BryanW. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairmary.,

. Buddy Garcia,'Commissioner ",

. Carlos Rubinstein;**Commission~r""** " MarkR. Vickery; f.G.,**Executive'Dir~cfor** " 

## RECE\VED

- 6POL**~lR** 

## PlAHN\HG S£C. 12 JAM 24 PH 2: 

## 51

, l. ", "" : 

### TEXAS-COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIlY Protecting Texas byReducing andPreventingPollution January 

### 17,2012



### Alfredo Armendariz, Ph.D. Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

### Dear Dr. Armendariz: 

### Docket No. 2011-oo83-SIP Project No. 2010-028-SIP-NR

On December 7, 2011, 

### the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) adopted revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Houston-GalvestonBrazoria (HGB) 1997 eight-hour ozone National AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Commission adoptedrevisions to the SIP to include a reasonably available control technology (RACT) analysis update to include Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) thathave not yet been addressed in the HGB Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard submittedto EPA on April 6, 2010. 

### The SIP revision also incorporates concurrently adopted CTG-relatedrule revisions to 30 

### Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115 

### for the HGB area. Enclosed are the proposed revisions to the SIP, a public hearing certification, a complete record ofthe public hearings, and the accompanying order. Ilookforvvard to your expeditious approval ofthese SIP revisions. 

# iCerelY,**W~**

# B~W,Ph.D. Chairman BWS/jmm Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor ofTexas Mr. Toby Baker, Office ofBudget, Planning and Policy, Office ofthe Governor Mr. Mark R. 

### Vickery, P.G., Executive Director, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P,O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • www.tceq.texas.gov Howis ourcustomer service? www.tceq.texas.gov/goto/customersurvey

### TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Docket No. 2011-oo83-SIP Project No. 2010-028-SIP-NR



### THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS This is to certifythat the attached are true and correct copies ofdocuments for a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan, adopted on December 7, 2011, 

### pursuantto 40 

### Code ofFederal Regulations § 

### 51.104. 

### I am the records administrator for theAir Quality Division ofthe Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission).



### (\ \

# ka/>\~~9./I....**~_** J.n

..

# ~er,~' T'Air Quality Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

### Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Public Hearings July 18 and July 22, 2011 Concerning Revisions to the HGB RACT Analysis Update SIP Revision Project No. 2010-028-SIP-NRINTRODUCTION

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) held public hearings in Houston on July 18, 2011; and in Austin on July 22,2011, to receive testimony regarding the proposed HoustonGalveston-Brazoria (HGB) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RAeT) Analysis Update State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard.

To conform to United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules and gUidance, the SIP revision updates the RAeT analysis for volatile organic compounds emission sources 

### to include Control Techniques Guidelines (eTG) that were not addressed in the HGBAttainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard, submitted 

### to the EPA on April 6, 2010. The revision also incorporates concurrent eTG-related rule revisions in 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115, Subchapter E.

The comment period was originally scheduled to close on July 25, 2011, butwas extended to August 8, 2011. All testimony and comments have been reviewed and seriously considered. This hearing record contains a complete record of the public hearings and is divided into the following four sections:

o Public Notification and Proposal

o Written and Oral Testimony

o Evaluation of Testimony

o Staff Recommendations/Order

# PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PROPOSALPUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Notification to the public of the proposed revisions was conducted by the following procedures:

1. Publication of notice of public hearings in the following newspapers on the date listed: Austin American-Statesman: June 10, 2011 Houston Chronicle: June 10, 2011

2. Publication of notice of extension of comment period in the following newspapers on the date listed: Austin American-Statesman: July 12, 2011 Houston Chronicle: July 12, 2011

3. Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in the June 24, 2011, issue of the Texas Register (36TexReg 3985).

4. Publication of an extension of comment period in the July 22, 2011, issue of the Texas Register (36TexReg 4712)

5. Correspondence forwarding the notice of public hearings to the following officials and agencies: Speaker of the House Lieutenant Governor Alamo Area Council of Governments Capital Area Planning Council City of Austin, Mayor's Office City of Dallas, Department of Environmental Quality City of Dallas, Department of AviationCity of EI Paso, Environmental Services City of Fort Worth, Environmental Management Department City of Houston, Department of Health and Human Services City of Houston, Mayor's Office City of Irving, Mayor's Office Dallas County Judge East Texas Council of Govemments EI Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization Federal Highway Administration Galveston County Health District Harris County Judge Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services North Central Texas Council of Governments Houston-Galveston Area Council South East Texas Regional Planning Commission Texas Department of Transportation Travis County JUdge Victoria Metropolitan Planning Organization Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology louisiana Department of Environmental Quality New Mexico Environmental Department Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality United States Environmental Protection AgencyExample of Newspaper Classified Ad
Austin American-Statesman, June 10, 2011

NOTICE'OF; ..uiluc HEARINGS BY THE TEXAs COMMIsSION ON ENVIflONMENTAL QUAUFY ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 TAC CHAPTER 115 AND TO:THE STAn IMPLEMENTATIO'..a PLAN The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will conduct public hearings to receive testimony regarding PrOposed reVisions to 30 TAC Chapter ,i, 15, :Control of Ajr Pollution from Volatile Orgar.ic Compounds, ,and correspOnding**~ions** to**t~e** Slate imp:lementatiOl1 p1an.(SIp) !Jnder the requirements Of Texas Healtl1 and Safety C,oc:Ie,:3B2,017; Texas**Go...e~,rneni** :Code. Chapter:20Cl, Subchapter B; and 40 Coc:Ie of,Fl!deral Regulations 51.1"02,' ,a,lld the United States Envi,rcnrnenta,1 Protection Agency (EPA) concerning SIf's. Ac!ditionally, the commission wilf also receive teStimony regarding the proPO,aed Houston-Gatveston- Br.izo.ria (HGB) Reasonably Availa.ble Control ,Tec:hnology (RACT) Analysis Update SIP Revision for tile**1997'Eigtit~Hour** OZOne Standant The commission prtJpQs'es to**~rnend** Chapter 115, SubChapter B, Division 1, Storage of\/,oIatHe Organic Compounds, to require a more stringent level of centrol tor volatile organic 'COmpounds (VOC) storage in the Dalias-Fort\"Jorth 1997 eight-hour**Ozo'~e,nonattainment** area. In addition, the'proposed rultmaking' would c1.arity rule**require~~nts** and 'allow for the**ll~:or** alternative :cont,rcl options for affected owners or**opera~rs** in the following areas: HGB 1997 eight-hour'ozone nonattainmentarea, Beaumont-Port ArthUr area, and in Aransas" Bexar, Calhoun, EI Paso,**~regg,** Matagorda, N\Jeces, San pabicio, Travis, and Victoria**Counti~.** (Rule**'ProJ~t** Number 201**D-02S~1,1S.EN)** The proposed**amendments'~** Chapter 115, Subdlapter E, Solvent-Using Processes., would implement RACT requirements lor the following eight Control Techniques Guidel,ines (eTG) emissio" source categories: Flexible Packaging Printing Materials; Industrial Cleaning Solvents; 'Large ApplianCe Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatirlgs,rPaper, ,fdm, and Fon, Coatings; Alitr:l and**Light~DiJty** TrucitAssembly :Coatings;**Mis~lIaneoiJs** Industrial Adhesives; and,Mi:':tellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts, Coatings- (Rule Project

. Number**2010'-o1,6~115.EN)** The propOSed HGB SIP revision would pro'llde 'a RACT analysis updateto address

_ CTG docifmentS that**~have** not yet 'b8en included in the ,ttG'B Attainment'**oemonslr3ti~)f1** (AD) SIP**Revisl~n** for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard and incorporate concumlOtly p:roposed, CTG-related ,Il,demaking for the HGB area. (S;IP ProJect, NUl!lber**,~01~.Q28. SIP~NR)**  Publis:**~~arings** on these proposals**~il** be held at the**following,ti,~es an~** **I~tions:** in**HouStO'~ o",j~ly,**  1a, 2011, 6:30 p.m,': in CO,nference Room C at the' Houston**Galve~-:.t0'a** Council" 3555 TimmonS Lane;'and in AUstin on July "f2, 2011. 10:00 a.m., at the Texas Commis,sioll, on Environmental Quality**comple~,;Bilnding** E:,Room 2015, 12100 Park 35 Circle. The hearings will be structuted forthe**re~!iPt** of oral 'orwritten ,comments by,in,terested pefS9na. Registratio.n wiD**~egil'1** 30 minutes prior to.'each hearing,'lndiyidualsm,ay present oral statements when called upon in ,order of re9istratiOn, There will be**no'~pen discu~i~n'.during"th'lt.heariI1Y:** **~ver. com~ission**  stiff ,members will be available,to discuss the proposels 30 minutes before

### ,e
...**ch',hea,ring~** PElrsons planriing to attend the hearing who have 'special**com~unication** or**~er** aCCOrnn;'09atiOl1; needs should, contact Sandy, Wong. Texas' RegisterTeam, .a( (512) 239':- 1892. ReqlJel>1!i should be'mcte!e aafar**jn.:~dvaru;e** ,as pOssible. Comments may be,submitted tq**Charl~** Hom, Texas.**R.e~i.stecream;,Office:** of Legal:,servkie,s, ,Texas Commission ,on Env,ironmental Quality,. MC 205, P.O, Box 13087,**~~IJ,>Texas, 7an1~30a7,**  .ortaXed**to:(5~2,)'~39:4~0,~.** E1e'ctrcnic comments may be**sUbmi~.at** ' htpP:llwwviS;tceq.state.tx.us/ruleeJecc:JmrOOntsf., FDe,';siz:e**r~ons** may apply to**com,~nts** 'being "submitted'Via the**eC()mmentS'Sy~~** All. comments**.ho~ld** reference the rule ,M SIP" project number lh•• the commertt p
.....IM:to:.**Rul~,** PrC)Ject Num,b_ 201,O:.pzS-115--EN for the pnJposed VOC stange rule**IIlmertdmentsi'~le Prc:tJ.~.Numb.r** **2010~1,',.115.E~ ~~** **~e pro~8ed**  

### CTPIlACT ,rule " amendmllllts;a"d**~IP** Project**fIIu~b.r 2010-o28.:sI,P-.NR,~rthe**  proposed HGB RACT.naIY81. updat,. SIP rw.lslort. The ,comme",t., p,,mod**CI~CtS** .July**~~,** ,2011

.. c;c:JPies,of the propbsed rules can be**obi.a:!~,d,~,m** th,e comm,issio'n's web,**~Iteolilt nttp;/~,tceq.~~.go,v/nav/,ruiesipropose_adoP,t.hbT1I.,copies**  Pf the proj:)o$ed**~IP** fl!visionsand all**ap~n~~s** ea,ntM, obtained fro,rJ1'.the con;uT!iss:on'a\Neb :site at http://w'w'oY:**~q.texas;gov/Elirq~ality/siPJ hi:lbtl1gb-late~t.:bz6ne.'**  For'additional infOrmation'regarding, the p[t,posed rules and SIP revjsion, ple;ase contai::tRay Schubert,

### 'Air Q,ual,ity Plannmg. Section, 'at (512) ,239-6615,**.l~s:ued** in Austi.n, Texas, On June :6, ,2011.

First Data Published: 10-Jun-11Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman Buddy Garcia, Commissioner Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner Mark R Vickery, P.G., ExecutiveDirector 

### TExAs COMMISSION ONENVIRONMENTAL QUALI1Y Protecting Teras byReducing andPreventing Pollution


### NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS 

### BYTHE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 TAC CHAPTER 115 AND TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN



### The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will conduct public hearings to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, and corresponding revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) under the requirements of Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter B; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations §51.102, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning SIPs. Additionally, the commission will 

### also receive testimony regarding the proposed Houston-Galveston-Brawria (HGB) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Analysis Update SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard.

The commission proposes to amend Chapter 115, Subchapter B, Division 1, 

### Storage of Volatile Organic Compounds, to require a more stringent level of control for volatile organic compounds (YOC) storage in 

### the Dallas-Fort Worth 1997 eight-hour owne nonattainment area. In addition, the proposed rulemaking would clarify rule requirements and allow for the use ofalternative control options for affected owners or operators in 

### the following areas: HGB 1997 eight-hour owne nonattainment area, Beaumont-Port Arthur area, and in Aransas, Bexar, Calhoun, El Paso, Gregg, Matagorda, Nueces, San Patricio, Travis, and Victoria Counties. (Rule Project Number 2010-025-115-EN)



### The proposed amendments to Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Solvent-Using Processes, would implement RACT requirements for the following eight Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) emission source categories: Flexible Packaging Printing Materials;

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711·3087 • 512-239-1000 • Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.us

### Industrial Cleaning Solvents; Large Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. (Rule ProjectNumber 2010-016-115-EN)

The proposed HGB SIP revision would provide a RACT analysis update to address CTG documents that have notyetbeen included in the HGB Attainment Demonstration (AD) SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard and incorporate concurrently proposed CTG-related rulemaking for the HGB area. (SIP Project Number 2010- 028-SIP-NR)

Public hearings on these proposals will 

### be held at the following times and locations: in Houston on July 18, 2011, 6:30 p.m., in Conference Room C at the Houston-Galveston Area Council, 3555 Timmons Lane; and in Austin on July 22, 2011, 10:00 a.m., at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality complex, Building E, Room 201S, 12100 Park 35 Circle. The hearings will 

### be structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Registration will 

### begin 30 minutes prior to each hearing. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. There will be no open discussion during the hearing; however, commission staffmembers will 

### be availableto discuss the proposals 30 minutes before each hearing.

Persons planning to attend the hearing who have special communication or other accommodation needs should contact Sandy Wong, Texas Register Team, at (512) 239- 1802. Requests shouldbe made as far in advance as possible.

Comments may be submitted to Charlotte Horn, Texas Register Team, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at htpp://www5.tceq.state.tx.us/rules/ecomments/. 

### File size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted via the eComments system. 

### All comments should reference the rule or SIP project number that the comment pertains to: Rule Project Number 2010-025-115-EN for the proposed VOC storage

### rule amendments; Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN 

### for the proposed CfG RACf rule amendments; and SIP 

### Project Number 2010-028-SIP-NR 

### for the proposed HGB RACf analysis update SIP 

### revision. The comment period closes July 25, 2011. 

### Copies ofthe proposed rules can be 

### obtained from the commission's Web site at 

### http://www.tceq.texas.gov/nav/rules/propose_adopt.html. Copies of the proposed SIP revisions and all appendices can be obtained from the commission's Web site at 

### http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/hgb/hgb-latestozone. For additional information regarding the proposed rules and SIP revision, please contact Ray 

### Schubert, Air 

### Quality Planning Section, at (512) 239-6615.



### Issued inAustin, Texas, onJune 8, 2011.Project Number 2010 23-SIP-NR for the proposed DFW RFP revision. The commen period closes July 25, 2011. Copies of the proposed rules can b obtained from the commission's website at http://www.tceq.texas. vlnavlmles/propose

_adopt.html. Copies of the proposed SIP visions and all appendices can be obtained from the commission'- website at http:lAlf'NW.tceq.texas.govlairqualitylsipldfw/dfw-Iatest-o one. For additional information regarding the proposed rules and S revisions, please contact Ray Schubert, Air Quality Planning Secti n, at (;12) 239-661;. TRD-201102119 Robert Martinez Director. Environrnenta Law Division Texas Commission on nvironmental Quality Filed: June 10, 2011

