April 8, 2011 UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Region 1 

### 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Boston, MA 02109-3912

Barbara HofFman Dept . ofEnvironmental Services 29 Hazen Drive; P.O

. Box 95 Concord, NH03302-0095 Dear Ms. Hoffman: We arewriting to provide commentand support for the State of New Hampshire's proposal of the revised regulation Env-A 1200 (currently Env-A 1204), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) . We have reviewed the proposed regulations and have found that they are generally consistent with the EPAControl Techniques Guidelines for these source categories. You will find EPA's comments in the Enclosure. 

### New Hampshire should submit theserules to the EPAas State Implementation Plan revision once they are adopted by the State. Ifyou have any questions on this issue, please contact David Mackintosh of my staffat 617-918-1584. Sincerely, Anne Arnold, Manager Air Quality Planning Unit Enclosure

### EPA'S COMMENTS ON NEW HAMPSHIRE'S PROPOSED VOCRACT Env-A 1200 (currently Env-A 1204)

March 2011 1 . The proposed Section 1207.03 does not include requirements for paper, fabric, film, or foil coating operations that have theoretical potential emissions (TPE) equal to or greater than 25 tons per consecutive 12-month period, forthe time period between now and January 1, 2016. These sources should be required to continue to meet the requirements of New Hampshire's existing rules, forthe time period between now and January 1, 2016

. Therefore, EPA 

### recommends that the state revise Section 1207.03 as follows: "Env-A 1207.03 Emission Rate Limitsfor CoatingofPaper, Fabric, FilmandFoil Substrates

. (a) Apaper, fabric,film, orfoil coatingoperation that has a TPE equal to or greater than 10tonsper consecutive 12-month period, but less than 25 tons per consecutive 12-month period, shall be limitedat all times to an emission rate of0 .35 kg v0Cll, equivalent to 2 .9 lb YOCfgallon, ofcoating, as applied, excluding water andexempt compounds . Lb1Anaper fabric, flm, or foil cvatlng operation that hasa TPEequalto or greater than 25 tons ner consecre,ttye 1Lmgnth ,period, shall be United at all #mes b,efore Januarv 1, 2016to an emission rate ©f0 .35 ka VUClf, equi!valent to 29Ib IrUGf~allon, ofeoatfns, as apivlied, eaccltidenz water and exemyt carnnoa_cnd,r. (bc_) Apaper, fabric,film, ©rfoil coating operation that has a TPE equalto or greater than 25 tonsper consecutive 12-monthperiod, as applied, shall be limitedat all times on andafterJanuary 1, 2016 to either the emission rates or control efficiency, as applied, as specified in table 1207-1, below : " 2 . New Hampshire's proposed emission limits for metal furniture coating and miscellaneous metal and plastic parts product coating operations are consistent with EPA's 2008 Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document for these categories. However, theproposed limits for certain specialty coatings are less stringent than New Hampshire's existing SIP-approved rule. Therefore, when New Hampshire submits the revised rule to the EPAas a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, the state should address the anti-backsliding provisions of Sections 110(1) ofthe Clean Air Act. For example, New Hampshire could point to the fact that the amendments also include emission limits for some large use categories (i .e., one component and multi-component general use coatings) that are more stringent than the SIPapproved rule. These more stringent limits may off-set the relaxation in the specialty coatings. For more information, see the enclosed EPAmemorandum, titled "Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirement for Certain Coatings Categories," dated March 17, 2011 . 3. When emission limits for both general use and specialty coating categories are included in a regulation, there is the possibility that an individual application could be covered by more than one category. For these overlapping categories, the least stringent emission limit should

### apply. Therefore, New Hampshire shouldadd a footnote to Tables 1209-1, 1209-2, 1212-1, 1212-2, 1212-3, i212-4, 1212-5, 1212-6, 1212-7, 1212-8, 1212-9, and 1220-1 as follows:

" Ifmore than One eEissivrc limit applies to aspecific coating, then theleaststringent emisswnle

mitshallapply

. 4 . In sections 1209.92W, 1212.01(c), and 1216.01(b) insert wording as follows, " . . .that first becomes subject to this part on or after the effective date of this chapter." 5. It should be noted that in Table 1212-2, "VOCContent Limits Per Volume Solids," the limits for Pretreatment Coatings (Baked) are inconsistent with the EPACTGfor Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (MMPPC) . See Table 7 (p. 36) of the CTG . 6 . In Table 1212-7, `iVOCContent Limits Based on Low-VOC Coatings," NH's proposed limits for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat and Other Substrate AntifoulantCoating are less stringent than the EPACTGfor MMPPCoperations. In addition, NHis proposing an Antifouiing Sealer/Tie Coating category with a less stringent limit than the CTGOther Substrate Antifoulant category. New Hampshire should provide, in its SIP submittal to EPA, supporting technical information demonstrating that the proposed limits represent RACT for these three categories. 7. In Part Env-A 1214.02 (c), edit as follows, "An emission limit of 2 .1 pounds ofVOCper gallon ofselidss coatin ." 8 . Part Env-A 1221 .07, states that certain activities are "exempt fromthe requirements in EnvA 1219.08." However, Env-A 1219.08does not exist. It appears the reference should be to Env-A 1221 .08. 9 . These amendments address nine of the CTGs issued by the EPAfrom2006 to 2008. The two CTGs that have not been addressed are large appliance coatings and automobile and light duty truck assembly coatings. New Hampshire must adopt rules, or submit negative declarations, for these two categories.MEMORANDUM 

