; an d (4) convey VOM

containing 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 recommend ed 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 closed31

containers or pipes; and (5) minimize VOM emission from cleaning of applic ation, 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 US EPA’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 con trols 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 pr oposed 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.” TS D 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

exc eeding 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 I V 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]the r 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. T he 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 up on 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 state d 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 m onomer 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 operatio ns 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 mo nomer VOM materials or through add

- on controls. TSD Group IV at 39

. The Agency provided an Equation 2, which determin es 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 state d that, “[a]t the end of the first 12 month period, and at the end of each subs equent 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 ; se e 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 inc luded in the average. TSD Group IV at 41 . The Agency also provide d 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 Moldin g Operations) ; see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.891(c)(4), 219.891(c)(4)

.33

Add

- On Controls. The Agency state d 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 provide d that “[a] source would be considered to be complaint if measured emissions at th e 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 state d that the CTG “also recommends work practices for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials .” TSD Group IV at 43. The Agency’s proposal include d 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 als o “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, in corporated 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 addresse s the record with regard to economic reasonableness on a category

- by

- category basis i n 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 affected34

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 miscellaneou s 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
ap proximately $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 C leaning 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 N ational 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 Californi a 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 Lin es

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 2 005 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 o nly 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 a reas 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 portio ns 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 and35

coatings meeting the new compliance limit, w hile 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 ad d

- 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 effic iency’ 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 cle a ning provisions of the proposed regulations , the Agency expected “minimal” costs for sources beco ming 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 wi ll 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 founta in 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 to n 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 specifical ly 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 becau se 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 the36

cost

- effectiveness estimates . . . for control of [VOM] from heatset inks and
contro l 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 re asoning 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 note d 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 indicate d 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 project ed “that the additional work pr actices 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 state d that “[t]he USEPA estimates that there will b e no additional cost for implementation of the control techniques guidelines for auto and light

- duty truck assembly coating.” Id

.

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

The Agency state d 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 note d 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 re port ed 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 control s, “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 approx imately $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 Ill inois, “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 Man ufacturing 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 econom ic 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 feas ible 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 techniqu es 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 conc urs 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 t hat 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 of fered 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 Availabl e 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 d ocket 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 Volatile38

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 it s 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 co atings

. 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. Th ese 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 th ese recommendations stem from request s by regulated entit ies

. See id . at 5, 10

- 11

. I n all significant respects, th e Agency’s recommendations are reflected in the Board’s order below.

Having reviewed the record in this proceeding, and particularly in l ight 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 d efined 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. Cod e 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 r ecommended 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 pre venting 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 th at language to its proposal. Id . at 4

- 5. The Board concurs with the Agency, and the definitio n 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 Availab le 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 th is 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 90 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.” 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 pos t

- 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 state d 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 Boar d 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 particl eboard.” 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 1 9, 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 propose d that “‘[f]lat wood paneling’ means natural finish hardwood plywood pane ls, 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 proposa l, 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 l ayer 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 existin g 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 finish es 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 pr imers 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

c ontains 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. 3 5 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 con trols 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 pri mers.” 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 thi s 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 provi de 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 c oating 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 . (emph asis 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 “inte nds 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 p anel’ 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 pro posal, 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 boa rd 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 c oating.” Prop. at 16 ; see USEPA Attachment at 2.

Part 218: Organic Material Emi ssion Standards and Limitations for the Chicago Area Part 219: Organic Material Emi ssion 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 li nes 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 emis sion43

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 p arts 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 the se 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 operation s , and Section 218/219.184 addresses conveyorized degreasing
op erations. 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 Vol atile 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 (J une 17, 2010); 34 Ill. Reg. 9111

- 25 (July 9, 2010).

Subsection (a). In subsecti on (a)

, which addresses applicability, the Agency proposed to extend the compliance deadline from April 1, 2011, to January 1, 2012. SR at 10; Pro p. 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 f rom 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; Pro p. 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 hearin g, 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 appli cability 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 a n 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 res ponded 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. Bloom berg 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. M r. 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 f iled 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 specif ied 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 exempti ng cleaning operations at emission units within specified source categories, t he 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 2 8; Pro p. 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 f irst Illinois manufacturing operation near Mascout ah in the Metro East ozone nonattainment

area . PC 3 at 1. He indic at ed that Boeing’s operations i n a nonattainment area ordinarily “would be regulated by an Aerospace VOM R ACT rule, usually based on the US EPA Control45

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 thr eshold.” 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, t he 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 compare d the aerospace rules based upon the CTG and in effect in most nonattainme nt 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 rulema king 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 hav e 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 curren t 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 cate gories, the Agency sought to strike an exemption for shipbuilding and repair coating “in response to a USEPA comment that the exemptions should46

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 langua ge used i n other exclusions.” SR at 10

- 11; Prop. 218 at 29; Prop. 219 at 28

- 29.

I n 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 app licable 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 reduc e 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 s pecified cleaning operations fro m recordkeeping obligations. PC 2 at 2. The Agency states that USEPA “has advised, however, that exempting such cleaning operations from the recordkeeping requirem ents 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 be low.

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 th e 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
aga in 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 Sec tion the “[c]leaning of medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturing operations if the facility uses no more than 1.5 gallons per day of solvents for47

such cleaning. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.187(a)(2)(C)(v), 219.187(a)(2)(C)(v). In its second post

hearin g 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)(xii i). 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 cleanin g.” 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 omitte d from the Agency’s original proposal.” PC 4 at 7; see id . at 9, 14.