Notice ofPublic Hearings on Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter II; and to the State Implementation Plan The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will conduct public hearings to receive testimony regarding proposedrevisionsto 30TAC Chapter 115, Controlof AirPollutionfrom Volatile Organic Compounds, and corresponding revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) under the requirements ofTexas Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Goveromeot Code, Cbapter 2001, Subcbapter B; and 40 Code ofFederal Regulations §51.I02. and the United States Enyironmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning SIPs. Ad4 ditionally, the commission will also receive testimony regarding the proposed Houston·Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RAC]) Analysis Update SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard. The commission proposes to amend Chapter 115, Subchapter B, Divi· sion I, Storage ofVolatile Organic Compounds, to require amore stringent level ofcontrol for volatile organic compounds (VOC) storage in the DaUas·Fort Worth 1997 eight·hour ozonc nonattainment area In addition, the proposedrulemaking would clarifyrule requirements and allow for the use ofalternative control options for affected owners or operators in the following areas: HGB 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment**are~** Beaumont·PortArthur**are~** and inAransas, Bexar, Calhoun, El Paso. Gregg, Matagorda, Nueces, San Patricio, Travis, and Victoria Counties. (Rille Project Number 2010-02;-11;-EN) The proposed amendments to Chapter 115. SubchapterE.**Solvent·Us~** ing Processes, would implement RACT requirements for the follow· ing eight Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) emission source categories: Flexible Packaging Printing Materials; Industrial,Cleaning Solvents; Large Appliance Coatings; MetalFurniture Coatings; Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Auto and Light-Duty TruckAssembly Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and Miscellaneous Metal andPlastic Parts Coatings. (Rule ProjectNumber 2010-016-115·EN) The proposed HGB SIP revision would provide a RACT analysis update to address CTG documents that have not yet been included in the HGB Attainment Demonstration (AD) SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard and incorporate concurrently proposed CTG-related rulemaking for the HGB area. (SIP Project Number**2010-028-SIP-~)** Public hearings onthese proposals will be held at the following times and locations: in Houston on July 18, 2011. 6:30 p.m.• in Conference RoomC atthe**Houston~GalYestonArea** Council, 3555 Timmons Lane; and in Austin on July 22, 2011, 10:00 a.m., at the Texas Commission 00 Environmental Quality complex, Building E, Room 201S, 12100 Park 35 Circle. The hearings will be structured for the receipt oforal or written comments by interested persons. Registration will begin 30 use ofalternative control optio s for affected o\vners oroperators in the following areas: Houston-Gal eston-Brazoria 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainmentarea., Beaumont PortArthwarea., and in Aransas, Bexar, Calhoun., ElPaso, Gregg, Mat orda,Nueces, SanPatricio, Travis, and Victoria Counties. (Rule Proje t Number 201 0-02;-1l;-EN) The proposed amendments t Chapter 115, Subchapter E,**Solvent~** Using Processes, would imple ent reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for the following eight Control Tech4 niques Guidelines (CTG) emis ionsource categories: Flexible Packaging Printing Materials; Indu al Cleaning Solvents; Large' Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Co tings; Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Auto and Light-Duty TruckA embly' Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and Miscell eo'us Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. (Rule Project Number 20 I 0-0 6-11;-EN) The proposed DFW attainme t demonstration SIP revision contains Federal Clean AirAct-require SIP elements, including a photochemical modeling analysis, a wei t ofevidence analysis, a RACT analysis, a reasonably available co 01 measures analysis, a motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) fo 2012, and a contingency plan. TIUs revision includes concurrentrul akings to update control requirements for certain coatings operatio to meet recommended RACT requirements in CTG documents issu bythe EPA andVOC storagetankrule revisions to update existing d new control measures for the DFW area. (SIP ProjectNumber 20 0-022-SIP-NR) The proposed DFW RFP S DFW area's progress toward ent ofthe 1997 eight·hour ozone standard. RFP requirements' elude annual incremental reductions in ozone precursor emissions (ni ogen oxides and VOC) out to an area's attainment year, reductions' ozone precursor emissions as contingency measures for designate milestone years and for the attainment year, and updated RFP MVE for an area's milestone years. This proposed SIP revision would corporate a concurrently proposed revision to Chapter 1i5 thatwo d reduce VOC emissions from affected SOUlces in the DFW area. (S Project Number 2010-023-SIP-NR) Public hearings on these prop sals will be held at the following times and locations: inArlington on uly 14,2011,10:00 am. and 6:30 p.m., atthe Arlington City Council hambers, 10I W. Abrams Street; and in Austin on July 22, 2011, 2:00 p.m., at the Texas Commission on Environmeotal Quality complex, ullding E, Room 201S, 12100 Parle 3; Circle. Thehearings will be etured forthe receiptoforal or ..-vritten comments by interested perso . Registration will begin 30 minutes prior to each hearing. Indivi als may present oral statements when called upon in order ofregi tion. There will be no open discussion during the hearing; however. mmission staffmembers will be available to discuss the proposals 3 minutes before each hearing. Persons planning to attend th hearing who have special commtmication orotheraccommodation eds shouldcontact Sandy Wong, Texas Register Team, at (; 12) 239-1 02. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. Comments may be submitte to Charlotte Hom, Texas Register Team, Office ofLegal Servic s, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, MC 20;, P.O. B x 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or fa."{ed to (512) 239-4808 Electronic comments may be submitted at http://www5.tceq.sr:zte.tx.us/ntles/ecommentsl. File size restrictions may apply to co l111ents being submitted via the eComments system. All comme ts should reference the rule or SIP project number that the co ent pertains to: Rule Project Number 2010-025-115-EN for the pr osed VOC storage rule amendments; Rule Project Number2010-01 -l1;-EN for the proposed CTG RACT rule amendments; SIP Proj Number 2010-022-SIP-NR for the proposed DFW SIP A' nt Demonstration revision; and SIP 

### + + +

INADDITION June 24, lOn 36 TexReg 3985Notice ofPublic Hear' s on Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 and to the tate Implementation Plan The Texas Commission 0 Environmental Quality (commission) will conduct public hearings t eceive testimony regarding proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter I -, Control of AirPollution from VolatileOrganic Compounds, and co esponding revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) under th requirements ofTexas Health and Safety Code, §382.Ql7; Texas G emment Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter B; and 40 Code offederal egulations §51.102, and the United States Environmental Protection gency concerning SIPs. The commission proposes 0 amend Chapter 115, Subchapter B, Division I, Storage ofVolat e Organic Compounds, to require a more stringent level ofcontrol fi r volatile organic compounds (VOC) storage inthe Dallas-FortWo 1997 eight-hourozone nonattainmentarea (DFW area). In addition, e proposed rulemaking would clarify rule requirements and allow fo the use ofalternative control options for affected owners or operat s in the following areas: Houston·Galveston·Brazoria 1997 eight· ur ozone nonattainment area., BeaumontPort Arthur area, and in ansas, Bexar, Calhoun, E1 Paso, Gregg, Matagorda, Nueces, San P tricio, Travis, and Victoria Counties. Public hearings on this pr posal will be held at the following times and locations: in Arlingto on July 14, 2011, 10:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., at the Arlington City ounci! Chambers, 101 W. Abrams Street; in Houston on July 18,201 ,6:30 p.m., in Conference Room C at the Houston-Galveston Area C uncil, 3.555 Timmons Lane; and in Austin onJuly 22, 2011,10:00 a.

_and 2:00 p.m., at the Texas Commission minutes priorto each hearing. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order ofregistration. There will be no open dis· cussion during the hearing; however, commission staffmembers will be available to discuss the proposals 30 minutes before each hearing. Persons planning to attend the hearing who have special communication or other accommodation needs should contact Sandy Wong, Texas Register Team, at (.512) 239-1802. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. Comments may be submitted to Charlotte Horn, Texas Register Team, Office ofLegal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at htpp://'HIW'tv5.tceq.state.tx.us/ntles/ecommentsl. File size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted via the eComments system. All comments should reference the rule or SIP project number that the comment pertains to: Rule Project Number 2010·025-115-EN for the proposed VOC storage rule amendments; Rule Project Number 2010-016-ll5-EN for the proposed CTG RACT rule amendments; and SIP Project Number 20 10-028-SIP·NR for the proposed HGB RACT analysis update SIP revision. The comment period closes July 25, 2011. Copies ofthe proposed rules can be obtained from the commission's website at http://...,.,,,,.,,w.tceq.texas.goylnay/mles/propose_adopt.html. Copies of the proposed SIP revisions and all appendices can be obtained from the commission's- website at http://KrH!w. tceq. texas.gov/airquality/siplhgblhgb-Iatest-ozone. For additional infonnation regarding the proposed rules and SIP revision, please contact Ray Schubert, Air Quality Planning Section, at (.5 12) 239-6615. TRD·201102120 Robert Martinez Director, Environmental Law Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Filed: June 10, 2011 Notice ofWater Qu lity Applications The following notices were issued on June 3, 2011 through June 10, 2011. The following require e applicants to publish notice in anewspaper. Public comments, req ests for public meetings, or requests for a contested case hearing m be submitted to the Office ofthe ChiefClerk, Mail Code 105, P.O. B x 13087, Austin, Texas 78711·3087, V,1THIN 30 DAYS OF TIlEDA OFNEWSPAPERPUBLICATIONOF TIlE NOTICE. INFORMATION SEC TXI OPERATIONS, L ,whichoperates Midlothian CementPlant, has appliedfor arenewal0 Texas**Pollut~t** Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Pennit No. Q0004379000, which authorizes the discharge of: non-contact coolin water, plant/vehicle washdown water, materials/roads dust suppress onrunoff, raw mill water tanks overflow water, air cooling condensate material QC lab sink rinse water, water from mechanical cooling Ie , and stonn water runoffatan intermittentand flow variable when dis harge occurs from Outfall 001. The facility is located at 245 Ward ad, at the northeast corner ofthe intersection ofU.S. Highway 67 S thand Ward Road, rn"O miles southwest ofthe City ofMidlothian, Ell s County, Texas 76065. TERRA RENEWAL S RVICES, INC. has applied for a new pennlt, Proposed TCEQ Penn No. WQ0004946000, to authorize the land application ofsewage s udge and watertreatmentplantsludge for beneficial use on 379.7 ac s. The anticipated date ofthe first application ofsludge, subjectto th issuance ofthe permit, is August 1, 2011. This permit will not autho . e a discharge ofpollutants into waters in the State. The sewage slu e land application site is located adjacent to the eastside ofFann-to MarketRoad 47, approximately 1.0 mile north 

# •• on Environmental Q lity complex, Building E, Room 201S, 12100 Park 35 Circle. The arings will be structured for the receipt ofora] or written comments y interested persons. Registration will begin 30 minutes prior to each earing. Individuals may presentoral statements when called upon in rder ofregistration. There will be rio open discussion during the he "ng; however, commission staffmembers will be available to discus the proposal 30 minutes before each hearing. Persons planning to atend the hearing who have special communication or other accomm dation needs should contact Sandy Wong, Texas Register Team, at (51 ) 239-1802. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. Comments may be ubmitted to Charlotte Horn, Texas Register Team, Office ofLegal Sen:ices, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, MC 205, P

.. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-4 08. Electronic comments may be submitted at http://www5.tceq.ste.t:x.us/ntles/ecommentsl. File size restrictions may apply to c mments being submitted via the eComments system. All co n15 should reference Rule Project Nwnber 2010-02.5-115-EN. comment period closes July 25, 2011. Copies ofthe proposed rules an be obtained from the commission's website at http:/M"W'N.tceq.tex s.gov/nav/ndes/propose

_adopt.html. For additional infonnation re ding the proposed rules, please contact Ray Schubert, Air Quality lanning Section, at (512) 239-6615. TRD·201102121 Robert Martinez Director, Environment Law Division Texas Commission on nvironmental Quality Filed: June 10, 2011



# • • 

# •

36 TexReg 3986 

### June 24, 

### 2011 Texas RegisterExample of Newspaper Classified Ad for Extension of Comment Period Austin American-Statesman, July 12,2011

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 TAC CHAPTER 115 AND TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN In the June 24, 2011, issue of the Texas Register. (35 TexReg 3801 and 3834) the Texas Comrrission on Environmental QUality (commission) published the proposed rulemaking actions 10 30 TAC Chapter 115 and 10 the Stale Implementation Plan (SIP) Additionally. the commission also requested comments regarding the proposed Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Reasonably Available Control Ted1nology Analysis Update SIP Revision lor the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard and Dallas-Fort Worth (DFYVj Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision and the DFW Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (35 TexReg 3985). The initial notices stated that the commission must receive all written comments by July 25, 2011. The commission has extended the deadline for receipt of written comments to August 8, 2011. Comments should be mailed to Chariatte Horn, MC 205. Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental QUality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed 10 (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submilled at.: http://www5.tceq.texas.gov/ruleslecomments. File size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted via the eComments system. All comments should reference the rule or SIP project number that. the comment pertains to RUNt Projed Number 2010-025-115-EN for the proposed volatile organic compounds storage rule amendments; RWe Projed Number 2010-016-115-EN for the proposed conlrollechniques guidelines reasonably aWlilabie control technology (RACn rule amendments; SIP Project Number 2010-022-SIP-NR lor the proposed Dallas·Fort VVol1tl (DFVJ) SIP Attainment Demonstration revision; SIP Project Number 2010-023-SIP-NR for the proposed DFW Reasonable Further Progress revision; and SIP Projed Number 2010-028-SIP-NR for the proposed Houslon- Galveston-Brazoria RACT analysis update SIP revision. The extended comment period doses August 8, 2011. Copies of the proposed rules can be obtained from the commission's web site at. http://www.tceq. lexas.govlnav/ruleslpropose_adopthtml. Copies of the proposed DFW SIP revisions and all appendices can be obtained from the commission's Web site at. http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sipldfW/dfw-latest-o.zol.le. Copies of the proposed HGB SIP revisions and all appendices can be obtained from the commission's Web site at http://www.tceq. texas.gov/airquality/siplhgblhgb-Iatest-ozone. For additional information regarding the proposed rules and SIP revtsions, please ronlae:t Uncley Andermn, Air Oual"ily P1anrUng 5ecIion, at (512) 239-0003

First Date Punlis.'"JecI. 12-JuJ-11Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman Buddy Garcia, Commissioner Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director



### TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protecting Texas byReducing andPreventing Pollution


### NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FORPROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 TAC CHAPTER 115 

### AND TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

In the June 24, 2011, issue ofthe 

### Texas Register, (35 TexReg 3801 and 3834) the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) publishedthe proposed rulemaking actions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 and to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Additionally, the commission also requested comments regarding the proposed Houston-Galveston-Brazoria ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis Update SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard and Dallas-FortWorth (DFW) Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision and the DFW Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (35 TexReg 3985). The initial notices stated thatthe commission must receive all written comments byJuly 25, 2011. 

### The commission has extendedthe deadline for receipt ofwritten connftents to August 8, 2011.



### Comments should be mailedto Charlotte Horn,MC 205, Office ofLegal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments maybe submitted at: 

### http://www5.tceq.texas.gov/rules/ecomments. File size restrictions may applyto comments being submittedviathe eComments system. All comments should reference the rule or SIPproject numberthatthe commentpertains to: Rule Project Number

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • tceq.texas.gov How is our customer service? tceq.texas.gov jgotojcustomersurvey printed on recycled paper

### 201O-025-115-EN for the proposedvolatile organic compounds storage rule amendments; Rule Project Number 201O-016-115-EN for the proposedcontrol techniques guidelines reasonably available control technology (RACT) rule amendments; SIP Project Number 201O-022-SIP-NRfor the proposed Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) SIPAttainment Demonstration revision; SIP Project Number 2010-023- SIP-NRfor the proposed DFWReasonable Further Progress revision; and SIP Project Number 201O-028-SIP-NRforthe proposed Houston-Galveston-Brazoria RACT analysis update SIP revision. The extended comment period closes August 8, 2011. Copies ofthe proposed rules can be obtained from the commission's Web site at 

### http:j jwww.tceq.texas.govjnavjrulesjpropose_adopt.html. Copies ofthe proposed DFW SIP revisions and all appendices canbe obtainedfrom the commission's Web site
at 

### http:j jwww.tceq.texas.govjairqualityjsipjdfwjdfw-latest-ozone. Copies ofthe proposed HGB SIP revisions and all appendices canbe obtainedfrom the commission's Web site at 

### http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/hgb/hgb-latest-ozone. For additional information regarding the proposed rules and SIP revisions, please contact Lindley Anderson, Air Quality Planning Section, at (512) 239-0003.Notice ofExtension ofPublic Comment Period for Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 and to the State Implementation Plan In the June 24, 2011, issue ofthe Texas Register, (36 TexReg 3801 and 3834) the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) published the proposed rulemaking actions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 and to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Additionally, the commission (22) COMPANY: Trican Well ervice LP; DOCKET NUMBER: 201l-1082-WQ-E; IDENTIFIE : RNI06112816; LOCATION: Mathis, San Patricio County; T PE OF FACILITY: well service; RULE VIOLATED, 30 TAC § 1.25(a)(4), by failing 