## MAR 1 7 2011 OFFICE OF AIROUALITY PLANNING ANDSTANDARDS SUBJECT: Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain

Coatings Categories FROM : Scott Mathias, InterimDirec Air Quality Policy Division ( TO : Regional Air Division Directors The Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards has received requests from Regional Offices for guidance on approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions resulting fromnewly-issued Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) documents. These CTGs provide recommendations to informstate determinations as to what constitutes reasonably available control technology (RACT) . In some cases, thenewly-issued CTGs contain recommended emission limits that are less stringent than limits recommended in older CTGs covering the same industry, and may be less stringent than limits already adopted into SIPs based on the older CTGs. This is the case for industries covered by CTGs pertaining to Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. The U . S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new CTGs far these categories in 2007 and 2008, under authority of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 183(e), to address volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions fromcategories ofconsumer and commercial products. They replace similar CTGs issued by EPAin 1977 and 1978. The new CTGs recommend more stringent limits for general use coatings, but also include new recommendations for several "specialty use" categories that are less stringent than the general use limits established in the 1970s guidelines. States are required to submit a SIPrevision in response to any newly-issued CTGs.I If an existing SIPcontains requirements that are not less stringent than the applicability thresholds and/or coating operations limits recommended in new CTGs, the state may choose to submit as a SIPrevision a certification that the existing SIP meets RACT requirements. I CAAsection 182(b)(2) requires Moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to revise SIPs when a new CTG is issued by EPAafter 1990 . EPA is required to set a SIP submission deadline with the issuance of each CTG . For CTGs we have issued in the past several years, we have specified a submission deadline ofone year after the CTGwas issued (See 72 FR 57215 Oct 9, 2007 and 73 FR 5848 Oct 7, 2008) .

UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

RESEARCHTRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711

Internet Address (URI .) + http://www .epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable .Printed with Vegetable ON Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum25% Postconsumer)We anticipate that EPARegional Offices would be able to approve the RACT determinations

in thesecircumstances. We note that EPA's recornmendations in CTGs are generally treated as "presumptive" ItACT and states may demonstrate that other limits are RACT for one or more sources within the source category addressed by the CTG . Where a state has previously determined that more stringent applicability thresholds and/or control levels are RACT for one or more sources in a source category and the sources have complied with those requirements, then those existing controls should be considered RACT for such sources. If a state chooses to revise more stringent rules that are already in the approved SIP, so that those rules reflect the less-stringent recommended limits in the new CTGs, there are additional considerations that must be factored into any EPAdecision to approve the SIP revision. The state would need to first demonstrate that the SIP-approved control requirements are not reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility, consistent with EPA's definition of RAC'I' . See 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979) . In addition, in order to comply with the SIPapproval conditions of CAA section 110(1), the state would need to demonstrate that the revision to the SIP would not interfere with attainment of, or reasonable further progress toward attainment of, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, nor interfere with any other applicable requirement of the CAA . This would be demonstrated ifthe stricter limits on general use coatings provide sufficient emission reductions to entirely offset any emission increase caused by adopting the less stringent limits for specialty coatings. Alternatively, the state could adopt supplemental measures that achieve additional emission reductions fromanother source category in another industry to offset the increased emissions fromthe specialty coatings. In general, if a proposed SIPrevision achieves the sameor greater emission reductions as the approved SIP within the same timeframe as provided under the existing plan, the Regional Office should be able to determine that the SIP revision is consistent with the approval conditions ofCAA section I10(1) . The public dockets for the Large Appliance Coatings and the Metal Furniture Coatings CTGs contain information that states may find helpful in determining the reductions that can be achieved by adopting the new general use category CTGlimits for these industries. According to the docketed information, the estimated reductions fromthe new CTGs are 30 to 35 percent greater than fromthe older CTGs. See documents EPA-HQOAR-2007-0329-0009 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0334-0010 in dockets EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0329 and EPA-I-IQ-OAR-2007-0334, respectively. The increase in emissions reductions in any specific nonattainment area may vary depending on the volume usage distribution among the general and specialty categories in that area. The dockets for the new C'I"Gs do not contain area-specific analyses of potential emissions reductions. Generally, if a state believes the volume usage distribution among the general and specialty categories in the docket is representative of the distribution in the nonattainment area, we believe that if a state undertakes wholesale adoption ofthe new categorical limits in a specific CTG, the state may rely on the assessments in the docket to demonstrate that the range of new limits will result in an overall reduction in emissions fromthe collection of covered coatings. However, if a state adopts some specialty category limits, but not all of the new categorical limits, or determines that it has adifferent volume usage distribution among categories, the state may need to do an area-specific assessment ofwhether tighter restrictions for some coatings, coupled with 2less stringent restrictions on other coatings would provide overall equal or greater emissions

reductions than the set of rules based on the recommendations in the 1970s guidelines. If you have further questions on SIP-related issues you should contact Butch Stackhouse at (919) 541-5208. If you have further technical questions on the topics covered in this mennorandum

you should contact Kaye Whitfield at (919) 541-2509. cc: Robin Dunkins, SPPD Kimber Scavo, AQPD David Orlin, OGC Sara Schneeberg, OGC