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(x iv ). 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 o perations.” 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 d eleted 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 thi s 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 fil ed 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 s tat ed 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 acti on, 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 wel l, 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 Agency48

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 i s 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 fr om 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 grou p “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 addi tional 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 or der 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 c leaning 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 re quirements 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 sc reen 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 re quirements 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 so ught 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 E PA 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 inf ormation supporting this proposed amendment. Id. The Agency reports USEPA’s response that SGIA and PII “still did not provide sufficient49

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) provi des 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 perfor mance 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 bel ow.

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. 21 8 a t 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 propose d to remove an exemption for screen reclamation activities, the Agency “recommends specifying that th e 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

Specificall y, 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 p ressure 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 propose d 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 require ments, 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 propose d to change the
ap plicability standard from a daily to a monthly limit. SR at 11; Prop. 218 at 33

- 34; Prop. 219 at 33. In addition, the Agency recommend ed “adding monthly recordkeeping requirements for exempt sources.” SR at 11; see Prop. 218 at 34, Prop. 219 at 33 , USEP A Attachment at 2. In a provision addressing sources changing the method of compli ance, 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. F inally, 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 th at VOM regulations do “not include a provision for retention of cleaning sol vent 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 sho p 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 USEP A 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 subs ection (e)(10) providing in its entirety that51

[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 cleanin g solutions with VOM composite vapor pressure of equal to or greater than 10 mmHg measured at 20oC (68oF) and for shop towels tha t 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 stat es 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, provid ed 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 exemp t 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) C alculations 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/m onth), 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 les s 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 p ressure. 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 satisfy52

the criteria for use of the emission adjustment factor

, i.e. , that th e solution s 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 calcu lations, 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 compl iance.” 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 c ertain 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 ‘subje ct 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.

Subs ection (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 addi tion 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 clea ning 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 subje ct 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. T he 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 nega tive 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 th is subsection providing testing requirements, the Agency propose d 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 r epair coat operations by adding a definition of “occurrence.” SR at 12 ; see USEPA Attachment at 5 . The Agency re commended defining the term as “t he 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)

. F inally, 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.

Subsectio n (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 subs ection (q)(1)(A)(iii) provid ing 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 Agen cy 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 note d 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 6 0 ; 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 state d that, although the current limitations reflect the recommendation s 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 pro posed 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 218.2 04(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 sufficie ntly 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 pr oposed 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 busin ess 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 6 7; 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). Exi sting 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 categ ory 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 requ ired. . . .” 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 low

VOM 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 fore see 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 ind ustry’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 alternat ive 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

Subsecti on (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 flo w 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 tha n high

- VOM products, and often necessitate changing work practices and increased labor costs. Id . He prop oses that, for a four

year period, the limit for this subcategory be raised from 420 g/l to 600 g/l. Id

. In its first post

- hearing comment filed M ay 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 avera ging 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 l imits. . . .” 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 Januar y 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. Cod e 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, 2 014 at 0.42 kg/l (3.5 l b /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 op posed 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 antifou lant 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 re placed with something non

volatile, 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 co atings 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 40 0 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 a n 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 ce rtain 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 concur s 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 i n 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 a n 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 comple te 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 subsection58

(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 Ag ency 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 (propos ing 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 re flects this proposal in its order below.

Subsection (b). Section 218/219.206 addresses alternative emission limitations and provides an equation for expressing l imitations 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)

, 219.2 07(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 lim itation.” 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 coatin gs, “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 quar t.” 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

T he Agency’s first post

- hearing comment notes ACA’s pre

- file d testimony requesting a “small contain er 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 , 2 6

- 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),

T he Board has not submitted Section 218.20 8 or 219.20 8 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.”); 3 5 Ill. Reg. 4887 ( Apr . 1, 20 11). Accordingly

, the Board cannot move these
t wo 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 ame ndments 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, t he 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. 21 9 at 80

- 81 ; see USEPA Attachment at 3

. Subsection (f). In this subsection addressing primer surface r operation s , 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 reference d 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) (T est Methods and Procedures).

Subsection (j). In this provision addressing pleasure craft surface coating operations complying through an emissions averaging alternative , the Agency proposed an amendment60

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 wou ld 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 su bsequent 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 entir e 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 woo d 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 mat erials, 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 weighte d 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), th e 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

.

Secti on 218/219.404: Recordkeeping and Reporting.

Subsection (b). In this subsection addressing exempt printing lines, t he 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 US EPA 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 EP A 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, t he 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

.

Subsect ion (f). T he 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.

Th e 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 pr esse s 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 th e $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. I d

. (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

com pliance. . . . “ 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 dem onstrating 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 oth erwise specified in this Subpart. Such testing shall be conducted at the expense of the owner of operator and the owner or operator shall62

notify the Agency in writing 30 days in advance of conducting such testing to allow the Agency to be present during s uch 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 line s 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 speci fy “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 Agency has 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
purs uant 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, 19 9 5, the original ef fective 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 o n 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 year s” 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 prop osed 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 threshold s.” 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 note s the recommendation by SGIA and PII to “delete the requirement that sources’ material use records include the name, identification

num ber, 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, c iting 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 i n its first post

- hea ring 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 that64

vapor pressure falls below a s pecified 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 o f 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 maintainin g 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, “so urces 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

rec ordkeeping 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) (exclus ions for lithographic printing lines)

. Section 218/219.415: Testing for Letterpress Printing Lines.