### '0 obtain a construction general permit; P ALIT: $700; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Harvey Wils n, (512) 239-0321; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6300 Ocean Drive, uite 1200, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5503, (361) 825-3100. (23) COMPANY: Upper Leo River Municipal Water District; DOCKET NUMBER: 2 1l-0601-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: RNI04343181; LOCATION: C manche County; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment citity; RULE VIOLATED: TWC, §26.121(a)(I), 30 TAC §305.125 I), and Texas Pollutant Disch"'lle Elimination System (TPDES) P it Number WQOOl4544001 Effluent Limitations and Monitorin Requirements Numbers I, 2, and 6, by failing to comply with pe itted effluent limitations; 30 TAC §305.125(1) and (17) and TPDE Penni. Number WQ0014544001, Sludge Provisions, by failing to ti ely submit the annual sludge report for the monitoring period ending J ly 31, 2010, by September 1, 2010; PENALTY: $4,960; ENFORCE NT COORDINATOR: Marty Holt, (512) 239-2587; REGIONAL 0 FlCE: 1977 Industrial Boulevard, Abilene, Texas 79602-7833, (325 698-9674. (24) COMPANY: West Wise Spec IUtility District; DOCKETNUMBER: 2011-0438-WQ-E; IDENTI IER: RNI01l90270; LOCATION: Wise County; TYPE OF FACIL Y: surface water treatment plant; RULE VIOLATED: TWC, §26. 21(a)(I), by failing to prevent an unauthorized discharge of sewa e, municipal waste, recreational waste, agricultural waste, or indu trial waste into or adjacent to any water in the state; PENALTY: $ 200; Supplemental Environmental Project offset amount of $3,360 pplied to Caddo Lake Watershed Enhanced Monitoring Program; E ORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Michaelle Sherlock, (210) 403 76; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2309 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 7 118-6951, (817) 588-5800. (25) COMPANY: Zapata Coun ; DOCKET NUMBER: 2011- 0371-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: 104459573; LOCATION: Zapata County; TYPE OF FACILI : wastewater treatment facility; RULE VIOLATED: TWC, §26121(a)(I), 30 TAC §305.l25(1), and Texas Pollutant Discharge E imination System Permit Number WQO014550001, Effluent Limitat ons and Monitoring Requirements Number I, by failing to comply wi the permitted effluent limitations; 30 TAC §305.65 and §305.125(2) nd TWC, §26.121(a)(I), by failing to maintain authorization for the d charge ofwastewater; PENALTY: S13,200; Supplemental Enviro ental Project offset amount of S10,560 applied to Tire Collectio , Recycling, and Disposal Events; ENFORCEMENT COORDINAT R: JR Cao, (512) 239-2543; REGIONAL OFFICE: 707 East Calt n Road, Suite 304, Laredo, Texas 78041-3887, (956) 791-6611. TRD-201102643 Kathleen C. Decker Director, Litigation Division Texas Commission on Environmen I Quality Filed: Jury 12, 2011 Notice ofOpportunity to Com ent on Agreed Orders of Administrative Enforcement A tions The Texas Commission on Envuo ental Quality (TCEQ or commission) staffis providing an opportu ity for written public comment on the listed Agreed Orders (ADs) in ccordance with Texas Water Code (TWC), §7.075. TWC, §7.075 re uires that before the commission rna)' approve the ADs, the commi sion shall allow the public an opportunity to submit written comm nts on the proposed AOs. TWC, §7.075 requires that notice ofthe 0 ortunity to commentmustbe published in the TexasRegisterno later anthe 30th day beforethe date on which the public comment period oses, which in this case is August 22, 2011. TWC, §7.075 also req res that the commission promptly consider any written comments ree ived and that the commission may withdraw or withhold approval of AO ifa comment discloses facts or considerations that indicate that onsent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with t requirements ofthe S!arutes and rules within the commission'sjuri iction or the commission's orders and**p~rrnits** issued in accordance w th the commission's regulatory authority. Additional notice ofchang s to a proposed AO is not required also requested COmments regarding the proposed Houston-GalvestonBrazoria Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-HourOzone Standard and Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW)_Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision and the DFW Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) SIP Revision for the 1997 EightHour Ozone Standard (36 TexReg 3985). The initial notices stated that the commission must receive all written comments by July 25, 2011. The commission has extended the deadline for receiptofwritten comments to August 8, 2011. Comments should bemailedtoChariotteHorn.MC 205, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at: http://

....ww5.tceq.texas.gov/ntles/ecomments. File size restrictions may apply to comments bcing submitted via the eComments system. All comments should reference the rule or SIP project number that the comment pertains to: Rule Project Number 2010·025·IIS-EN for the proposed volatile organic compounds storage rule amendments; Rule ProjectNumber2010-016-115-EN for the proposed controltechniques guidelines reasonably available control technology (RACT) rule amendments; SIP ProjectNumber 2010-022-SIP-NR for the proposed Dallas·FortWorth (DFW) SIP AttainmentDemonstrationrevision; SIP ProjectNumber2010-023-SIP-NR for the proposed DFW Reasonable Further Progress revision; and SIP ProjectNumber 201 0-028-SIP·NR for the proposed Houston-Galveston-Brazoria RACT analysis update SIP revision. The extended conunent period closcs August 8, 2011. Copies of the proposed rules can be obtained from the commission's Web site at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/nav/ndes/propose_adopt.htmJ. Copies of the proposed DFW SIP revisions and all appendices can be obtained from the commission's Web site at http://w'n.w.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/dfw/dfw-Jatest-ozone. Copies ofthe proposed HGB SIP revisions and all appendices can beobtained from the commission's Web site at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/hgb/hgb-Iatest-ozone. For additional infonnation regarding the proposed rules and SIP revisions, please contact Lindley Anderson, Air Quality Planning Section, at (512) 239-0003. TRD-2011 02637 Robert Martinez Director, Environmental Law Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Filed: July 11, 2011 

# ••

• • •

36 TexReg 4712 

### July 22, 

### 2011 Texas RegisterREVISIONS TO THE STATE OFTEXAS AIR QUAIlTY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FORTHE CONTROL OF OZONEAIR POLLUTION

HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA 1997 EIGHT-HOUR OZONE STANDARD NONATTAINMENTAREA



# ... - 

# - - -- .- 

# - -- 

# .. ..- TCEQ

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUAIlTY P.O. BOX 13087 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-3087



### HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROLTECHNOWGYANALYSIS UPDATE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION FORTHE 1997EIGHT-HOUROZONE STANDARD

PROJECfNUMBER 201O-028-SIP-NR



### Proposal June 8, 2011

### Thispage intentionally leftblankEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

### The eight-county Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) nonattainment area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties) is currently classified as severe underthe 1997 eight-hour ozone NationalAmbient

### Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of0.08 parts per million (ppm) with an attainment date as expeditiously as practicablebut no laterthan June 15, 2019. Texas was requiredto submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision addressing the severe ozone nonattainment area requirements ofthe 1990 Federal Clean

### AirActAmendments (FCAA) to the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) 

### byApril 15, 2010. On Marc1I 10, 2010, theTexas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) adopted two revisions to the Texas SIP for the HGB ozone nonattainment area. The Houston-GalvestonBrazoriaAttainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan Revision forthe 1997 EightHour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision) includes a photoc1Iemical modeling analysis and a weight ofevidence analysis to demonstrate attainment ofthe 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2019. In addition, the HGB AD SIP revision incorporates revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101 and 115, also adopted on Marc1I 10, 2010, which includethe Mass Emissions Cap andTrade (MECT) Program Cap Integrity, the Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds (HRVOC) Emissions Cap andTrade (HECT) Program Cap Reduction and Allowance Reallocation, andthe Volatile Organic Compounds (YOC) ControlTechniques Guidelines (CTG) Update. The HGB Reasonable FurtherProgress SIP Revisionfor the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard demonstrates that an 18% emissions reduction requirement will

### be metforthe analysis periodbetween 2002 through 2008 and an average of3% peryear emissions reductionbetween each ofthe milestoneyears 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018. For nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above, FCAA, §182(b)(2) requires states to submit a SIP revisionthat implements reasonably available controltec1Inology (RACT) for VOC emission sources addressed in a CTGdocument issuedbythe EPAbetween November 15, 1990, and the area's attainment date. CTGdocuments provide information to assist states in determining RACTfor specific emission sources and providethe EPA's RACTrecommendations. FCAA, §183(e)(3) requires the EPAto regulate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial productsbyissuing national regulations orbyissuing CTGdocuments inlieu ofnational regulations. The EPAissued 11 CTGdocuments between 2006 and 2008 with RACT recommendations for controllingVOC emissions from a variety ofconsumer and commercial products. 

### Ofthe 11 CTG documents, the commissionhas acted on four. On Marc1I 10, 2010, with the adoption ofthe HGB AD SIP revision, the commission adopted portions ofthe Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG recommendation and provided a negative declaration for the F1atWood Paneling Coatings CTG, Fiberglass BoatManufacturing Materials CTG, andAutomobile and Light-DutyTruck Assembly Coatings CTG source categories. The commission determinedthat no sources meeting the applicability criteriarecommendedinthese CTG documents were located inthe HGB area. Additionally, due to the EPA's concerns regarding federal enforceability, staffrecommendedwithdrawing the two RACT recommendations for the F1exiblePackage Printing Materials andthe Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CTG categories that were proposed on September 23, 2009. RACTdeterminations were not made for the following five CTG emission source categories atthattimebecause additional research was necessaryto determine the number ofsources affectedbythe CTG recommendations andthe EPAhadnotformally respondedto the state's requestfor clarification regarding the CTG recommendations: Industrial Cleaning Solvents; Large Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives; and ES-l

### Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. On March 17, 2011, the EPAissued a guidance memorandum entitled

### Approving SIPRevisionsAddressing VOCRACI'Requirements for Certain Coatings Categories regarding the following three CTG categories: Large Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. Additional discussion regarding the EPA's guidance on these three CTG categories is provided in AppendixA: 

### ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis. The following seven CTG categories forthe HGB area havepending RACT determinations to be submittedto the EPA:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• LargeAppliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives, Group IV, issuedin 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008. 

### This proposed SIP revision provides a RACT analysis update to include the seven CTG documents issuedby

### the EPAfrom 2006 through 2008 thathave notyetbeen addressed in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted on March 10, 2010, and incorporates CTG-relatedrulemaking concurrentlybeingproposedfor the HGB area (Rule ProjectNo. 2010-016-115-EN). Ifadopted, 

### this HGB RACT Analysis Update SIP revision would include the analyses and RACT determinations for these seven CTG source categories. Ifthe EPA's recommended controls for a particularsource category are determined bythe executive directorto 

### be RACT andthe commission adopts rules to implementRACT for that sourcecategory, adoption ofthis SIP revision would incorporate those rules into the SIP. The associatedproposed rulemaking would revise Chapter 115, SubchapterE, to implementRACT forthe CTG emission source categories in the HGB area as requiredbyFCAA, §172(c)(l) and §182(b)(2).

E5-2SEcnON 

### V: LEGALAU'lHORITY 

### General TheTexas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has the legal authority to implement, maintain, andenforce the NationalAmbientAir 

### Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to control the qualityofthe state's air, including maintaining adequate visibility. The first airpollution control act, known as the CleanAir

### Act ofTexas, was passedbythe Texas Legislature in 1965. In 1967, the CleanAir

### ActofTexas was superseded by

### a more comprehensive statute, the Texas Clean Air

### Act (TCAA), found in Article 4477-5, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes. The legislature amended the TCAAin 1969, 1971, 1973, 1979, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009. In 

### 1989, the TCAAwas codifiedas Chapter 382 ofthe Texas Health and SafetyCode. Originally, the TCAAstated thatthe Texas Air 

### Control Board (TACB) is the state air 

### pollution control agency and is theprincipal authorityin the state on matters relating to the quality ofair resources. In 1991, the legislature abolished the TACB effective September 1, 1993, and its powers, duties, responsibilities, and functions were transferred to theTexas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). With the creation ofthe TNRCC, the authority over air 

### qualityis foundin both the Texas Water Code and the TCAA. Specifically, the authority ofthe TNRCC is found in Chapters 5 and 7. Chapter 5, Subcl1apters A - F, H - 

### J, and L, include the generalprovisions, organization, and general powers and duties ofthe TNRCC, and the responsibilities and authority ofthe executive director. Chapter5 also authorizes the TNRCC to implement action when emergency conditions arise and to conducthearings. Chapter 7 gives the TNRCC enforcement authority. In 2001, the 

### 77th Texas Legislature continued the existence of the TNRCC until September 1, 2013, and c1langed the name ofthe TNRCC to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). In 

### 2009, the 81stTexas Legislature, during a special session, amended §5.014 oftheTexas Water Code, c!langing the expiration date ofthe TCEQ to September 1, 2011, unless continued in existencebytheTexas SunsetAct. The TCAA specifically authorizes the TCEQ to establishthe level ofquality to be maintained 

### in the state's air andto control the quality ofthe state's airbypreparing anddeveloping a general, comprehensive plan. TheTCAA, Subc1lapters A - D, also authorize the TCEQ to collect information to enable the commission to develop an inventory ofemissions; to conduct researc1l and investigations; to enterproperty and examine records; to prescnbe monitoring requirements; to institute enforcementproceedings; to enterinto contracts and execute instruments; to formulate rules; to issue orders taking into consideration factors bearing upon health, welfare, social and economicfactors, and practicability and reasonableness; to conduct hearings; to establish air quality control regions; to encourage cooperation with citizens' groups andother agencies and political subdivisions ofthe state as well as with industries and the federal government; and to establish and operate a system ofpennits for construction or modification offacilities. Local 

### government authorityis found in Subc1lapterE ofthe TCAA. Local governments have the same power as the TCEQ to enterproperty and make inspections. They also may make recommendations to the commission concerning any action ofthe TCEQ that affects their territorialjurisdiction, maybring enforcement actions, andmay execute cooperative agreements withthe TCEQ or otherlocal governments. In addition, a city ortown may enact and enforce ordinances for the control and abatement ofair pollution not inconsistentwith the provisions of theTCAAandthe rules or orders ofthe commission.

### Subchapters G and H ofthe TCAA authorize the TCEQ to establishvehicle inspection and maintenance programs in certain areas ofthe state, consistentwith the requirements ofthe Federal CleanAir

### Act; coordinate with federal, state, andlocal transportation planning agencies to develop and implementtransportation programs and measures necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS; establish gasolinevolatility and low emission diesel standards; and fund and authorize participating counties to implementvehicle repair assistance, retrofit, and acceleratedvehicle retirement programs. Applicable Law The following statutes and rnles provide necessary authority to adoptandimplementthe state implementation plan (SIP). The rules listedbelowhavepreviouslybeen submittedas part ofthe SIP. Statutes All sections ofeach subchapter are included, unless otherwise noted. TEXAS 

### HEALTH & 

### SAFElY CODE, Chapter 382 TEXAS 

### WATERCODE September I, 2009 

### September 1, 2009 

### Chapter 5: 

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Subchapter General Provisions Subchapter B: 

### Organization ofthe Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Subchapter C: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission SubchapterD: General Powers and Duties ofthe Commission SubchapterE: Administrative Provisions for Commission SubchapterF: Executive Director (except §§5.225, 5.226, 5.227, 5.2275,5.231, 5.232, 

### and 5.236) 

### SubchapterH: Delegation ofHearings SubchapterI: Judicial Review SubchapterJ: Consolidated PermitProcessing Subchapter L: 

### Emergency and Temporary Orders (§§5.514, 5.5145, 

### and 5.515 

### only) SubchapterM: Environmental Permitting Procedures (§5.558 

### only) Chapter 7: 

### Enforcement SubchapterA: General Provisions (§§7.001, 7.002, 7.0025, 7.004, 

### and 7.005 

### only) Subchapter B: 

### Corrective Action andInjunctive Relief(§7.032 

### only) SubchapterC: Administrative Penalties SubchapterD: 

### Civil Penalties (except §7.109) 

### Subchapter E: Criminal Offenses and Penalties: §§7.177, 7.179-7.183 

## RYks All ofthe following rnles are found in 30 

### Texas Administrative Code, as ofthefollowing latest effective dates: Chapter 7: 

### Memoranda ofUnderstanding, §§7.110 

### and 7.119

### December 13, 1996 

### and May 2, 2002 

### Chapter 19: 

### Electronic Reporting Chapter 35: 

### Subchapters A-C, K: 

### Emergency andTemporary Orders and Permits; Temporary Suspension orAmendment ofPermit Conditions
ii 

### March 15, 2007 

### July 20, 2006

### Chapter 39: Public Notice, §§39.201; 39401; 39403(a) and (b)(8)-(1O); 39405(f)(1) and (g); 

### 39409; 39411 (a), (b)(l)-(6), and (8)-(10) and (c)(1)-(6) and (d); 39.413(9), (11), (12), and (14); 39418(a) and (b)(3) and (4); 39419(a), (b), (d), and (e); 39.420(a), (b) and (c)(3) and (4); 39423 (a) and (b); 39.601-39.605 Chapter 55: Requests for Reconsideration and Contested Case Hearings; Public Comment, §§55.1; 55.21(a)

