April 8, 2011 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Region 1 

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 

Boston, MA 02109-3912 

Barbara HofFman 

Dept. of Environmental Services 

29 Hazen Drive; P.O. Box 95 

Concord, NH 03302-0095 

Dear Ms. Hoffman: 

We are writing to provide comment and 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 EPA Control Techniques Guidelines for these source categories . You 

will find EPA's comments in the Enclosure. 

New Hampshire should submit these rules to the EPA as State Implementation Plan 

revision once they are adopted by the State . 

If you have any questions on this issue, please contact David Mackintosh of my staff at 

617-918-1584. 

Sincerely, 

Anne Arnold, Manager 

Air Quality Planning Unit 

Enclosure 
EPA'S COMMENTS ON NEW HAMPSHIRE'S 

PROPOSED VOC RACT 

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, for the 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, for the 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 Limits for Coating of Paper, Fabric, Film and Foil 

Substrates. 

(a) A paper, fabric, film, or foil coating operation that has a TPE equal to or greater than 

10 tons per consecutive 12-month period, but less than 25 tons per consecutive 12-month 

period, shall be limited at all times to an emission rate of 0. 35 kg v0Cll, equivalent to 

2.9 lb YOCfgallon, of coating, as applied, excluding water and exempt compounds. 

Lb1 A naper fabric, flm, or foil cvatlng operation that has a TPE equal to or greater 

than 25 tons ner consecre,ttye 1Lmgnth 

,period, 

shall be United at all #mes b,efore 

Januarv 1, 2016 to an emission rate ©f 0.35 ka VUClf, equi!valent to 2 9 Ib IrUGf~allon, 

of eoatfns, as apivlied, eaccltidenz water and exemyt carnnoa_cnd,r. 

(bc_) A paper, fabric, film, ©r foil coating operation that has a TPE equal to or greater 

than 25 tons per consecutive 12-month period, as applied, shall be limited at all times on 

and after January 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, the proposed 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 EPA as a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, the state should address the anti-backsliding provisions 

of Sections 110(1) of the 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 EPA memorandum, 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 should add 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 : 

"If more than One eEissivrc limit applies to a specific coating, then the least stringent 

emisswn lemit shall apply. 

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, "VOC Content Limits Per Volume Solids," the limits 

for Pretreatment Coatings (Baked) are inconsistent with the EPA CTG for Miscellaneous 

Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (MMPPC). See Table 7 (p. 36) of the CTG. 

6. In Table 1212-7, `iVOC Content Limits Based on Low-VOC Coatings," NH's proposed 

limits for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat and Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating are less 

stringent than the EPA CTG for MMPPC operations. In addition, NH is proposing an 

Antifouiing Sealer/Tie Coating category with a less stringent limit than the CTG Other 

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 of VOC per 

gallon of selidss coatin ." 

8. Part Env-A 1221 .07, states that certain activities are "exempt from the requirements in EnvA 1219 .08." However, Env-A 1219 .08 does not exist. It appears the reference should be to 

Env-A 1221 .08. 

9. These amendments address nine of the CTGs issued by the EPA from 2006 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 

AIR OUALITY PLANNING 

AND STANDARDS 

SUBJECT: Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain 

Coatings Categories 

FROM: Scott Mathias, Interim Direc 

Air Quality Policy Division ( 

TO: Regional Air Division Directors 

The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has received requests from 

Regional Offices for guidance on approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

resulting from newly-issued Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) documents. These 

CTGs provide recommendations to inform state determinations as to what constitutes 

reasonably available control technology (RACT). In some cases, the newly-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 from categories of consumer and 

commercial products . They replace similar CTGs issued by EPA in 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 SIP revision in response to any newly-issued CTGs.I 

If an existing SIP contains 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 SIP revision a certification that the existing SIP meets RACT requirements . 

I CAA section 182(b)(2) requires Moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to revise SIPs when a new 

CTG is issued by EPA after 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 of one year 

after the CTG was issued (See 72 FR 57215 Oct 9, 2007 and 73 FR 5848 Oct 7, 2008). 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 

Internet Address (URI.) + http ://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable ON Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) 
We anticipate that EPA Regional Offices would be able to approve the RACT determinations 

in these circumstances. 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 EPA decision 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 SIP approval 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 if the 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 from another source category in 

another industry to offset the increased emissions from the specialty coatings. In general, if a 

proposed SIP revision achieves the same or 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 of CAA 

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 CTG limits for these 

industries. According to the docketed information, the estimated reductions from the new 

CTGs are 30 to 35 percent greater than from the 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 of the 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 from the 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 a different volume usage distribution among categories, the state may need to do 

an area-specific assessment of whether tighter restrictions for some coatings, coupled with 

2 
less 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