Th e 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; Pr op. 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 t hat 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 a re 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.

Sub section (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 th e 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 formula s 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 a t 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 t he 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 reit erate 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

c arbon 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 Agency66

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 218/219.8 94: 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

.

Subsec tion (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 operati on.” 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 fiberglas s 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 daily

weighted 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 ‘M i ’ to ‘V i ’ in the equation and changing the definition of ‘V i ’ to reference only units of volume,
not u nits of mass.” Mot. Amend at 4. The Agency notes, however, that the first

- notice version of the propos a l published in the Illinois Register deleted the units of volume from the definition of ‘V i ’ instead of the units of mass. Id ., citin g 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

Se ction 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 pro posed 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 Pr op. 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 whic h 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 Amendme nts 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. Th e Board has underlined proposed additions and struck through proposed deletions.JOINT COMMITTEE ONADMINISTRATIVE

RULESILLINOISGENERALASSEMBLYCO-CHAIR.

/SEN.PAMELAALTHOFFSEN.MAGGIECROTTY

/SEN.DONHARMONSEN.JOHN0.JONESCO-CHAIR:SEN.DALERIGHTERREPANGELOSKIPSAVIANOSEN.IRASILVERSTEINREPGREGORYHARRISEXECUTIVEDIRECTOR:REP.LOULANGVICKITHOMASREPDONALDMOFFITTREP.ROSEMARYMULLIGANREPANDRÉTHAPEDI700STRATTONBUILDINGSPRINGFIELD,ILLINOIS62706217/785-2254
JVEj .L.&KS OFFICE July
12, 2011

‘:1 JJL

1 2011jj

LE OF ILLINOISE)jUj(l1- 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.TheserulemakingsmaynowbeadopteduponfilingwiththeOfficeoftheSecretaryofState.PleasenotethatthefactthattheCommitteehasnotobjectedtotheserulemakingsdoesnotnecessarilyconstituteapproval,expressedorimplied,ofthesubstanceoftherulemakings.Thankyouforthecooperationyouragencyhasshownduringourreviewoftheseissues.Sincerely,‘-‘iSenatorMaggieCrottyCo-ChairmanSMC:RBH:DC:rmcc:TimFoxEnc.4’RepreñtativeCo-irman“Skip”SavianoCO-CHAIR: SEN. MAGGIE CROTTY CO-CHAIR: REP. ANGELO ‘SKIP SAVIANO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: VICKI THOMAS
JOINT COMMITTEE ONADMINISTRA

TIVE RULES ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY 700 STRATTON BUILDING SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62706 217/785-2254
J

SEN PAMELA ALTHOFF SEN. DON HARMON SEN. JOHN

0. JONES SEN. DALE RIGHTER SEN IRA SILVERSTEIN REF GREGORY HARRIS REP LOU LANG REP DONALD MOFFITT REP ROSEMARY MULLIGAN REP ANDRÉ THAPEDI JOINT COMMITTEE

ON ADMINISTRATIVE

RULES CERTIFICATION

OF NO OBJECTION TO PROPOSED RULEMAKING

CLEç OFFICE JUL 142011 ST 1 ’T

OF ILLINQI 8 olftj, Control Boatd 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: AgreementsSECONDNOTICECHANGESAgency:PollutionControlBoardRulemaking:OrganicMaterialEmissionStandardsandLimitationsfortheMetroEastArea(35Ill.Adm.Code219;35III.Reg.5111)Changes:1.Inline1269,change“above”to“ofthissubsection(b)(3)”.2.Inline1356,change“jjp”to“p”.3.Inline1360,changethecommatoaperiod.4.Inlines1607,1615-1616,1623,1626and1633,change”Section219.187”to“subsection”.5.Inline1609,change“Section219.187(aXl)ofthisSubpart”to“subsection(a)(l)”.6.Inline1670,change”Section219.187(b)(3)ofthisSubpart”to“subsection(b)(3)”.7.Inline1672,change“which”to“that”.8.Inline2610,strikethecommaandadd“or”andstrike“,or”.9.Inline2611,strike“(i)(l)”.10.Inline2614,strikethecommasand“or(i)”andafter“(c)’add“or”.11.Reinstatelines2915-2969.12.Inline3546,deletethecommaandchange“IllinoisEPA”to“Agency”.13.Inline3548,after“by”delete“thc”.7/7/11SECONDNOTICECHANGESAgency:PollutionControlBoardRulemaking:OrganicMaterialEmissionStandardsandLimitationsfortheChicagoArea(35Iii.Adm.Code218;35Ill.Reg.4910)Changes:1.Inline1249,strike“and”.2.Inline1251,striketheperiodandaddasemicolon.3.Inline1315,change“above”to“ofthissubsection(b)(3)”.4.Inline1403,changeto“pp”.5.Inline1406,changethecommatoaperiod.6.Inlines1654,1662-1663,1670,1673and1680,change“Section218.187”to“subsection”.7.Inline1656,change“Section218.187(a)(l)ofthisSubpart”to“subsection(a)(1)”.8.Inline1717,change”Section218.187(b)(3)ofthisSubpart”to“subsection(b)(3)”.9.Inline1719,change“which”to“that”.10.Inline3689,deletethecommaandchange“IllinoisEPA”to“Agency”.11.Inline3691,after“by”delete“thc”.7/7/’]SECONDNOTICECHANGESAgency:PollutionControlBoardRulemaking:DefinitionsandGeneralProvisions(35Ill.Adm.Code211;35Ill.Reg.4887)Changes:1.Afterline668,add“(Source:Addedat35Ill.Reg.______,effective______)“.6/27/11JOINT COMMITTEE ONADMINISTRATIVE