- (d), (e)(2), (3), and (12), (f) and (g); 

### 55.101(a), (b), and (c)(6)

- (8); 55.103; 55.150; 55.152(a)(1), (2), and (6) and (b); 55·154; 55.156; 55·200; 55.201(a)

- (h); 

### 55.203; 55·205; 55.209, and 55.211 Chapter 101: GeneralAir Quality Rules Chapter 106: Permitsby Rule, SubchapterA Chapter 111: Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter Chapter 112: Control ofAir Pollutionfrom SulfurCompounds Chapter 113: Standards ofPerformance for Hazardous Air Pollutants andfor Designated Facilities and Pollutants June 24, 2010

June 24, 2010

May 12, 2011 May 12, 2011 July 19, 2006 July 16, 1997
May 14, 2009 Chapter 114: Control ofAir Pollution from MotorVehicles Chapter 115: Control ofAir Pollution fromVolatile Organic Compounds Chapter 116: Permits for New Construction orModification Chapter 117: Control ofAir Pollution frOm Nitrogen Compounds Chapter 118: Control ofAir Pollution Episodes Chapter 122: §122.122: Potential to Emit Chapter 122: §122.215: Minor Permit Revisions Chapter 122: §122.216: Applications for Minor PermitRevisions Chapter 122: §122.217: Procedures for Minor Permit Revisions December 13, 2010 February 17, 2011 March 3, 2011

May 12, 2011 March 5, 2000 December 11, 2002 June 3, 2001 June 3, 2001 December 11, 2002 Chapter 122: §122.218: Minor Permit Revision Procedures for Permit Revisions Involving the Use ofEconomicIncentives, Marketable Permits, and Emissions Trading

iii 

### June 3, 2001

### SECOON VI: CONTROL STRATEGY A 

### Introduction (No change) B. 

### Ozone (Revised) 1. Dallas-FortWorth (No change) 2. 

### Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (Revised) Chapter 1: 

### General (Revised) Chapter 2: 

### Anthropogenic Emissions Inventory (EI) Description (No change) Chapter 3: Photochemical Modeling (No change) Chapter4: Control Strategies and Required Elements (Revised) Chapter 5: Weight ofEvidence (No change) Chapter 6: Ongoing and Future Initiatives (No change) 3. Beaumont-PortArthur (No change) 4. EI Paso (No change) 5. Regional Strategies (No change) 6. NortheastTexas (No change) 7. AustinArea (No change) 8. SanAntonioArea (No change) 9. VictoriaArea (No change) C. Particulate Matter (No change) D. CarbonMonoxide (No change) E. Lead (No change) F. Oxides ofNitrogen (No change) G. SulfurDioxide (No change) H. Conformitywiththe NationalAmbientAir 

### Quality Standards (No change) 1. 

### Site Specific (No change) 

### J. Mobile Sources Strategies (No change) K. 

### Clean Air

### Interstate Rule (No change) 

### 1. Transport (No change) M. Regional Haze (No change)

ivTABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary SectionV: LegalAuthority SectionVI: Control Strategy Table ofContents list ofAcronyms list ofTables listofAppendices Chapter 1: General
1.1 Background 1.2 Introduction 1.2.1 One-Hour OzoneNational AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS) History (No change) 1.2.21997Eight-HourOzone NAAQS History 1.2.2.1 May 23. 2007 (No change) 1.2.2.2 March 10, 2010 1.2.3 Existing Ozone Control Strategies (No change) 1.2-4 Current SIP Revision 1.3 HealthEffects (No change) 1-4 StakeholderParticipation and Public Hearings 1.4.1 Stakeholder Participation 1.4.2 Public Hearings and CommentInformation 1.5 Social and Economic Considerations 1.6 Fiscal and ManpowerResources (No change) Chapter 2: Anthropogenic Emissions Inventory (EI) Description (No change) Chapter 3: Photochemical Modeling (No change) Chapter4: Control Strategies and Required Elements 4.1 Introduction (No change) 4.2 Existing Control Measures 4.3 Updates to Existing Control Measures (No change) 4.4 ReasonablyAvailable Control Technology (RACD Analysis 4-4.1 General Discussion

v442 

### NOx RACfDetennination (No change) 4-4.3 

### VOC RACfDetermination 4.4.3.1 

### Flexible Package Printing 443.2 

### Industrial Cleaning Solvents 4.4.3.3 

### LargeAppliance Coatings 443.4 

### Metal Furniture Coatings 4-4.3.5 

### Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings 4.4.3.6 

### Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives 4.4.3.7 

### Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings 4.5 

### ReasonablyAvailable Control Measures (RACM) Analysis (No change) 4.6 

### New ControlMeasures (No change) 4.7 

### MotorVehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) (No change) 4.8 Monitoring Network (No change) 4.9 Contingency Plan (No change) 4.10 

### References (No change) Chapter 5: Weight ofEvidence (No change) Chapter 6: Ongoing andFuture Initiatives (No change)

vi

### ACT AD 

### BACT CFR CTG 

### DMA DMX 

### EPA FCAA 

### HECT H-GAC HGB HRVOC IjM 

### LDAR MACT MECT mph MVEB 

### NAAQS 

### NOx ppm RACM 

### RACT RFP 

### RVP SB SIP TACB TCAA 

### TCEQ TERP 

### TNRCC 

### liST OFACRONYMS alternative control techniques attainment demonstration best available control technology Code ofFederal Regulations Control Techniques Guidelines Marine DistillateFuelA Marine Distillate Fuel X United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Federal Clean

### AirAct Highly ReactiveVolatile Organic Compound Emissions Cap and Trade Program Houston-GalvestonArea Council Houston-Galveston-Brazoria highly reactive volatile organic compounds Inspection and Maintenance leakdetection and repair maximum achievable control technology Mass Emissions Cap andTrade Program miles perhour motorvehicle emissions budget NationalAmbient

### Air Quality Standard nitrogen oxides parts permillion reasonably available control measures reasonably available control technology reasonable further progress Reidvapor pressure Senate Bill state implementation plan Texas

### Air Control Board Texas Clean

### AirAct Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) Texas Emission Reduction Plan Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
viitpy 

### TxLED VMEP 

### VOC tons peryear Texas Low 

### Emission Diesel VoluntaryMobile Emissions Reductions Program volatile organic compounds

viiiLIST OF TABLES



### Table 1-1: Public Hearing Information Table 4-1: Existing Control Measures Applicableto the HGB Eight-County NonattainmentArea

ixAppendix Appendix A 

### LIST OFAPPENDICES Appendix Name ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis



### x

### CHAPTER 1: 

### GENERAL

1.1 

### BACKGROUND The 

### History of the Texas State ImplementationPlan, a comprehensive overview ofthe state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submittedto the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the State ofTexas, is available onthe Introduction to the SIP Web page (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/sipintro.htm1#History) onthe Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEOl Web site (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/). 1.2 

### INTRODUcnON The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area presents a complex airpollution problembecause ofthe nature ofthe emissions and meteorology ofthe area. The HGB area's hot, sunny climate, large urban population activities, and extensive, highly concentrated industrial complexprovide the ingredients for ozoneformation: sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (YOC). The Houston area's significantbiogenicVOC emissions and complex meteorology, which includes land/sea breeze air parcel recirculation, complicate photochemical modeling. Economic andpopulation growth continue to create air quality challenges for the HGB area. Despite these challenges, key ozone-targeting regulatory programs have reducedthe number and magnitude ofozone exceedances, the area ofexceedance, and the population exposed to exceedances ofthe orone National Ambient

### Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Summaries ofHGB area 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS SIP revisions, as well as information regarding this HGB ReasonablyAvailable ControlTechnologyAnalysis Update SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Orone Standard (HGB RACT SIP revision) are provided. 1.2.1 

### One-Hour Ozone NationalAmbient

### Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) History (No change) 1.2.2 1997

### Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS History In 1997, the EPArevisedthe health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting itat 0.08 parts per million (ppm) based on the three-yearaverage ofthe annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor

### within an area. The final 1997 eighthour ozone NAAQS was published in the

### FederalRegister on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), and became effective on September 16, 1997. OnApri130, 2004, the EPAfinalized nonattainment designations andpromulgatedthe first phase ofits implementation rule for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard (69 FR23951). These actions became effective on June 15, 2004. TheEPA classified the HGB area as a moderate nonattainment area for the standard. The TCEQ was requiredto submita SIP revision for the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS to the EPAbyJune 15, 2007, and demonstrate attainment ofthe standardby June 15, 2010. Inthe November 29, 2005, issue ofthe 

### FederalRegister (70 FR71612), the EPApublishedthe second phase ofthe implementationrule forthe 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS, which addressed the control obligations that apply to areas designated nonattainment for the standard. The commission adoptedthe 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainmentarea SIP revision andthe reasonable further progress (RFP) SIP revision for the HGB area on May 23, 2007. These SIP revisions were the first step in addressing the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard in the HGB area. The TCEQ demonstrated reasonable further progress toward attaining the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard and committedto developing an HGB 1997 eight-hourozone attainment demonstration SIP revision to attain the 1997 standard as expeditiously as practicable. OnJune 15, 2007, these two revisions to the Texas SIP and aletter from the governor ofTexas requesting

1-1

### thatthe HGB ozone nonattainmentarea 

### be reclassified from a moderate nonattainment area to a severe nonattainment area were submittedto the EPA. The EPAgrantedthe governor's request to voluntarilyreclassifythe HGB ozone nonattainment areafrom a moderate to a severe nonattainrnent area forthe 1997 ozone NAAQS inthe October 1,2008, issue ofthe 

### FederalRegister(73 FR56983). The EPA setApril 15, 2010, as the date for the state to submit a revised SIP addressing the severe ozone nonattainment area requirements ofthe Federal Clean

### AirAct (FCAA) (42 United States Code, §§7401 

### etseq.). The area's new attainment datefor the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard is as expeditiously as practicablebut no laterthan June 15, 2019. 1.2.2.1 May 23. 2007 (No changel 1.2.2.2 March 10. 2010 On March 10, 2010, the commission adoptedtwo revisions to the Texas SIP for the HGB ozone nonattainment area. The HGB Attainment Demonstration SIP Revisionforthe 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision) includeda photochemical modeling analysis and a weight ofevidence analysis to demonstrate attainment ofthe 1997 eight-hourozone NAAQS by theJune 15, 2019, deadline. This SIP revision also included a motorvehicle emissions budget (MVEB), aVOC RACT analysis, a NOx RACT analysis, a reasonably available control measures (RACM) analysis, a contingencyplan, and a mid-course review commitment. In addition, the HGB AD SIP revision incorporated revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101 and 115, also adopted on March 10, 2010, which included the Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) Program Cap Integrity, the Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds (HRVOC) Emissions Cap and Trade (HECT) Program Cap Reduction andAllowance Reallocation, andthe VOC Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) Update. The HGB RFP SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (HGB RFP SIP revision), as requiredby the EPA, demonstrated that an 18% emissions reduction requirement

### will be met for the analysis periodbetween 2002 through 2008 and an average of3% peryear emissions reductionbetween each ofthe milestoneyears 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018. The RFP SIP revisionestablishedbaseline emission levels, calculatedreductiontargets, identified control strategiesto meet emission target levels, and tracked actual emission reductions against establishedemissions growth. An 

### MVEB for each milestoneyear and a contingencyplanwere also included inthe RFP SIP revision. In 

### the January 25, 2011, issue ofthe 

### FederalRegister(76 FR4342), the EPApublished a notice ofits determination thatthe MVEBs in the HGB AD and RFP SIP revisions are adequate for transportation conformitypurposes, effective February 9, 2011. 1.2.3 Existing Ozone Control Strategies (No change) 1.2.4 Current SIP Revision Because this SIP revision focuses specifically on the seven CTGdocuments issuedbythe EPA from 2006through 2008 that have notyetbeen addressed inthe HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, the RACT analysis inthis SIP revision onlyprovides an update to the HGB VOC RACT demonstration. Althoughthe FCAArequires the state to implement RACT, EPAguidance on RACTindicates that states may choose to implementthe CTG recommendations, implement an alternative approach, or demonstrate that additional controls for the CTGemission source category are not technologically or economicallyfeasible in the area. 

### Ifadopted, this SIP revision would provide a detailed RACT analysis update for the HGB area and incorporate any necessaryrule revisions. 1-2

### The following seven CTG documents wouldbe evaluated during the associated proposed rulemaking (Rule Project No. 2010-016-11S-EN) to determine ifadditionalVOC controls are necessary to fulfill 

### RACT requirements:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• LargeAppliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008. 

### 1.3 HEALTH EFFECI'S (NO CHANGE) 

### 1.4 STAKEHOLDERPARTICIPATIONAND PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.4.1 

### StakeholderParticipation TheTCEQ held a stakeholdermeeting on December 1, 2010, and acceptedinformal comments until January 11, 2011, forthe associated Chapterl1S rulemaking (Rule ProjectNo. 2010-016- l1S-EN). Forfurther information, please refer to the CTG Stakeholder GroupWeb page (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/implementation/air/rules/ctg/controLtechniques_stakeholder.ht 

### mI). 1.4.2 

### Public Hearings and Comment Information The commission 

### will hold publichearings for this proposed SIP revision and associated rulemaking atthe following times andlocations: 

### Table 1-1: 

### Public Hearing Information CIt.y 

### .

# .**Dat~** ...... 

### .

. Time J ••• Location· 

### Houston-Galveston Area Council Houston July 18, 2011 6:30p.m. 3555 Timmons Lane Conference Room C Houston, TX 

### 77027 TCEQ Headquarters Austin July 22, 2011 10:00 a.m. 12100 Park 35 Circle Bldg. E, Room 201 Austin, TX 

### 78753

The public commentperiod

### will open on June 24, 2011, and close on July 2S, 2011. Written comments 

### willbe acceptedviamail, fax, orthrough the eComments system. 

### All comments should reference the "HGB RACTAnalysis Update SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour 

### Owne Standard" and ProjectNumber 2010-028-SIP-NR Comments maybe submittedto Lola Brown, MC 206, State Implementation PlanTeam, ChiefEngineer's 

### Office, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 orfaxed to (S12) 239-S687. Electronic comments maybe submittedthroughthe eComments system (http://wwws.tceq.texas.gov/rules/ecomments/). File size restrictions may apply to comments being submittedviathe eComments system. Comments mustbe receivedby July 2S, 2011. An electronic version of

### this proposed SIPrevision and appendix can be found atthe TCEQ's 

### SIf HotTopics Web page (http:/www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/Hottop.html). 1-3

### 1.5 SOCIALAND 

### ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS There are no social or economic issues ofconcern attributable to this HGB RACfAnalysis Update SIP Revision. For a detailed explanation ofany social and economic issues involved with the associat«ed Chapter 115 rulemaking (Rule Project No. 20lO-016-115-EN), please refer to the preamble thatprecedes those rules, accessedfrom the TCEQ Rule Prooosals andAdoptions Web (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/nav/rules/propose_adopt.html). 

### 1.6 FISCALAND 

### MANPOWERRESOURCES (NO CHANGE)

1-4

### CHAPTER 2: 

### ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY (EI) DESCRIPTION (NO CHANGE)

2-1

### CHAPTER3: PHOTOCHEMICALMODEUNG (NO CHANGE)

3-1

### CHAPTER4: CONTROL STRATEGIES AND REQUIRED ELEMENfS 4.1 INTRODUcnON (NO CHANGE) 

### 4.2 EXISTING CONTROLMEASURES Over several years ofozone planning in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area, a broad range of control measures have been implemented for each emission source category. Table 4-1: 

### Existing Ozone ControlMeasuresApplicable to the HGB Eight-CountyNonattainmentArea lists the existing ozone control strategies that have been implemented for the one-hour and 1997 eight-hour ozone standards in the HGB area. 

### Table 4-1: 

### Existing Control Measures Applicable to the HGB 

### Eight-County NonattainmentArea 

### Measure

. ... . .. • 

# . Desalption

.. ··.•·..•**~Date(sJ** Nitrogen Oxides (NO.) Overall 80% NO. reduction from existing April 1, 2003, and Mass Emissions Cap and industrial sources and utility power plants, phased in through Trade (MECT) Program implemented through a cap and trade program April 1, 2007
Affects utility boilers, gas turbines, heaters and furnaces, stationary internal combustion engines, industrial boilers, and many other industrial sources Highly Reactive Volatile Affects cooling towers, process vents, and flares, Monitoring Organic Compounds and establishes an annual emissions limit with a requirements began (HRVOC) Rules and cap and trade for each site in Harris County January 31, 2006 HRVOC Emissions Cap and Trade (HECT) Seven perimeter counties subject to permit Cap and trade Program allowable limits and monitoring requirements program implemented January 1, 2007
HECT cap incrementally stepped-down from 2014 through 2017 for a total 2S% cap reduction HRVOC Fugitive Rules More stringent leak detection and repair (LDAR) March 31, 2004 requirements for components in HRVOC service
Additional components included in LDAR program: more stringent repair times, lower leak detection, and third part audit requirements

4-1

### Measure· .. 

# .

.

## .. DescriDtion Start Date(s) Volatile Organic Requires controls for slotted gUide poles and January 1, 2009 Compounds (VOe) Rules more stringent controls for otherfittings on

- Storage Tanks floating rooftanks, and control requirements or operational limitations on landing floating roof tanks
Eliminates exemption for storage tanks for crude oil or natural gas condensate, and regulates flash emissions from these tanks VOC Rules

- Degassing Requires vapors from degassing to be vented to a January 1, 2009 Operations control device for a longer time period, and removes exemption from degassing to control for tanks with capacity of 75,000 to 1,000,000 gallons
Clarification of rule and monitoring and testing February 17, 2011 requirements, additional control options, and notification requirements NOx Emission Standards NOxemission standards for nitric acid and adipic November 15, 1999 for Nitric Acid and Adipic acid manufacturing facilities in the HGB area Acid Manufacturing Utility Electric NOxcontrol requirements (approximately 55 %) May 1, 2003, through Generation in East and on utility boilers and stationary gas turbines at May 1, 2005 Central Texas utility electric generation sites in East and Central Texas VOC Control Measures Additional control technology requirements for December 31, 2002, batch processes, bakeries, and offset lithographic and earlier printers by December 31,2002
Additional VOC measures adopted earlier for reasonably available control technology (RACT) purposes: storage, general vent gas, industrial wastewater, loading and unloading operations, general VOC LDAR, solvent using process, etc. (see Appendix D: ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis ofthe Houston-GalvestonBrazoria Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan Revision for the 1997 EightHour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision) adopted March 10, 2010, for more details)

4-2Measure .. .

.Descrlption .. . Start.Dl!te{s)

.. VOC Control Measures- Additional control technology requirements for December 31, 2002 Offset lithographic offset lithographic printers Printers Revision to limit VOC content of solvents used by March 1, 2011, for offset lithographic printing facilities and to major sources include smaller sources in rule applicability (see Appendix D ofthe HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 1,2012, for March 10, 2010, for more details) minor sources Refueling

- Stage I Captures gasoline vapors that are released when 1990 gasoline is delivered to a storage tank Vapors returned to the tank truck as the storage tank is being filled with fuel, rather than released into the ambient air Refueling

- Stage II Captures gasoline vapors when avehicle is being 1992 fueled at the pump Vapors returned through the pump hose to the petroleum storage tank, rather than released into the air Federal Area/Non-Road Series of emissions limits, implemented by the Through 2018 Measures United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for area and non-road sources Examples: diesel and gasoline engine standards for locomotives and leaf-blowers Texas Emission Reduction Provides grant funds for on-road and non-road January 2002 Plan (TERP) heavy-duty diesel engine replacement/retrofit California Gasoline California standards for non-road gasoline May 1, 2004 Engines engines 25 horsepower and larger Stationary Diesel Engines Prohibition on operating stationary diesel and April 1, 2002 dual-fuel engines for testing and maintenance purposes between 6:00 a.m. and noon Natural Gas-Fired Small NO, emission limits on small-scale residential and 2002 Boilers, Process Heaters, industrial boilers, process heaters, and water and Water Heaters heaters equal to or less than 2.0 million British thermal units per hour Minor Source NO, NO, emission limits on boilers, process heaters, March 31, 200S Controls for Non-MECT stationary engines, and turbines at minor sites Sites not included in the MECT program (uncontrolled design capacity to emit less than 10 tons peryear (tpy))

4-3

### Measure

. 

### . Description

. 

### , 

### . Start Date(s) VOC Control Measures Additional control technology requirements for December 31, 2002, batch processes and bakeries by December 31, and earlier 2002
Additional VOC measures adopted earlier for RACT purposes: storage, general vent gas, industrial wastewater, loading and unloading operations, general VOC LDAR, solvent using process, cutback asphalt, etc. (see Appendix D of the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, for more details) Texas Low Emission Requires all diesels for both on-road and non- Phase in began Diesel (TxLED) road use to have a lower aromatic content and a October 31, 2005 higher cetane number TxLED for Marine Fuels Adds marine distillate fuels X and A, commonly June 24, 2007 known as DMX and DMA, or Marine Gas Oil, into the definition of diesel fuels, requiring them to be TxLED compliant Texas Low Reid Vapor Requires all gasoline for both on-road and non- April 2000 Pressure (RVP) Gasoline road use to have a RVP of7.B pounds per square inch or less from May 1 through October 1 each year Voluntary Mobile Voluntary measures administered by the Through 201B Emissions Reduction Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) (see Program (VMEP) Appendix F: Evaluation ofMobile Source Control Strategiesfor the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria State Implementation Plan (With Detailed Strategies), prepared for H-GAC by ENVIRON International Corporation, ofthe HGB AD SIP adopted March 10, 2010) Federal On-Road Series of emissions limits, implemented by the Phase in through 2013 Measures EPA, for on-road vehicles Examples: Tier 1 and Tier 2 vehicle standards, low sulfur diesel standards, National Low Emission Vehicle standards, and reformulated gasoline Vehicle Inspection/ Yearly treadmill-type testing for pre-1996 vehicles May 1, 2002, in Harris Maintenance (11M) and computer checks for 1996 and newer vehicles County May 1, 2003, in Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, and Montgomery Counties Speed Limit Reduction Five miles per hour (mph) below what was posted September 2003 before May 1, 2002, on roadways where speeds were 65 mph or higher

4-4

### Measure 

### 1>escriptlon

. 

### Start Date(s) Transportation Con.trol Various measures in H-GAC's long-range Phase in through 2018 

### Measures transportation plans (see Appendix Fofthe HGB AD SIP adopted March 10, 2010, 

### for more details) Voluntary Energy Energy efficiency and renewable energy projects September 1, 1999, 

### Efficiency/Renewable encouraged by Senate Bill (SB) 7, 76th Texas and September 1, 

### Energy Legislature, 1999 

### and SB 5, 

### 77th Texas 2001 

### Legislature, 2001 

### Automotive Windshield VOC content limitation on automotive windshield January 1, 1995 

### Washer Fluid washer fluid sold, supplied, distributed, or manufactured for use in Texas



### 4.3 UPDATES TO EXISTING CONTROLMEASURES (NO CHANGE)
4.4 REASONABLYAVAILABLE CONTROLTECHNOLOGY (RACT) ANALYSIS 4.4.1 

### General Discussion The HGB area is currently classified as a severe nonattainment area for the 1997 eight-hour ozoneNational Ambient

### Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Under the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, the HGB area is requiredto meetthe mandates ofthe Federal Clean

### AirAct (FCAA) under §172(C)(1) and §182(b)(2) and (f). 

### According to the EPA's final rule to implementthe 1997 eight-hourozone NAAQS (40 Code ofFederal Regulations §51.912, November 29, 2005), a state containing areas classified as moderate nonattainment orhigher must submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision demonstrating that its currentrules 

### fulfill the RACf requirements for all Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) emission source categories and all non-CfG major sources ofNOx andVOC. The major source threshold for severe nonattainment areas is a potential to emit 25 tpy or more ofeitherNOx orVOC. In the September 17, 1979, issue ofthe

### FederalRegister (44 FR53762), RACfis defined as the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable ofmeeting bythe application of controltechnology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. RACfrequirements for nonattainment areas classified as moderate and higher are included in the FCAAto assure that significantsource categories at major sources ofozone precursor emissions are controlled to a reasonable extent, but not necessarily to best available controltechnology (BACT) levels expected ofnew sources orto maximum achievable control teclmology (MACT) levels requiredfor major sources ofhazardous 

### airpollutants. While RACf and reasonably available control measures (RACM) have similar consideration factors like technological and economic feasibility, there is a significant distinctionbetween RACfand RACM. Tobe consideredRACM, a control measure must advance attainment ofthe area towards meeting the NAAQS for that measure (see FCAA, §172(C)(1)). Advancing attainmentof the area is not afactor ofconsideration when evaluating RACfbecause thebenefit of implementing RACfis presumed underthe FCAA. Underthe current state rules, theHGB area is subjectto some ofthe most stringentNOx and VOC emission control requirements inthe country, andfor many source categories, the existing rules are more stringentthan recommended RACfstandards for those categories. In 

### the final approval notice for the revisedHGB one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision published in the September 6, 2006, issue ofthe

### FederalRegister (71 FR52676), the EPAnoted thatthe HGB VOC rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115 andNOx rules in Chapter

4-5117 were previously determined to meet the FCAARACfrequirements. Under the one-hour ozone NAAQS, the HGB area was also designated as a severe nonattainment area and the threshold for major stationary sources underthe one-hour ozone nonattainment designation was identicalto the current threshold under the 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment designation. Therefore, controls to satisfy RACffor most major sources underthe 1997 eighthour ozone.designation were implementedby the Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality (TCEQ) under the one-hour orone attainment demonstration SIP revision and previously approvedby the EPA 

### 4-4.2 NOx RACT Determination (No change) 4-4.3 VOC RACT Determination The TCEQ's analysis demonstrates that the currentVOC rules and controls for the HGB area satisfy the FCAArequirements for RACffor all CTG or alternative controltechniques (ACD VOC source categories specific to any CfG orACfdocuments issued priorto 2006. For all nonCfG/ ACfmajorVOC emission source categories thatcontrols are technologically and economically feasible, RACfis fulfilled by the EPA-approved Chapter 115 rules or other federally enforceable measures. The EPAissued 11 CfG documents between 2006 and 2008 with recommendations forVOC controls on a variety ofconsumer and commercial products. Some ofthe new CfG recommendations are updates to previouslyissued CTG documents and some are recommendations for new categories. The TCEQ evaluated these new CfG documents in this RACfanalysis to deternline 

### ifadditional VOC controls were necessary to fulfill RACf requirements. The RACfanalysis included in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, addresses the following CfG documents:

• FlatWood Paneling Coatings, Group 

## n, issued in 2006;

• Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Auto and Light-Duty TruckAssembly Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Fiberglass BoatManufacturing Materials, Group IV, issuedin 2008. The RACfanalysis included in this SIP revision addresses the following CfG documents:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issuedin 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issuedin 2008. The remainderof

### this section includes briefsummaries ofthe TCEQ's deternlinations regarding these seven CTG documents. Additional details regarding the evaluation ofthe 11 CTG documents are provided inAppendixA:. 

### ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis.
4.4,3-l Flexible Package Printing The TCEQ has determinedthat portions ofthe Flexible Package Printing CTG recommendations are RACffor the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing

4-6

### rulemaking to limitthe

## vec content ofcoatings usedby flexible package printing sources in the HGB area (Rille Project 2010-016-115-EN). The rulemaking implements the CTG 

### recommendations to reduce the

## vec content ofcoatings and imposes workpractices for cleaning materials used during flexible package printing. 4.4.3.2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents The TCEQ 

### has determined that the Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommendations are RACTfor the HGB area. Concurrentwith 

### this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing rulemaking to implementthe CTG 

### recommendations to limitthe

## vec content ofindustrial cleaning solvents used in the HGB area (Rille Project 2010-016-115-EN). 4.4.3.3 Large Appliance Coatings The TCEQ has determined that portions ofthe LargeAppliance Coatings CTG 

### recommendations are RACT for the HGB area. Concurrentwith this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing rulemaking to limitthe

## vec content oflarge appliance coatings in the HGB area (Rille Project 201O-016-115-EN). The rulemaking implements the CTG 

### recommendations to reduce the

## vec contentofcoatings and imposes workpractices for cleaning materials used during large appliance coating. 4.4.3.4 Metal Furniture Coatings The TCEQ 

### has determined thatportions ofthe Metal Furniture Coatings CTG 

### recommendations are RACTfor the HGB area. Concurrentwith this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing rulemaking to limitthe

## vec content ofmetal furniture coatings used in the HGB area (Rille Project 2010-0l6-115-EN). The rulemaking implements the CTG 

### recommendations to reduce the

## vec contentofcoatings and imposes workpractices for cleaning materials used during metal furniture coating. 4.4.3.5 Paper, Film. and Foil 

### Coatings The TCEQ has deternlined thatportions ofthe Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CTG 

### recommendations are RACT

### for the HGB area. Concurrentwith 

### this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing rulemaking to linritthe

## vec contentofpaper, 

### film, and foil coatings in the HGB area (Rille Project 20l0-0l6-115-EN). The rulemaking implements the CTG 

### recommendations to reduce the

## vec content ofcoatings and imposes workpractices for cleaning materials used during paper, 

### film, and foil coating. 4.4.3.6 Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives The TCEQ has determined that the Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives CTG 

### recommendations are RACTfor the HGB area. Concurrentwith 

### this SIP revision, theTCEQ is proposing rulemaking to implementthe CTG 

### recommendations to limit the

## vec content ofmiscellaneous industrial adhesives used in the HGB area (Rille Project 201O-0l6-115-EN). 4.4.3.7 Misce!],meous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings TheTCEQ has determined that portions ofthe Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG 

### recommendations are RACT

### for the HGB area. Concurrentwith this SIP revision, theTCEQ is proposing rulemaking to limitthe

## vec content ofmiscellaneous metal and plasticparts coatings usedin the HGB area (Rille Project 2010-0l6-115-EN). The rulemaking implements the CTG 

### recommendations to reduce the

## vec content ofcoatings and imposes workpractices for cleaning materials used during miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coating.

4-7

### 4.5 REASONABLYAVAILABLE CONTROLMEASURES (RACM) ANALYSIS (NO CHANGE)
4.6 NEWCONTROLMEASURES (NO CHANGE)
4.7 MOTORVEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGET (MVEB) (NO CHANGE)
4.8 MONITORINGNElWORK (NO CHANGE)
4.9 CONTINGENCYPLAN (NO CHANGE)
4.10 REFERENCES (NO CHANGE)

4-8

### CHAPTER5: WEIGHT OFEVIDENCE (NO CHANGE)

5-1

### CHAPTER 6: ONGOINGAND FUTURE INITIATIVES (NO CHANGE)

6-1APPENDIXA

REASONABLYAVAILABLE CONTROLTECHNOWGY ANALYSIS

HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROLTECHNOLOGYANALYSIS UPDATE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION FORTHE 1997 EIGHT-HOUROZONE STANDARD

ProjectNo. 2010-028-SIP-NRTable ofContents 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 

### RAcr EvaluationApproach .................................................•.................................. 2 1.2.1 General Discussion 2 1.2.2 Identification of

### CI'G Emission Sources 3 1.2.3 Determining ifState Regulations Fulfill 

### RAcrRequirements 3 1.3 

### RAcr Determination and Discussion 3 1.3.1 General Discussion 3 1.3.2VOC 

### RAcr Determination 4 1.3.2.1 FlexIble Package Printing 4 1.3.2.2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents 4 1.3.2.3 Large Appliance Coatings 5 1.3.2.4 Metal Furniture Coatings 5 1.3.2.5 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings 6 1.3.2.6 Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives ; 7 1.3.2.7 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings 71.1 INTRODUcnON The eight-county Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) eight-hour ozone nonattainment area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, andWaller Counties) 

### is currently classified as severe underthe 1997 eight-hourorone National AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS). Underthe 1997 eight-hour orone standard, the HGB area is required to meetthe mandates ofthe Federal CleanAirAct (FCAA) under §172(C)(1) and §182(b)(2) and (f). According to the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency's (EPA) final rule to implementthe 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS (40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) §51.912, November 29, 2005), a state containing areas classified as moderate nonattainment orhigher must submit a state implementationplan (SIP) revision demonstrating that its current rules fulfill the reasonably available control teclmology (RACf) requirements for all Control Techniques Guidelines (CfG) emission source categories. Inthefinal approval notice for the revised HGB one-hourorone attainment demonstration SIPrevision published in the September 6, 2006, issue ofthe 

### FederalRegister (71 FR 52676), the EPAnotedthatthe HGB volatile organic compounds (VOC) rules in 30 TexasAdministrative Code (T AC) Chapter 115: 