RULES ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY CO-CHAIR: SEN. MAGGIE CROTTY CO-CHAIR: REP ANGELO
SKIP’ SAVIANO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: VICKI THOMAS

700 STRATTON BUILDING SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62706 21 7/785-2254 JOINT COMMITTEE

ON ADMINISTRATIVE

RULES

SEN. PAMELA ALTHOFF SEN. DON HARMON SEN. JOHN

0. JONES SEN. DALE RIGHTER SEN. IRA SILVERSTEIN REP GREGORY HARRIS REP LOU LANG REP. DONALD MOFFITT REF ROSEMARY MULLIGAN REP. ANDRÉ THAPEDI 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,

the Comittec determined

that
no Objection

will
be issued

to the above-mentioned rulemaking. July

12, 2011

Executive Director Attachments: AgreementsJOINTCOMMITTEEONADMINISTRATIVERULESILLINOISGENERALASSEMBLYCO-CHAIR:SEN.MAGGIECROTTYCO-CHAIR:REPANGELOSKIPSAVIANOEXECUTIVEDIRECTOR:VICKITHOMAS700STRATTONBUILDINGSPRINGFIELD,ILLINOIS62706217/765-2254SEN.PAMELAALTHOFFSEN.DONHARMONSEN.JOHN0.JONESSEN.DALERIGHTERSEN.IRASILVERSTEINREPGREGORYHARRISREP.LOULANGREPDONALDMOFFITTREPROSEMARYMULLIGANREP.ANDRÉTHAPEDI__________________________OFFICEc)FfLLOIitjoControlE3oaftJThisistocertifythattheJointCommitteeonAdministrativeRules,atits7/12/11meeting,consideredDefinitionsandGeneralProvisions(35111.Adrn.Code211),proposedbythePollutionControlBoardandpublishedinthe4/1/11issueoftheIllinoisRegister.Afterconsideration,andbasedupontheagreements,ifany,formodificationoftherulemakingmadebytheagencyandattachedtothisdocument,theCommitteedeterminedthatnoObjectionwillbeissuedtotheabove-mentionedrulemaking.Jui’12.2011VickiThomasExecutiveDirectorJOINTCOMMITTEEONADMINISTRATIVERULESCERTIFICATIONOFNOOBJECTIONTOPROPOSEDRULEMAKINGAttachments:AgreementsILLINOIS 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 2 11, 218, and 219 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) R11

- 23 (Rulemaking

- Air)

Adopt ed 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 E nvironmental Protection Agency (Agency or Illinois EPA) originated this proceeding by fil ing 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 Protect ion Agency (USEPA), t he Agency proposed amend ments 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, mis cellaneous industrial adhesives , and fiberglas s 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 pro posal. See 3 5 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 J oint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) issued its Certificate of No Objection to the Board’s proposal. JCAR made a limited number of non

substantive 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 open ed a subdocke t 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 first

notice opinion and order. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Emissions from Group II and Group IV Consumer and C ommercial 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 proced ural history of this rulemaking. The Board then briefly summariz es the statutory and regulatory background of VOM regulation. The opi nion 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 summariz ing them on a section

- by

- section basis. Finally, the o rder following the opinion sets forth the text of the rules

.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 7 , 201 1 , 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, an d 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 Coat ings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials” ( TSD Group IV ). The Agency also filed a motion f or waiver of copy requirements.

In an order dated March 17 , 201 1 , the Board accepted the Ag ency’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 1 7 , 201 1 , 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 deter mine 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 t o undertake such an economic impact study. Therefore, I must respectfully decline your request.”

In an order dated March 18, 201 1 , the hearing of ficer scheduled three hearings: the first beginning Wednesday, April 2 7 , 201 1 , in Chicago with pre

- filed te stimony due on or before Friday, April 1 5 , 201 1 ; the second beginning Wednesday, May 1 8 , 201 1 , in Chicago with pre

filed testimony due on or before Friday, May 6 , 201 1 ; and the third beginning Wednesday, June 1 , 2010, in Chicago with pre

- filed testimony du e on or before Friday, May 2 0 , 201 1

. See 415 ILCS 5/28.5 (e), (f) (2010 ).

First notice of the proposed rules appeared in the Illinois Register on April 1 , 201 1

. 3 5 Ill. Reg. 4887 ( Apr. 1 , 201 1 ); 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 witnesses3

included an Exhibit A, a letter from USEPA to the chief of the Agency’s a ir 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 Am endments 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, t he Board received the transcript of the first hearing (Tr.1). Duri ng 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 ) th at the second hearing take place as scheduled.

On May 6, 2011, Mr. Sell pre

- filed testimon y (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 Boein g 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 m otion 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 , s lip 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 subs tance 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 state d that it intended its p roposal to satisf y Illinois’ obligation to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing sources of VOM 2 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 report ed 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). T he Agency claimed that the CAA requires Illinois “to submit VOM regulations constituting R ACT [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 d efin ed 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 Mah ajan Test. at 2.

Specifically, t he Agency state d 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 report ed that

, “[o]n October 5, 2006, the USEPA issued final CTGs for Group II Consumer and Commercial Products.” SR at 4. The Agency also report ed that, “[o]n October 7, 2008, th e 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 7 3 Fed. Reg. 58484, 71 Fed. Reg. 58745

- 53

.

2 The Agency state d 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 Ag ency state d 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 note d that the Board subsequent ly adopted amendments. Reas onably 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) ; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RA CT) 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 indicate d that, on July 29

, 2010, it “submitt ed 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 in sufficient and that USEPA would not approve them without additional amendments.” SR at 4 ; see Mahajan Test. at 2

. The Agency state d that, while the USEPA ultimately “agreed that several of its suggested revisions were not necessary,” it insisted on a num ber 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 t he Agency to address. Bloomberg Test. at 3

, Mahajan Test. at 2

- 3 ; see Exh. A (USEPA letter to chief of Agency air bureau)

, USEPA Attach ment

. Mr. Bloomberg listed the following general issue s 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.” Bl oomberg 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. Bloombe rg 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 state d that “Ill inois 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 note d 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 note d that it submitted an attainment demonstration for the Chicago nonattainment area on March 19

, 2009. Id

. The Agency argue d 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

POTENTIALL Y 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 second

notice opin ion with regard to these issues

. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic E missions 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 rega rding 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 REASONABLE NESS

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 rea sonable.” SR at 8. The Agency state d 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 ea rlier review of technical feasibility and economic reasonableness and instead refers the reader to the second

- notice opin ion 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, lett erpress7

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 a nd 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, flexibl e 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
mat erials 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 prop osal. 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 respect fully 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 rec ord found that the regulations we re both technically feasible and economically reasonable. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group II Consumer & Commercial Prod ucts: 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 s 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 we re both technically feasible and economically reasonable. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group IV Consumer & Commercial Products: Proposed Amendment s 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 limite d 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 e ntities. See id . at 2, 5.

In addition, the Agency’s post

- hearing comments recommended additional amendments for the Board’s consideration. These recommendations include d, but we re 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 th ese recommendations stem from request s by regulated entit ies

. See id . at 5, 10

- 11

.8

I n all significant respects, th e 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 reason able 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: Definiti ons 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 a t 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 Co at

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 Biocida l 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 fi led 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 th at language to its proposal. Id . at 4

- 5. The Bo ard 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 t erm 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° m eter;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 (Se pt. 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 recommend ed an amendment to this definition in respon se to a comment by an industry representative. Specific ally, 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 90 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.” Mot. Amend at 5; but see Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Material Emissions from Group IV Consumer & Commercial Product s: 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 varie ty 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 . (emphasi s in original) ; see Townsend Test. at 5 ; Tr.2 at 15

.

In its first pos t

- 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 revisi on in its motion to amend ( see Mot. Amend at 5), the Agency state d that USEPA accept ed 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 sid ing, 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: Propo sed 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 propo se d 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 Atta chment 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 t o 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 p anel 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 ho mes 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 resis tance and ad hesion;

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: Propo sed Amendments to 35 Il. Adm. Code11

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 arg ue d that the def inition derived from South Coast Air Quality Management District regulations hinders the development of less toxic materials. See Sell Test. at 11. He state d that products meeting the current definition contain known carcinogens because t hose 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
att ribute of gloss result. Id

. In this definition, he claim ed 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 argue d that this approach has “tied industry to the current, well established but very toxic zinc

- based etch primers.” Id . Mr. Sell conclude d that the definition must be amended “ to allow for the introduction of safer, alternative etch systems wh ich 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” woul d “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 indicate d that USEPA might accept ACA’s proposed revision but “needs more i nformation 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 report ed that the ACA supplied additional information regarding its proposed definition of this term. PC 4 at 4. The Agency reported that USEPA d id not approve ACA’s amendment, “[a] s there is already an existing definition for pretre atment 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 concur red 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 whose12

grain or natural surface is obscured by filters and basecoats upon which a simulated grain or de corative 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 panel ing” 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 int o 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

- 1 0; 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 Emi ssion Standards and Limitati ons for the Chicago Area Part 219: Organic Material Emi ssion 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 Att achment 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 p arts an d 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: Solv ent 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 degre asing operations, Section 218/219.183 addresses open top vapor degreasing operation s , 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 (J une 17, 2010); 34 Ill. Reg. 9111

- 25 (July 9, 2010).

Subsection (a). In subsection (a)

, which addresses applicability, t he Agency proposed to extend the compliance deadline from April 1, 201 1, to January 1, 2012. SR at 10; Pro p. 218 at 27; Prop. 219 at 27.

Subsection (a)(1). In subsection (a)(1), t he Agency proposed to change the applicability threshold from a daily standard of 15 pounds of VOM emissions to a monthly standard of 500 pound s. 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 cal culation 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 “t wo 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 co mment that the screen printing emission limitation is sufficiently high to accommodate screen reclamation activities.” SR at 10; Pro p. 218 at 28; Prop. 219 at 27 ; see USEPA Attachment at 1.

Subsection (a)(2)(B). This existing provision establishes exem ptions 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 oper ations 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 (sub sections (a)(1)). Mr. Bloomberg responded “[y]es” and indicated tha t 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 subse ction (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 cate gories listed in Section14

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 i nquired 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 recomme nded 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 lan guage 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 su ch categories, and indeed sources may have operations that fall within multiple categories at the sa me location.” PC 4 at 7. The A gency proposed simply to strike the word “source” from the language of this introductory language. Id . at 8, 12. The Board has

concur red , and this amendment is reflected in its order below.