### Control of AirPollutionfrom Volatile Organic Compounds and nitrogen oxides (NOx) rules in Chapter 117: 

### Control of AirPollutionfromNitrogen Compounds were previously determinedto meetthe FCAARACfrequirements. The EPAissued 11 CfG documents between 2006 and 2008 with recommendations for VOC controls on a variety ofconsumer and commercial products. Some ofthe new CfG recommendations are updates to previously issued CfG documents and some are recommendations for new categories. TheTexas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) evaluatedthese new CfG documents in this RACfanalysis to determine ifadditional VOC controls were necessaryto fulfill RACfrequirements. The RACfanalysis included in the Houston-Galveston-BrawriaAttainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan Revision for the 1997 Eight-HourOrone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision) adopted March 10, 2010, addresses the following CfG documents:

• FlatWood Paneling Coatings, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Auto andLight-DutyTruckAssembly Coatings, Group IV, issuedin 2008. The RACfanalysis included in this SIP revision addresses the following CfG documents:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• LargeAppliance Coatings, Group III, issuedin 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, andFoil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issuedin 2008. By letter dated December 8, 2008, the TCEQ requested clarificationfrom the EPAregarding several issues relatedto the recommendations in the followingthree CfGcategories: Large Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. A numberofthe recommended VOC content limits for specific coatings categories in the CfG documents are less stringentthan the more general VOC content limits specifiedinthe

A-lEPA's original CTGrecommendations. The TCEQ requested clarificationto assure that implementing the erGrecommendations would notbe considered as backsliding and to be certain thattheTCEQ has the appropriate information to determine whetherthe CTG recommendations actually represent RACT forTexas. On March 17, 2011, the EPA issued a guidancememorandum regarding these three CTG categories entitledApproving SIPRevisions Addressing 

## vacRACTRequirements for Certain Coatings Categories. The EPA stated in the memorandum that: •...ifa statebelieves thevolume usage distribution among the general and specialty categories in the docket is representative ofthe distribution in the nonattainment area, we believe thatifa state undertakes wholesale adoption ofthe new categorical limits in a specific CTG, the state may rely on the assessments in the docketto demonstrate thatthe range ofnew limits will result in an overall reduction in emissions from the collection ofcovered coatings." TheTCEQ is proposing concurrent rulemaking (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN) to implementRACT for these three CTG categories thatincorporates the linlits as recommended in the CTG documents. The preamble ofthe proposed rulemaking provides discussion regarding the estimatedpercent reductions for these CTG categories that supports the EPA's position that applying the new recommended limits as a whole results in net reductions. In addition, as discussed in the preamble ofthe proposedrulemaking and in this appendix, the currentTCEQ rules for these CTG categories have exemption thresholds more stringentthan recommendedby the CTG documents andthe proposedrulemaking would retain the more stringent exemption thresholds ofthe currentrules to preventpotentialbacksliding. This approach also results in an overall control level greaterthan the new CTG recommendations and supports the TCEQ's position that proposed rulemaking provides equivalent orbetterVOC control for these CTG categories and is notbacksliding undertile FCAA. TheTCEQ contends thattheproposed rulemaking is consistentwiththe EPA's guidance in the March 17, 2011, memorandum and meets RACT requirements forthese three CTG categories. RACT is defined as the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable ofmeeting bythe application ofcontrol technologythatis reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762, September 17. 1979). RACT requirements for moderate and higher classification nonattainment areas are included in the FCAAto assure that significant source categories at major sources ofozone precursor emissions are controlledto a reasonable extent, but not necessarilyto best available control technology (BACT) levels expected ofnew sources orto maximum achievable control technology (MACT) levels required for major sources ofhazardous airpollutants. While RACT and reasonably available control measures (RACM) have similarconsideration factors like technological and economicfeasibility, thereis a significant distinction between RACT and RACM. A control measure must advance attainment ofthe area towards meeting the NAAQS for that measure to be considered RACM. Advancing attainment ofthe area is not a factor ofconsideration when evaluating RACTbecause thebenefitofimplementing RAeris presumedunderthe FCAA.

1.2 RACfEVALUATIONAPPROACH 1.2.1 

### General Discussion TheTCEQ demonstrates that the RACT requirements are being fulfilled in the HGB areaby: (1) identifying all CTG source categories ofNOx andVOC emissions and submitting negative declarations for categories where there are no emission sources within the HGB area; (2) identifying all non-erG major sources ofNOx andVOC emissions; (3) identifying the state regulation thatimplements orexceeds RACT for each applicable CTG source category ornonCTG major emission source; and (4) descrihingthebasis for concluding that these regulations

A-2fulfill RACT. Becausethis SIP revision focuses specifically on the sevenCTG documents issued bythe EPAfrom 2006 through 2008 thatwere not addressed in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, this RACT analysis onlyprovides an update to the HGB VOC RACT demonstration. 

### 1.2.2 Identification of

## erG Emission Sources The EPAhas issued CTG documents defining RACT for existing facilities. TheTCEQ reviewed the seven Consumer and Commercial Products CTG documents issuedfrom 2006 through 2008 that were not addressed in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, to identify all source categories ofVOC emissions thatrequire RACT. RACT determinations are notrequired 

### if there are no sources inthe HGB areathat are subject to a CTG document. 

### 1.2.3 Determining if

### State Regulations Fulfill 

## RAer Requirements The EPApreviously approvedthe VOC rules in 30TAC Chapter 115 as meetingthe FCAARACT requirements for CTG documents issuedpriorto 2006. RACT forthe CTGdocuments issuedin or after 2006 was evaluatedby comparing CTGrecommendations to TCEQ rules to determine 

### if the existing rules satisfied RACT. RACT determinations for four ofthe CTG documents issued after 2006 were submittedto the EPA onApril 6, 2010 (SIP ProjectNumber 2009-017-SIP-NR). Additional discussionregarding CTG documents issued in 2006 and later is provided in Section 1.3.2: VaGRAGT

### Detennination ofthis appendix. State rules that are consistent with ormore stringentthan controls inlplemented in othernonattainment areas were also determined to fulfill RACT requirements. Federally approved state rules andrule approval dates canbefound in40 CFR §52.2270(c), EPAApproved Regulations in the Texas SIP. BACTis an emission standardthat isbased on the maximum degree ofemission reduction achievable andis at least as stringent as the emission standards setby any applicable FCAA provisions. MACT is an emission standardthat requires the maximum reduction ofhazardous emissions andis at least as stringent as the average emission level achievedby controls onthe top 12% ofexisting sources in the applicable source category. Therefore, emission sources subjectto the more stringentBACT or MACT requirements were determinedto also fulfill RACT requirements. TheTCEQ reviewed the emission sources in the HGB area andthe applicable state rules to verify that all CTG emission source categories inthe HGB areawere subjectto requirements thatmeet orexceedthe applicable RACTrequirements, orthatfurther emission controls onthe sources were either not economically feasible ornot technologically feasible. 

### 1.3 

## RAer DETERMINATION AND DISCUSSION 1.3.1 General Discussion The HGB areais subjectto some ofthe most stringent NOx andVOC emission control requirements inthe country, andfor many source categories the existingrules are more stringentthan recommendedRACT standards for those categories. In the final approval notice forthe revised HGB one-hourozone attainment demonstration SIPrevision (71 FR52676, September 6, 2006), the EPA notedthatthe HGB VOC rules in Chapter 115 and NOxrules in Chapter 117 were previously determinedto meetthe FCAARACTrequirements. Underthe onehourozone NAAQS, the HGBarea was 

### also designated severenonattainrnent andthe threshold for major stationary sources underthe one-hourozone nonattainment designation was identical to the currentthresholdunderthe 1997 eight-hour ozone designation. Therefore, controls to satisfy RACTfor most major sources underthe 1997 eight-hourozone designation were implementedby the TCEQ underthe one-hourozone attainment demonstration SIP revision andpreviouslyapprovedby the EPA.
A-31.3.2 VOC RACT Detennination 1.3.2.1 Flexible Package Printing Concurrentwith this SIPrevision, theTCEQ is proposing revisions to the flexographic and rotogravure printing rules in 30TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter E: SobJent-Using Processes, Division 3: Flexographic andRotogravurePrinting to inlplementthe EPA's 2006 Flexible Package Printing CTG recommendations thattheTCEQ has determined are RACT in the HGB area (Rule ProjectNumber2010-016-115-EN). The proposed Chapter 115 rulemaking would reduce theVOC contentlimits ofcoatings, increase the overall control efficiency ofadd-on controls used in flex1ble package printing operations, establish workpracticeprocedures for materials used during associated cleaning activities, and expandrule applicability to include smallerflexible package printing lines that were previously exemptfrom these rules. The TCEQ is notproposing to implementthe EPA's 2006 CTGrecommendation to exempt flexible package printing operations from allVOC coating contentlinlits ifthe operations have total actual VOC emissions less than 15 pounds per dayfrom inks, coatings, and adhesives. For the HGB area, the existing Chapter 115 rules provide an exemption for combinedflexographic and rotogravure printing operations with the potential to emitless than 25 tons peryear (tpy) of VOC from inks. Calculating onlythe VOC emissions resulting from flexible package printing operations to determine exemption from the required controls may createbacksliding issues for properties already complying with the currentChapter 115 rules. The existing Chapter 115 exemption limit is equal to or potentially more stringentthan the 2006 CTG-recommended exemptionthreshold for properties conducting multiple flexographic androtogravure printing operations, and is retained in the proposed rules. Additionally, theTCEQ is notproposing to inlplementthe EPA's 2006 CTGrecommendation to exempt a flexible package printingline from complying withVOC coating contentlimits ifthe line has the potential to emitless than 25 tpy ofuncontroUedVOC emissions from the dryer, from inks, coatings, and adhesives. As previously stated, the current Chapter 115 rules require combiningtheVOC emissions from all flexographic 

### and rotogravure printing lines to determine exemption from theVOC coating contentlimits. Implementingthe 2006 CTGrecommendation may exemptflexible package printing lines co-located on a propertywith otherflexographic and rotogravureprinting lines that are currently required to comply with theVOC control limits. The proposed Chapter 115 rules would retain the existingVOC contentlimits for a flexible package printingline withVOC emissions below the 2006 CTG-recommended exemption threshold. The EPA's 2006 CTG recommends requiring control equipmentfirst installedbefore the effective date ofrules implementingthe CTGrecommendations to have an overall control efficiency ranging from 65% to 75% and control equipmentfirst installed afterthe effective date ofrules inlplementing the CTGrecommendations to have an overall control efficiency of80%. TheTCEQ disagrees with the 2006 CTG recommendation to correlate control device efficiency requirements with the first installation date ofthe control device regardless ofwherethe equipmentwas first installed. Imposing this policy may encourage the installation ofolder, less efficientequipment and may create potential backsliding issues. The policy may also create significantpractical enforceability issues for TCEQ investigators with regardto verifying the first installation date ofthe control equipment. Instead, theTCEQ proposes to implementthe CTGrecommended 80% overall control efficiency, regardless ofthe first installation date. 1.3,2,2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents Concurrent with this SIPrevision, theTCEQ is proposingrevisions to Chapter 115, Subchapter E, to create new Division 6: Industrial Cleaning Solvents to inlplementthe EPA's 2006 Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommendations that theTCEQ has determined are RACT in

A-4the HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The proposedChapter 115 rulemaking would establishVOC contentlimits for cleaning solvents used in specific cleaning activities, provide exemptions for certain cleaning activities from all or portions ofthe rule, andrequire certainworkpracticeprocedures for the use, storage, and disposal ofcleaning solvents. 1.3.2.3 Large Appliance Coatings Concurrentwiththis SIP revision, theTCEQ is proposing revisions to Chapter 115, Subchapter E, to create new Division 5: ControlRequirementsfor Surface Coating Processes to implement the EPA's 2007 LargeAppliance Coatings CTG recommendations thattheTCEQ has determined are RACT inthe HGB area (Rule ProjectNumber 201O-016-115-EN). The proposedChapter 115 rulernakingwould reduce VOC contentlimits ofcoatings, increase the overall control efficiency for add-on controls used inlarge appliance coating operations. and establish minimum transfer efficiencyfor coating application methods. The proposed rules would also require certainwork practiceprocedures for coating-related activities and materials used during associatedcleaning criteria. The EPA's 2007 CTG recommends exempting large appliance coating operations from the coatingVOC contentlimits and workpractice standards iftotal uncontrolledVOC emissions from coatings and associated cleaning solvents are less than 15 pounds per day. The current TCEQ rules provide an exemptionfrom the coatingVOC contentlimits for large appliance coating operations iftotal uncontrolledVOC emissions from all applicable coatingprocesses on a property subjectto Chapter 115. SubchapterE, Division 2: Surface Coating Processes are less than three pounds perhour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemptionfrom the required VOC controls maybe more stringent for properties conducting multiple coating operations specified inDivision 2becausethe exemption is notbasedonVOC emissions from a single coating category. To preventpotentialbackslidingfor properties already requiredto comply with the state's regulations, the proposed Chapter 115 rules would retain the existing exemption criteria. The existing TCEQ large appliance coating limits are based on the original CTG recommendations issuedbythe EPAin 1977. Several ofthe recommendedVOC contentlimits for specific coating categories listed inthe 2007 CTG document are less stringentthan the limits specified inthe EPA's original CTGrecommendations for this coating category. The 2007 CTG also recommends minimum solids transfer efficiency for coating application equipment. Despite the higherVOC content limits for the specialty coatings, the EPA's 2007 CTG claims that implementing the limits as recommended would result in an overall emissions reduction and provides documentation containing the methodology usedto estimate the reduction. TheTCEQ has conducteda comprehensive comparison ofthe 2007 CTGrecommendations to the existing VOC coating contentlimit and determinedthat proposingthe 2007 CTG-recommendedcoating VOC contentlimits will not negatively impactthe status ofthe state's attainmentwiththe 1997 eight-hourozone NAAQS. will not interfere with control measures. and 

### will not prevent reasonable further progress toward attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS. The full Determination of Noninterference DemonstrationunderFCAA, §110(\) is provided in the preamble ofRule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN. 1.3.2.4 Metal Furniture Coatings Concurrentwiththis SIPrevision. theTCEQ 

### is proposing revisions to Chapter 115. Subchapter E, to create new Division 5 to implementthe EPA's 2007 MetalFurniture Coatings CTG recommendations thattheTCEQ has determined are RACT inthe HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). Theproposed Chapter 115 rulemaking would reduceVOC content limits ofcoatings. increasethe overall control efficiencyfor add-on controls used in metal

A-Sfurniture coating operations, and establish minimumtransferefficiency ofcoating application methods. The proposedrules would also require certain workpractice procedures for coatingrelated activities and materials used during associated cleaning operations. The EPA's 2007 erG recommends exempting metal furniture coating operations from the coatingVOC contentlimits and workpractice standards iftotal uncontrolledVOC emissions from coatings and associated cleaning solvents are less than 15 pounds per day. The current TCEQ rules provide an exemptionfrom the coating VOC content limits for metal furniture coating operations iftotal uncontrolledVOC emissions from coatings in all applicable coating processes located on a property subjectto Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 are less than three pounds perhour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemption from the requiredVOC controls maybe more stringentfor properties conducting multiple coating processes specifiedin Division 2 because the exemption is not based onVOC emissions from a single coating category. Toprevent potentialbacksliding for properties already requiredto complywith the state's regulations, the proposed Chapter 115 rules would retain the existing exemption criteria. The existing TCEQ metal furniture coating limits are based on the original erG recommendations issuedbythe EPAin 1977. Several ofthe recommendedVOC contentlimits for specific coating categories listed in the 2007 erG document are less stringentthan the limits specified in the EPA's original erG recommendations for this coating category. The 2007 erG also recommends minimum solids transfer efficiency for coating application equipment. Despite the higherVOC contentlimits for the specialty coatings, the EPA's 2007 erG claims that inIplementingthe linIits as recommended wouldresult in an overall emissions reduction and provides documentation containing the methodology usedto estimatethe reduction. The TCEQ has conducted a comprehensive comparison ofthe 2007 erG recommendations to the existing VOC coating contentlimits and determinedthat proposing the 2007 erG-recommendedcoating VOC contentlimits will not negatively impactthe status ofthe state's attainment withthe 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS, will not interfere with control measures, and will not prevent reasonable further progress toward attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS. The full Determination of Noninterference DemonstrationunderFCAA, §1100) is provided in the preamble ofRule Project Number 20l0-o16-115-EN. 1.3.2,5 Paper, Film, andFoil Coatings Concurrentwith this SIPrevision, the TCEQ is proposingrevisions to Chapter 115, Subchapter E, to create new Division 5 to inIplementthe EPA's 2007 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings erG recommendations thatthe TCEQ has determined are RAerinthe HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-0l6-115-EN). The proposed Chapter 115 rulemaking would reduce theVOC contentlimits ofcoatings; increasethe overall control efficiency for add-on controls used in paper, film, andfoil coating operations; and establish workpracticeprocedures for materials used during cleaning operations associated with paper, film, and foil coating. The EPA's 2007 erGrecommends exempting all paper, film, and foil coating operations on a property from the coating VOC contentlimits and workpractice standards iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions from paper, film, and foil coatings and associated cleaning solvents are less than 15 pounds perday. The currentTCEQ rules provide an exemptionfrom the coatingVOC content limits for paper, film, and foil coating operations iftotal uncontrolledVOC emissions from all applicable surface coating processes on a property subjectto Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 are less 