Subsection (a)(2)(B )(i)

. In this provision exempti ng cleaning operations at emission units within specified source categories, t he Agency sought to strike an exemption for aerospace

coa tings “ 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 2 8; Prop. 219 at 27

- 28 ; see USEPA Attachment at 1.

In his comment on behalf of Boeing, Mr. Shanks s tated that Boeing had recently begun its f irst Illinois manufacturing operation near Mascout ah in the Metro East ozone nonattainment

area . PC 3 at 1. He indic ated that Boeing’s operations i n a nonattainment area ordinarily “would be regulated by an Aeros pace VOM R ACT 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 note d 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. Sh anks argue d 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 not15

represent presumptive RACT, as de scribed in the Aerospace CTG.” PC 3 at 2 (citation omitted). Mr. Shanks briefly compare d the aerospace rules based upon the CTG and in effect in most nonattainment areas and those applicable under the Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations regulati ons. 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 t o 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 aerospa ce manufacturing.” PC 3 at 1; see id . at 2 (“Please retain the aerospace exemption. . . .”). Mr. Shanks state d that Boeing “will follow up with a separate rulemaking petition regarding an Aerospace RACT rule for metro east and a request for interim deter mination 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 report ed 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 argue d that USEPA requires removal of this exemption, “as the exemptions listed in this subsection are reserved for emission units already governed by regulations t hat 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 conclude d that, unti l 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 e xemptions for cleaning operations,
t he Agency proposed to amend “the exemption for medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturing operations to be consistent with language used i n other exclusions.” SR at 10

- 11; Prop. 218 at 29; Prop. 219 at 28

- 29.

I n their public comment filed April 15, 2011, SGIA and PII note d 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 requireme nts 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 d that the only recordke eping and reporting requirement applicable to sources exempt under16

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 ed that, “[a]s this information does not limit or reduce emissions in any way, it creates an unnecessary recordkeeping burden for exempt s ources and requires both exempt sources and the department to dedicate time to a task that does not improve air quality.” SGIA and PII request ed 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 d that subsection (a)(2)(c) could be merged with subsection (a)(2)(B). Id

. at 2.

In its post

- h earing comment, the Agency noted this request to exclude s pecified cleaning
ope rations fro m recordkeeping obligations. PC 2 at 2. The Agency state d 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” t he proposed change, “as the USEPA could once again disapprove the rule if such changes are made.” Id . at 3. The Board has concur red and has not included this change in its order below.

During the first hearing, Mr. Davis on behalf of IERG noted that cl eaning 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 t hresholds. 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 a t 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 h as concur red 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 manufactur ing 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 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, 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 propose d 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)(x iv ). 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 d 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 t o 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 s tated 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 t he 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 cov ered by the regulations governing lithographic printing lines. . . .” PC 4 at 2, citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.405

- 411, 219.405

- 411. The Agency argue d 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 ab le to rely on the existing exemption for metering rollers, dampening rollers, and printing plates, the Agency argue d that it is necessary to retain it and recommends against striking it. PC 4 at 2

- 3. The Agency add ed that it “does not believe that the ri sk of confusion for lithographic printers i s 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). I n 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 cleanin g performed with aerosol products if such use falls below a specified threshold.” Id

. Having obtained USEPA’s approval of su ch a change, the Agency proposed to amend existing Section 218/219.187(a)(2)(C), which provides that various cleaning operations a re 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 recommend ed adding the following language18

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 concur red , and this addition is reflected in its order below.

Subsection (a)(2)(C)(xviii). I n 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 d 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 d that material and control requirements at subsection (b)(1)(A) refer t o product cleaning, but they
argue d 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 d 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; s ee 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 ed 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 “US EPA 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 state d that, although it has sought this information and believes th at SGIA and PII are preparing a response, it ha d not yet received one. Id . The Agency indicate d 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 ame ndment. Id. The Agency report ed 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 Dist rict regulations, which do not include such an exemption. Id . at 2. The Agency state d 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 recommend ed 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 concur red , and this addition is reflected in its order below.19

Subsect ion (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 pr oduction 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 requireme nts 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 li ters (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 concur red , 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 a t 30

- 32; Prop. 219 at 30

- 32 ; see USEPA Attachment at 1

- 2

. Subsection (b)(1). In this subsection, t he 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 propose d to remove an exemption for screen reclamation ac tivities, the Agency recommended “ specifying that th e VOM limitation for screen printing includes such activities.” SR at 1 1; see Prop. 218 at 31; Prop. 219 at 30

. Subsection (b)(2). In its motion to amend t he proposal, the Agency responded to a request from an industry representative by recommending an addition to this compliance alternative . Specifically, the Agency soug ht “to add the term ‘VOM’ to a reference to composite vapor pressure.” Mot. Amend at 1

- 2. The Agency indicate d that it had mistakenly omitted this term from its original proposal. Id . at 1. Having granted the Agency’s motion to amend, the Board include s 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 requireme nts 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 propose d to add work pra ctice 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 provid ing recordkeeping and reporting require ments, 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 propose d to change the applicability stand ard from a daily to a monthly limit. SR at 11; Prop. 218 at 33

- 34; Prop. 219 at 33. In addition, the Agency recommend ed “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 compli ance, 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. F inally, 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 th at VOM regulations do “not include a provision for retention of cleaning solvent in shop towe ls.” PC 1 at 3. SGIA and PII note d that the recordkeeping requirement applicable to lithographic printers “provides for 50 percent retention of cleaning solutions used with sho p towels kept in closed containers that have a vapor pressure of 10 mm Hg or l ess at 20 oC (68oF) .” Id . citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.411(b)(1) (B)(iv). SGIA and PII cited USEP A documents to argue that “[t]he same VOM retention factor should be included in this rule.” PC 1 at 3. Specifically, they propose d 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 solu tion is less than 10 mmHg measured at 20oC (68oF) and the shop towels are kept in closed containers. For cleanin g 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 firs t 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 less21

and that are kept in closed containers.” PC 2 at 3. The Agency state d that it “do es 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 add ed that “USEPA has advised that the revision is acceptable, provided that sourc es must demonstrate that the vapor pressure falls below the specified threshold.” Id . at 3 ; see Tr.2 at 22

- 23 . Accordingly, the Agency propose d to amend Section 218/219.187(e)(1)(A)(ii) as follows:

1) The owner or operator of a source exempt from the li mitations 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) C alculations 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 mmH g 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 state d 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 s h ave a vapor pressure below the applicable threshold.” PC 4 at 6. The Agency believe ed that this proposed language would not subject sources to additional requirements. Id . The Agency elaborate d 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 s to support emissions calculations, in cluding 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.” I d . 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 rec ordkeeping 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’ exc lusions, 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 concur red in these revisions, which are reflected in its order below.

Subsecti on (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
note d 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 state d that, regarding industrial adhe sives, USEPA had insisted upon an amendment requiring the addi tion of continuous monitoring equipment when a carbon adsorber is used to demonstrate compliance. PC 4 at 16, citing USEPA Attachment. The Agency add ed that USEPA noted that industrial cleanin g solvent provisions present the same issue. PC 4 at 16. Accordingly, the Agency propose d 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 c ontinuous 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 state d 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 concur red with the Agency’ recommendation, and this revision is reflect dint he order below.

Subsection (g). In this subsection providing testing requirements, the Agency propose d 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, Pr op

. 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 218.20 4

- 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 re commended defining the term as “t he 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)

. F inally, 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.

Subsectio n (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, t he Agency proposed to delete subs ection (q)(1)(A)(iii) provid ing 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 Agen cy noted that the Board ha d 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 note d 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 6 0 ; see USEPA Attachment at 5

. Subsection (q)(1)(I). In this subsection addressing high performance architectural coatings, t he Agency proposed to amend VOM limitations

. The Agency state d that, although the current limitations reflect the recommendation s 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 pro posed 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 218.2 04(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 report ed that “USEPA determined that it had not been suffici ently 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” i n 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 recommend ed 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 bus iness 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 “USE PA 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). E xisting 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 state d that the cat egory of extreme high gloss coatings is a relatively small but very important element of25

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 requir ed. . . .” Id

. (emphasis in original). He state d that high solids topcoats have not been well

- received and found “to be inferior to traditional, higher VOC containing products.” Id

. He further state d that low

VOM coatings may be less durable and cost s ignificantly more than higher

- VOM products. Id

. Mr. Sell explain ed 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 emphasize d that the SCAQMD r egulations 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 add ed 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 fore see 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 state d that “[t]he averaging alternative was intended to satisfy the pleasure craft coating ind ustry’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 report ed 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 o f 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 indicate d that USEPA accepts this amendment, “provided that the existing emissions averaging alterna tive 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 th ese 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 a nd must flow out to produce the desired finish. Id . He argue d that these effects require products with higher solvent content for primers and topcoats. Id . Mr. Sell claim ed that low

- VOM products require time to develop and evaluate, may cost significan tly more than high

- VOM products, and often necessitate changing work practices and increased labor costs. Id . He prop osed that, for a four

year period, the limit for this subcategory be raised from 420 g/l to 600 g/l. Id

. In its first post

- hearing com ment filed May 16, 2011, the Agency reported that USEPA would allow amendments to the VOM limitations for pleasure craft surface coatings, “provided26

that the existing averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10

- 11; PC 4 at 3. The A gency state d 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 report ed 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 amend ing 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 Januar y 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 l b /gal) coatings and 0.80 kg/l (6.7 lb/gal) solids. PC 2 at 11 , 21

. The Agency state d 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 concur red 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 develop ing 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 redu ced, it “must be replaced with something non

volatile, 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 argue d 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 40 0 g/l “is therefore required.” Id

. In its first p ost

- 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 state d 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 n o further need for an averaging option.” Id

. The Agency report ed 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 altern ative 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 concur red 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 state d 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 con vention 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 propos ed 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 co atings for metal or plastic.” Id

. at 12, 21. The Board has concur red 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 propose d 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 e limination 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 concur red and r eflects this proposal in its order below.