### than three pounds per hour and 15 pounds perday. The existing exemption from the required VOC controls maybe more stringentfor properties conducting multiple coating processes specified in Division 2 because the exemption is notbased onVOC emissions from a single coating category. To preventpotentialbacksliding forproperties conducting paper,

A-6film, and foil coating operations already requiredto comply with the state's regulations, the proposed Chapter 115 rules wouldretain the existing exemption criteria. Additionally, the TCEQis notproposing to implement the EPA's 2007 CTG recommendation to exempt a paper, film, and foil coating line from complying with VOC coating content limits ifthe line has the potentialto emit less than 25 tpy ofuncontrolledVOC emissions from coatings. As previously stated, the current Chapter 115 rules require combining the VOC emissions from all applicable surface coating processes located on a property subjectto SubchapterE, Division 2 to determine exemptionfrom the VOC coating contentlimits. Implementingthe 2007 CTG recommendation may exempt paper, film, andfoil coating lines co-locatedon a propertywith other coating lines subject to Division 2 that are currently complying the VOC coating content limits. To preventbacksliding, the proposed Chapter 115 rules would retain the existing VOC contentlimits for a paper, film, andfoil coating line with VOC emissions belowthe 2007 CTGrecommendedexemption threshold. 1.3.2.6 Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives Concurrentwiththis SIPrevision, the TCEQ is proposing revisions to Chapter 115, Subchapter E, to create new Division 7: 

### Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives to implementthe EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives CTGrecommendations thatthe TCEQ has determined are RACT in the HGB area (Rule ProjectNumber 2010-016-115-EN). The proposed Chapter 115 rulemaking would implementVOC content limits for general adhesive applicationprocesses, specialty adhesive application processes, and adhesive primerapplicationprocesses; provide exemptions for certain cleaning activities from all or portions ofthe rule; incorporatetest methods andrecordkeeping requirements; and establish minimumtransfer efficiency of adhesive applicationmethods. Theproposed rules would also require certainworkpractice procedures for adhesive-related activities and materiaIs used during associated cleaning operations. 1.3.2,7 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatipgs Concurrentwiththis SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing revisionsto Chapter 115, Subchapter E,to createnew Division 5, to implementthe EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG recommendations thatthe TCEQhas determined are RACTinthe HGB area (Rule ProjectNumber 2010-016-115-EN). The miscellaneous plastic parts category ofthe CTG represents a new RACT CTG categoryfor the HGB area, andthe currentcoatings rules in Chapter 115, SubchapterE, Division 2 do not apply to miscellaneous plastic parts. The proposed Chapter 115 rulemaking would expandthe scope ofthe existing rule applicabilityto includethe new coating categories recommended inthe 2008 CTG. Theproposed Chapter 115 rulemaking wouldreduceVOC contentlimits ofcoatings, increasethe overall control efficiency ofadd-on controls, and establish minimumtransfer efficiency ofcoating applicationmethods. The proposedrules would also require certain workpracticeprocedures for coating-related activities and materials used during associated cleaning operations. The EPA's 2008 CTGrecommends exempting miscellaneous metal andplastic parts coating operations from the VOC controlrequirements iftotal uncontrolledVOC emissions from coatings and cleaning solvents are less than 15 pounds per day. The currentTCEQ rules exempt miscellaneous metal parts and products coating operations from the requiredVOC coating limits iflocatedon a property wheretotal uncontrolledVOC emissions from all applicable surface coatingprocesses subjectto Chapter 115, SubchapterE, Division 2 are less than three pounds per hour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemption from the required controls may be more stringent for properties conducting multiple coating processes specifiedin Division 2 becausethe exemptionis notbasedonVOC emissions from a single coating category. To

A-7preventpotentialbackslidingfor sources already subjectto tbe Chapter 115 rules, tbe proposed rule revisions wouldintegratetbe new 2008 CTG coatingcategories into tbe existing exemption from the VOC control requirements. Theproposed Chapter 115 rules would retain tbe state's approachto maintain consistency witb tbe current exemption criteria. The existing TCEQ miscellaneous metalpart andproductcoating limits arebased ontbe original CTG recommendations issuedbytbe EPAin 1978. SeveraloftherecommendedVOC contentlimits for specific coating categories listedinthe 2008 CTG document are less stringent than tbe limits specifiedin tbe EPA's original CTG recommendations for this coating category. The 2008 CTG also recommends minimum solidstransfer efficiencyfor coating application equipment. Altboughtbe 2008 CTG does not quantifythe estimatedVOC emissions reduced as aresultofimplementing tbe recommendedVOC contentlimits, theTCEQ applied an approach consistentwiththe Large Appliance Coating andMetalFurniture Coating CTG emission reduction memo documents to estimatetbeVOC emissions reduction. TheTCEQ has determinedtbat proposing the 2008 CTG-recommended coating VOC contentlimits will not negativelyimpacttbe status oftbe state's attainment witb tbe 1997 eight-hourozone NAAQS, will notinterfere witb control measures, and will not preventreasonable further progress toward attainment oftbe 1997 eight-hourozone NAAQS. The full Determination of Noninterference Demonstration underFCAA, §110(l) is providedinthe preamble ofRule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN.

A-SAPPENDIX A

REASONABLYAVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS

Attachment 1 December 8,2008, Letterto Mr. William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, United States Environmental ProtectionAgency on Issues Relatedto ControlTechniques Guidelines Documents• Buddy Garcia, Chairman Larry R. Soward, Commissioner Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Commissi071S!r Mark R. Vickery, P.G., ExecutiveDirector 

## TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protet:ting Texas byReducing andPreoentlngPollution

.

December 8, 2008



### Mr. William T, Harnett, Director, 

### Air Quality Policy Division Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards Organization United States Environmental Protection Agency MailDrop C504-01 Research TriaIiglePark, North Carolina 27711 Dear

### DirectorHarnett: The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 

### Air Quality Division is currently reviewing the Consumer and Commercial Products Group IT, Group III, and Group IV Control Techniques Guidelines (CI'G) documents released by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 2006 through 2008. Our evaluation of these CTG documents has prompted several questions regarding the CI'G documents for Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Miscel1aneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. The issues and questions related to these CI'G documents are detaiiedbelow. Texas' existing rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter liS for controllingvolatile organic compound (YOC) emissions from the surface coating of large appliances!, metal fumiture2

, and miscellaneous metal parts and products' were based on the EPA's Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) corresponding 1977 and 1978 Guideline Series' (GS) recommendations. The existing emission standards for surface coating of\arge appliances and metal furniture are not specific to coating**~es;** however, the 2007 CTG documents for Large Appliance Coatings' and Metal Furniture Coatings recommend setting coating type specific emission standards. Some of the recommended emissions standards are equivalent or more stringent than the existing generic standards while some recommended emission standards are less .stringentthan the existing standards. Similarly, the 2008 

## era for MiscelIaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings7 also recommends emission standards for certain coating types that are less stringent than the existing 30TAC Chapter 115 emission standards. Please see 

### the enclosed table for a more detailed comparison ofthe existing VOC emission standards based on the 1977 and 1978 

## as recommendations (and TCEQ rules) versus the 2007' and 2008 CI'G documents for these categories. Since some ofthe limitsrecommended for these specific coating types are less stringentthan the existing emission standards based on the EPA's original GS recommendations, TCEQ's Air Quality Division has.

P.O. Box 13087 • AUJlin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.UJ "rlllLed llil**~I""** I'Dptl' UlIillltany-bbIM:d irtkMr. William T. Harnett Page 2 December 8, 2008

concerns that implementing the new CTG recommendations could be perceived as backsliding. In addition, these discrepancies may make it impossible for TCEQ staff to detennine if actual VOC reduction benefit would occur from implementing the CTG recommendations. Given the limited explanation8 of how these differences should be considered in light of the original GS standards, the TCEQ Air Quality Division is requesting written guidance to clarify the intent ofthe EPA's new CTG recommendations with regardto the following issues. I. Specific clarification is needed that implementing the recommendations in 

### the new CTG would notbe consideredbacksliding. 2. Are the coating type categories in the new CTG considered by tbe EPA to be coating types that were unregulated by the original GS recommendations or is this a situation where these specific coatings were covered under the original guidance, but theEPA bas re-evaluated what is technically feasible for these specialty coating types? What data was used to make this determination? 3. In light of the varying stringency of the recommended coating standards in these new CTG documents, how did the EPA determine the overal1 reduction benefit? Additional information, beyond what· is provided in the docket, is neceasary for the state to determine whether implementing CTG recommendations will result in a net VOC reduction in the specific nonattainment 

### areas wbere these CTGrecommendations wouldbe.implemented.

The EPA's clarification regarding these issues is critical for the Air Quality Division to complete our evaluation ofthe CTG recommendations and proceed with any recommendation to TCBQ's executive management and the commission regarding the' potential implementation of the EPA's CTG recommendations. Therefore, your expeditious response regarding these issues is greatly appreciated. You may contactme at512-239-4696. Sincerely, 

# ?uL/CcL

psusana M. Hildebrand, P.B. Director, Air Quality Division Texas Commission on Bnvironmental QualitY SMHlLA/sy Enclosures: References Emission LimitComparison Table

cc: Mr. Guy Donaldson, EPA Region 6 Ms. Ellen Belk, EPARegion 6 Mr. Bruce Moore, EPA, Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standards

. Mr. Bill Johnson, BPA, Office ofAir Quality Planning and StandardsEnclosure: References I: Title 30 TAC §llS.421(a)(l), Emission Specifications for Large Appliance Coating (Amended January 17,2003). 2: Title 30 TAC §llS.421(a)(2), Emission Specifications for Metal Furniture Coating (Amended January 17,2003). 3: Title 30 TAC §IIS.421(a)(9XA), Emission Specifications for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating (AmendedJanuary 17, 2003). 4: Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources

- Volume V: Surface Coating ofLarge Appliances, PublicationnumberEPA-4S012-77-0.34.

. Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile OrganicEmissions from Existing Stationary Sources

- Volume ill: Surface Coating.ofMetal Furniture, Publication numberEPA-4S012-77-032. Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources

- Volume· VI: Surface Coating ofMiscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Publication numberEPA-4S012-7SOIS, S: Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings. Publication number EPA 4S31R-07- 

### 004. 6: Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture- Coatings. Publication number EPA 4S31R-07- OOS. 7: Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. Publication numberEPA4S31R-OS-Q03. S: EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0329-0009 and EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0334-0010.Enclosure: Emission Limit Comparison Table Comparison of30 TAC Chapter 115 Emission Limits and 2006-2008 CTGRecommended Emission Limits Chapter 115 CTG Recommended Coating Type* Emission Llmit**

. Emission Limit** Baked**Coatin~** .Air-Dried Coatin2 LaI1!ll Appliance Coatln! General One Component 2.8 2.3 2.3 . General Multi-Component 2.8 2.3 2.8 Extreme High Gloss 2.8 3.0 2.8 Extreme PeJiofmance 2.8 3.0 3.5 Heat Resistant 2.8 3.0 3.5 Metallic 2.8 3.5 3.5 Pretreatment Coatin!!s 2.8 3.5 3.5 Solar Absorbent 2.8 3.0 .3.5 Metal furniture Coatin! General One Component 3.0 2.3 2.3" General Multi-Component 3.0 2.3 2.8 Extreme High Gloss 3.0 3.0 2.8 Extreme Performance 3.0 3.0 3.5 HeatResistant 3.0 3.0

. 3.5

.Metallic 3.0 3.5 3.5 PretreatmentCoatin!!s 3.0 3.5 3.5 Solar Absorbent 3.0 3.0 3.5 MIscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coatin! General One Component. 3.0 2.3 2.8 General Multi Component 3.0 2.3 2.8 Camouflage 3.0 3.5 3.5 Electric-Insulatin!! Varnish 3.0 3.5 3.5 Etching Filler 3.0 3.5 3.5 Extreme Hi !!h-Gloss 3.0 3.0 3.5 Bxtren1e Performance 3.5 3.0 3.5 Heat-Resistant 3.5 3.0 3.5 High Performance Architectural 3.0 6.2 6.2 High Temnerature 3.0 3.5 3.5 Metallic 3.0 3.5 3.5 Militarv Specification

. 3.0 2.3 2.8 Mold-Seal 3.0 3.5 3.5 Pan Backing 3.0 3.5 3.5 Prernblicated Architectural 3.0 2.3 3.5 Multi-Comoonent Prefabricated Architectural One- 3.0 2.3 3.5 Comnonent PretreatmentCoatinllS 3.0 3.5 3.5 Repair and Touchup 3.0 3.0 3.5 SiliconeRelease 3.0 3.5 3.5 Solar-Absorbent 3.0 3.0 3.5

.Comparison of30 TAC Chapter 115 J!:mlsslon Llmllll and 2006-2008 CTGRecommended Emission Limits Chapter 115 CTG Recommended CoatingType* Emission Llmit** Emission Limlt** Baked Coatln!! Air-Dried Coatinl! Vacuum-Metalizin.e 3.0 3.5 3.5 DrumCoatim!. New Exterior 3.0 2.8 2.8 Drum Coatim!. New Interior 4.3 3.5 3.5 Drum Coating, Reconditioned, 3.0 3.5 3.5 Exterior DrumCoating, Reconditioned, 4.3 4.2 4.2 Interior 

## *The CfGrecommendedemissionlimits forcoating types listed in red fontare less stringentthan existing Chapter 115 limilll

. •• Limit expressed in pounds per gallon ofcoating (minus water andexempt solvent) delivered to the application System.•



### Mr. WilliamT. Harnett Page 3 December 8, 2008

bee: TheresaPella Ashley Forbes VincentMeiller Lindley Anderson Amy BrowningAPPENDIXA

REASONABLYAVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS

Attachment 2 March 17, 2011, Memorandum from ScottMathias, 

### Air QualityPolicy Division, United States Environmental Protection Approving SIPRevisionsAddressing 

### vacRAer Requirements for Certain Coatings CategoriesUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711



## "jAR! 7 2011 OFFICE OF AIR QUALfTY PLANNlNG AND STANDARDS MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain Coatings Categories FROM: Scott Mathias, Interim Direct 

# I JI

# ~~ Air Quality Policy Division

# (~l.114 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 from newly-issued Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) documents. These CTGs providerecommendations to inform state determinations as to whatconstitutes 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 for these categories in 2007 and 2008, under authority ofClean Air Act (CAA) section 183(e), to address volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from categories ofconsumer and commercialproducts. They replace similar CTGs issued byEPA 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. ( Ifan 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 J990. EPA is required to set a SIP submission deadline with the issuance ofeach CTG. ForCTGs we have issued in the past several years, we have specified a submission deadline ofone year after the eTG was issued (See 72 FR 57215 Oct9,2007 and 73 FR 5848 Oct7, 2008).

(n18metAddI888 (URL). hllp:/lwww.epe.gov RecyeledlRecycl.ble • PrInted"'" VegeIabE 011 Based Intt$ on Recyd8d Paper (MinImUm Z5% PoMccnsumer)We anticipate that EPA Regional Offices would be able to approve the RACT determinations in these circumstances. We note that EPA's recommendations in CTGs are generally treated as "presumptive" RACT and stales 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. Ifa state chooses to revise more stringentrules 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 ofRACT. 