Subsection (b). Section 218/219.206 addresses alternative emission limitations and provides an equation for expressing l imitations in terms of kg (lbs) of VOM emissions per 1 (gal) of solids , or “S” . 35 Ill. Ad m. 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 li mitation.” 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 coati ngs, “provided that the existing averaging alternative for such coatings is eliminated.” PC 2 at 10

- 11. The Agency state d 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 preferenc e 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 concur red with this proposal and reflects it in its ord er 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; Pr op. 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, t he Agency proposed “to clarify that certain recordkeeping requirements pertain to each coating appli ed 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 surface r operation s , topcoat operations, and combined primer surface and topcoat op erations, the Agency proposed to add language requiring “that sources collect and record all information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the topcoat protocol reference d in Section 218/219.105(b).” SR at 14; see Prop. 218 at 87; Prop. 219 at 84 ; s ee 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 A gency 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.” P C 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 furthe r 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 an d amending certain limits. . . .” Id . The Agency propose d 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 concur red 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 t itle 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 additio nal 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 line s 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, t he Agency first proposed amending the compliance dat e 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 Pro p. 219 at 100.

Subsection (d). In this subsection addressing a weighted averaging alternative, t he 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 a t 15; see Prop. 218 at 106; Prop. 219 at 102

- 03 ; see USEPA Attachment at 3

. Subsection (f). T he 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.

Th e Agency proposed to amend subsection (a) “by clarifying that testing must be done by the compliance d ate.” 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 d that the Agency’s proposal to require testing of oxidizers on heatset web offset pr esse s by January 1, 2012

, unless they had been tested since January 1, 2010

, “needs to be revised.” PC 1 at 4. They argue d 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 d the $10,000

- 15,000 cost of stack testing to demonstrate compliance to claim that duplicate testing is not economically reasonable, particularly when temperature monitori ng data exists. Id

. SGIA and PII also argue d that USEPA documents support a revision. Id

. (citation omitted). Finally, SGIA and PII argue d 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 d 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 d 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 prio r 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 con ducted by the owner or operator within 90 180 days after a request by31

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 writi ng 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 respond ed to a comment by an industry representative by recommending revision of this subsection. Mo t. 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 requirement s, 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

. T he Agency propose d 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, 19 95, 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 Agen cy has 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 I llinois 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 th e 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 concur red and reflects this language i n its order below.

The Ag ency note d 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 report ed that USEPA has in dicated “that the applicable ‘cut

- off date’ for retesting requirements is May 9, 19 9 5, the original effective date of the requirements in Section 218/219.407.” Id

. The Agency also indicate d 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 request ed that the Board not adopt the language proposed by SGIA a nd PII. Id

. ; see PC 2 at 1.32

The Agency also note d 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 stresse d that the 90

- day requirement has been in effect “for many yea rs” and argued that SGIA and PII have not shown that an additional 90 days are warranted. Id . at 4. The Agency add ed that “it is unclear whether this ch ange would be acceptable to the USEPA.” PC 2 at 1

- 2. The Agency state d that it “opposes this revision.” Id . at 3 ; see PC 2 at 1. The Board has concur red with the Agency on these issues, and the proposed changes are not reflected in its order below.

S ection 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 bur den that contradicts the purpose of allowing facilities to determine exemption based on material use thresholds.” PC 1 at 5. They elaborate d that requiring recordkeeping beyond the amount of materials used “creates a significant recordkeeping burden whil e providing no additional benefit.” Id

. SGIA and PII suggest ed 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 ed 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 note d 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 concurr ed with the Agency, and the order below does not reflect the recommendation of SGIA and PII.

Also i n 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 oper ations “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 state d that,

[t]o remain consistent with the language reco mmended 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 emission33

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, state d 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 Agenc y believed that this proposed language would not subject sources to additional requirements. Id . The Agency elaborate d that existing language requires exempt sources

to submit a certification to the Agency setting forth calculations that demonstrate tha t the source does not exceed the applicability threshold. Complying with this requirement necessarily entails maintaining sufficient record s to support emissions calculations, including those necessary to demonstrate that cleaning solutions satisfy the cr iteria for use of the emission adjustment factor. Id

. The Agency add ed that, even in the absence of this requirement, “sources are always required to demonstrate compliance.” Id . at 6

- 7. The Agency argue d that its amendment “simply clarifies this oblig ation, 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.

Th e 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.

Subs ection (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 13 4 ; 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 unn ecessary 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 p roposed “to clarify that the formula s 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 state d that “it recently noticed that plus sign (“+”) is mi ssing between the third and fourth terms of Equation 3” in this subsection. PC 2 at 30. The Agency recommend ed 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 b elow.

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 v alue 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 a nd Monitoring Requirements.

Subsection (a). The A gency 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 Agency35

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 “recordke eping 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: M iscellaneous 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 ad hesives 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 daily

w eighted 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 state d that its original proposal “recommended changing ‘M i ’ to ‘V i ’ in the equation and changing the definition of ‘V i ’ to reference only units of volume,
not u nits of mass.” Mot. Amend at 4. The Agency note d , however, that the first

- notice version of the propos a l pub lished in the Illinois Register deleted the units of volume from the definition of ‘V i ’ instead of the units of mass. Id ., citing 35 Ill. Reg. 4887, 5101. The Agency assumed “that this was an unintentional tra nscription 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 al ternatives 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 compli ance “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 pro posed to amend subsections (a) and (b) “to clarify the monitoring
requ irements 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 p roposed 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 Pr op. 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 n umber of changes by JCAR.

ORDER

The Board directs the Clerk to file the following adopted rule s with the Secretary of State for publication in the Illinois Register

. A dditions to the rules are underlined, and d eletions from them appear stricken.

TITL E 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 2 11.101 Incorporated and Referenced Materials 211.102 Abbreviations and Conversion Factors