### See 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979). In addition, in order to comply with the SIP approval conditions ofCAA 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 ofthe 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 from another source category in another industry to offset the increased emissions from the specialty coatings. In general, ifa 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 ofCAA section 110(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 thatcan 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-HQ-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 CTGs do not contain area-specific analyses ofpotential emissions reductions. Generally, ifa state believes the volume usage distribution among the general and specialty categories in the docket is representative ofthe distribution in the nonattainment area, we believe that ifa 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 ofnew limits will result in an overall reduction in emissions from the collection ofcovered coatings. However, jfa state adopts some specialty category limits, but not all ofthe 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 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 ofrules based on the recommendations in the 1970s guidelines. Ifyou have further questions on SIP-related issues you should contact Butch Stackhouse at (919) 541-5208. [fyou have further technical questions on the topics covered in this memorandum you should contact Kaye Whitfield at (919) 541-2509.

cc: Robin Dunkins, SPPD Kimber Scavo, AQPD David 

### arlin, aGe Sara Schneeberg, OGC



### 3

# WRITTEN AND ORAL TESTIMONYReference Number
W-I
W-2
W-3

W-4
W-5 W-6
W-7 W-8
W-9 INDEX OF WRIITEN TESTIMONY

Submitted by
Ron Armstrong David Darling P.E., American Coatings Association Thomas A. Hoermann, on behalfofMr. James**Sel~** American Coatings Association (similarto 0-1) John Hopewell, American Coatings Association
Doreen Monteleone, Flexographic Technical Association Kirk Hummel, NASA Christina T. Wisdom, Texas Chemical Council Guy Donaldson, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Kate Bates, United States NavyFrom: To: Date: Subjed: 0711212011 09A7 AM 2010-016-115-EN 

# W-1

This email is a confinnalion ofthe comment that was submitted for the referenced rulemaking.
Firsl Name: RON LastNllITle: ARMSTRONG Com an '/0 anization: ACCP

Rule: 2010-016-1 IS-EN Comments: EPA has obviously put a target on the back ofTexas. As a small businessman; it will take more than simply lowering taxes to get me to expand my business. TIle one thing no successful businessman can handle is the constant changing ofregulalions that potentially put any equipment and increased employment to support said equipment when one never knoW'S ifhe or she will be allowed to operate purchased equipment. A reasonable and prudent businessman needs to be able lo plan and that has been impossible with the ever-changing regulations that EPA has come forth with

# • ••••• ••• 

# • AmericanCoatings ASSOCIATION 

# W-2

July 18,2011 Michael Parrish MC 205, Office ofLegal Services Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 RE: Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN; Texas Industrial Cleaning Solvents; ACA Comments Dear Mr. Parrish: The American Coatings Association (ACA) I appreciates this opportunity to comment on the adoption ofthe Industrial Cleaning Solvent CTG in Texas. ACA submitted initial comments on January 5, 20I0 and appreciates TCEQ exempting coating, ink and adhesive manufacturing from the Industrial Solvent Cleaning VOC limits (Section I I5.46I(c)(l3)), since these VOC limits would not allow effective cleaning at these operations. Please note that ACA also requested that resin manufacturing (specifically resins used in the manufacture ofcoatings) be exempted as well, since the proposed low VOC limits would not allow effective cleaning ofresin manufacturing equipment. Please refer to our January 5, 20I0 comments for additional details. It is our understanding that TCEQ did not exemptresin manufacturing operations since EPA did not expressly recommend exempting resin manufacturing operations in the Industrial Solvent Cleaning CTG. However, EPA specifically suggests exempting the cleaning ofresin and polyesterresin application equipment, and EPA does reference the exemptions from the two rules that EPA used to develop the CTG- Bay Area 8-4 and South Coast AQMD Rule 1171. It is important to note that both ofthese rules exemptresin manufacturing operations from the solvent cleaning VOC limits as follows:

1 The American Coatings Association (ACA) is a voluntary, nonprofit trade association working to advance the needs ofthe paint and coatings industry and the professionals who work in it. The organization represents paint and coatings manufacturers, raw materials suppliers, distributors, and technical professionals. ACA serves as an advocate and ally for members on legislative, regulatory andjudicial issues, and provides forums for the advancement andpromotion ofthe industry through educational and professional development services.

1500 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.· WASHINGTON. DC 20005 • T 202.462.6272 • F 202.462.8549 • www.palnl.oroSCAQMD Rule 1171 (g) Exemptions: "(2)(E) Cleaning operations subject to Rule 1141- Control ofVolatile Organic Compound Emissions from Resin Manufacturing, and Rule 1141.1

- Coatings and Ink Manufacturing." Bay Area 8-4, Section 113 Exemption, Specified Operations "This Rule shall not apply to operations that are subject to the requirements ofother Rules ofthis Regulation 8, orwhich comply with appropriate limitations ofthose Rules priorto their effective dates." Please note that Bay Area regulates resin manufacturing under Regulation 8, Rule 36. Since the Bay Area resin manufacturing regulation is under Regulation 8, the Bay Area solvent cleaning rule 8-4 does not apply to resin manufacturing operations.
Note that Maryland (26.11.19.09-I(A)(6)(b)(ii» exempted coating, ink, adhesive and resin manufacturing operations from the industrial solvent cleaning regulations, and EPA approved Maryland's State Implementation Plan, stating that it complied with the RACT requirements in the CTG. 76 Fed. Reg. 9656.
Ifover ACA's objection, TCEQ cannot exempt resin manufacturing operations from the Industrial Solvent Cleaning VOC limits, ACA suggests that TCEQ adopt rule language similar to the language currently being adopted in WI, IL, OH, lN, MO. "Cleaning Operations: (a) The owner oroperator ofa coating, ink, adhesive orresin manufacturing facility subject to this subsection shall use at least one ofthe following methods when cleaning mixing vats, high dispersion mills, grinding mills, tote tanks, and rollermills, except as provided in paragraph (b): 1. Use a solvent or solvent solution that either contains less than 0.20 kilograms ofVOC per liter (1.67 pounds per gallon) or has a VOC composite partial vapor pressure ofless than or equal to 8 nun ofHg at 20°C. The solvent or solvent solution shall be collected and stored in closed containers.
2. Implement the following workpractices: a. Maintain the equipment being cleaned as leak free. b. Drain VOC-containing cleaning materials from the cleaned equipment upon completion ofcleaning. c. Store or dispose ofVOC-containing cleaning materials, including waste solvent, in a manner that will prevent evaporation into the atmosphere. d. Store all VOC-containing cleaning materials in closed containers.

23. Collect and vent the emissions from equipment cleaning to an emission control system that has an overall control efficiency of80% or more on a mass basis. Ifincineration is used to control emissions, at least 90% ofthe organic carbon shall be oxidized to carbon dioxide. 4. Use no more than 228 liters (60 gallons) ofvirgin solventper month. Solvent or solvent solution that is reused or recycled (either onsite or offsite), for further use in equipment cleaning or the manufacture ofcoating is not included in this limit. (b) The owner or operator ofa facility engaged in wipe cleaning using a solvent or solvent solution may not do either ofthe following: I. Use open containers for the storage or disposal ofcloth orpaper impregnated with solvent or solvent solution that is used for cleanup, or coating removal. 2. Store solvent or solvent solutions for cleanup or coating removal in open containers." Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Ifyou have any questions or need any further information on the issues discussed here, please feel free to contact me at (202) 462-6272. Sincerely, 

### lsi David Darling, P.E. Senior Director, Environmental Affairs Cc: Amy Hambrick, EPA

•• Sentvia email ••

3BEFORE THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN THE MAnER OF: CHAPTER 115 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) RULE REVISIONS, 2010-016-115-EN

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS A. HOERMANN My name Is Thomas A. Hoennann. I am Regional Regulatory Affairs Specialist for Intematlonal Paint LLC, which is the Americas Business Unit for Marine, Protective, and Yacht Coatings within AkzoNobel, the world's largest paints and coatings company. Intemational Paint Yacht Coatings, sold underthe brand names Awlgrip and Interlux, ara recognized for their continuing technicai Innovation, stringent quality controls, and superiative finish on pleasure craft ranging from family boats to superyachts around the world. International Paint proudly operates a majorcoatings manufacturing facility, with associated R&D labs and administrative offices, at6001 Antoine Drive in northwest Houston.

Introduction I am hera today on behalfof Mr. James Sell, Senior Counsel ofthe American Coatings Association (ACA). Although Mr. Sell Is unable to participate in today's proceedings, he has previously SUbmitted infonnal comments on this rulemaking to TCEQ Staff. Thesewere entiUed "ACA Comments on Pleasure Craft CTG: Modifications Required to South Coast RUle 1106.1 for Establishing a Sunable RACT Standard for the Pleasure Craft Coatings Industry", and wera sent via email on January 12, 2011.

Also inclUded in that email was an EPA Memorandum from Steven D. Page, Director of the OffIce ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, dated June 01,2010, SUbject 'Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings

- IndUstry Request for Reconsideration'. For the sake of brevity, the ".EPA Control Technique GUideline for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings" will be subsequently referred to as 'the EPA CTG". 

# W-3With reference to the information previously submitted by Mr. Sell, and to formal written comments that will be submitted during the comment period forthis rulemaking, the following summary points are offered for the Commission's**considera~on:**

The Pleasure Craft provisions ofthe EPA CTG do not represent Reasonably Available Control Technology lRACn for this Industry sector.

The Draft EPA CTG did not mention pleasure craft surface coating operations. EPA introduced the language of South CoastAir Quality Management Division (SCAQMD) Rule 1106.1 'Pleasure Craft Coating Operations' Into the Final EPA CTG. This was apparently done with concem that pleasure craft surface coaling operations mightotherwise be SUbjectto the various general categories, and their more restrictive VOC limits, for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (based on SCAQMD Rules 1107 and 1125) and Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products (based

on SCAQMD Rule 1145 and Michigan RUle 336.1632). However, there was no opportunity for the pleasure craft industry to provide comments on th Is EPAaction.

Had that opportunity been extended, the pleasure craft industry would have provided the following reasons to support our contention that SCAQMD Rule 1106.1, as Included In the Final EE'A CTG, does not represent RACT:

1. The VOC limits and compliance dates In SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 were too restrictive to allow coating manufacturers to formulate products that meet the VOC limits, while also maintaining adequate technical performance and meeting customers' aesthetic requirements. As a result, pleasure craft manufacturers relocated from the South Coast area to other locations In the US.2. The compliance dales In SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 and the EPA CTG do not provide sufficient time for coating manufacturers to formulate products that comply WIth the restrictive VOC limits, while also meeting the technical perfomnance and aesthetic requirements of pleasure craft manufacturers and owners. An example is antifouling coatings, which must be registered as biocidal products underthe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and corresponding State programs. This process can add years to the actual development and performance testing of new lower-VOC antifouling coatings.

3. SCAQMD Rule 1106.1, like other SCAQMD rules, was developed and adopted to deal with the severe ozone non-attainment conditions in the South Coast air basin. These conditions

are not experienced in other areas ofCalifomia orthe US, and thus the provisions of South Coast regulations should not be Identified as "RACT' for other areas.

4. Even In the Stale of California, only five other Air Quality Management Districts have found the need to introduce rUles to regulate pleasure craft surface coating operations. These rules differfrom SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 in varying degrees.

5. SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 was adopted in 1992, and most recently revised In 1999. Since then, there have been developments in the marine and pleasure craft Industry that provide the basis for revised VOC limits for some coating categories, and the introduction of new categories and VOC lirnRs for other coatlngs. An example is a new category of "AntifoUling Sealerme Coar. This category of coatings was developed to allow the use of non-biocidal coatings that comply with Annex 1 of the Intemational MarRlme Organization Antifouling Systems Convention (IMO-AFS), which was written in 2001. These developments are not addressed in SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 or the EPACTG.

Development of BACT that Is appropriate for Pleasure Craft Surface Coating operations should address the following points;1. Consideration of an 'Averaging Approach' as an altematlve compliance option. This approach Is successfully used in Europe 

### to provide flexibility 

### to coating manufacturers and end-use customers 

### to provide vac emission reductions while minimizing adverse economic and**produc~vity** impacts at each affected facility.

2. Provision of**appropriate~me** until the final compliance date 

### to allow the development, testing, and commercial introduction'of low-vac pleasure crafl coatings. Rushing products into this marieet has the potential for disestrous consequences, as boat builders and pleasure craft

owners tend 

### to be conservative; they choose**coa~ngs** with demonstrated performance that best protect the value of their products/investments. A period of four years is suggested to allow completion of existing development projects to bring lower-VaC pleasure craft**coa~ngs** to the US marieet.

3. Revision ofthe categories and vac limits from the CTG 

### to address current and future product developments in the pleasure craft industry. Examples include revised vac limits for several coating categories; a revised**defini~on** of 'Extreme Hgh Gloss' topcoats; and the introduction of a new category definition and vac limit for 'Antifouling SealerfTie Coal' coatings.

The EPA CTG should be consistent with other EPA nllemaklng for this Industrial sector.

The pleasure craft Industry is aware that EPA is currently evaluating the National Emission Standard lor Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair**apera~ons** ( 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart II). This process may result in a revised SUbpart II MACT Standard and/or a new Area Source Standard for HAPs emissions from Pleasure Craft Surface**Coa~ng** operations. Coatings manufacturers have already proVided product infonmation to EPA

### to assist in this process, and the industry supports rulemaking that will provide a consistent approach 

### to reduce emissions of both vac and HAPs In this industrial sector.The Pleasure Crafllndustry Is readV and willing to workwith Federal. State. and Local air agencies on this Issue.

The pleasure craft industry was not afforded the usual opportunity to consult with EPA during the development of the EPA CTG. We therefore feel It is Imperative to work with EPA, its Regional Offices, and State and Local agencies to develop RACT rules that provide reductions in VOC emissions, while meeting the performance and productivity requirements of an important US industry that is under Increasing pressure from economic condltlons and global competition.

Thank you for your attention and consideration."

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIA.NGLE PARK, NC 27711



## dUN 012010 OFFICE OF AIR QUALrrV PLANNlNa

AND STAOOAAOS MEMORANDUM

Stephen D, Page,**Direo""""'£-1!~~<..(....·** 

### f

# ''V Office ofAir Quality PI . g and**S~** (C404-04) FROM: SUBJECT: Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings

- 

### Industry Request for Reconsid**.~**

TO: Chief, AirBranch Regions I-X The purpose ofthis memorandum is to inform EPA Regional Offices that members ofthe pleasure craftindustry have contactedEPA to request changes to the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings (MMPPC) (EPA-453/R-08- 0373), This memorandum serves as areminderto EPA Regional Offices ofthe role that CTG play in the State Implementation Plans (SIP) process for ozone nonattainment ereas, CTa provide information and recommendations for state and local 

### airpollution control agencies to consider when developing rules to meetthe Clean Air Act's (CM) reasonably available control technology (RAC1) requirements. Specifically, we reiterate thatthe information contained in CTG, including the MMPPC CTG, is provided only as 

### guidance. The CTG do nM impose any legally binding requirements on any entity. State and local airpollution control agencies are free to implement othertechnically-sound approaches 

### that 

### are consistent withthe CM and EPA's implementing regulations, Therefore, EPA does not intend to revise the MMPPC CTG. Instead, EPA is recommending thatthe pleasure craft industry worktogether with state agencies in the RACT rule developmentprocess for MMPPC to assess what is reasonable forthe specific sources regulated under each state's 

### rules. EPA will evaluate the state-developed RACT rules and determine through notice and comment rulemaking inthe SIP approval process, whetherthe 

### submitted rules meet

### the RACT requirements ofthe CM and EPA's regulations. BACKGROUND The MMPPC CTG were published on October7,2008 (73 FR 58486). On September 14, 2009, EPAwas contacted by the pleasure craftindustry with a requestfor EPAto reconsider some ofthe emission**li~ts** for volatile organic compounds (VOC) recommended in the MMPPC CTG. In its letterto EPA, industry assertad thatthree ofthe emission limits for VOC, recommended in the MMPPC CTG for pleasure craft, were 100 low considering the performancerequirements of pleasure craft coatings, and that overall, the VOC emission limits recommended in the MMPPC

InlernetAcJdra••**(UR~.** ht1p:IlWWW,epo.gov Recyol,d/Reoyollble. Pnl1l9dwlth Vege\&ble011 BaRed Inks on RGOYCled Papor (Mlnlll'llJM ;is''' P06lconlumer)

### 2

eTC did not represent RACT for the national pleasure craft coatings industry. To get further clarification ofthe issues, EPA held an industry conference call and spoke with individual industry members on several otheroccasions. The pleasure craft industry presented whatthey deemedto betechnological and feasibility challenges to meeting the VOC emission

### limits recommended 

### in the l\1MPPC CTG. Table 2 of the MMPPC CTGrecommends the following vac content limits (expressed in terms ofmass ofVOC pervolume ofcoating, excluding water and exemptcompounds, as applied) for surfacecoating ofpleasure craft:

.
C It8lll'f C tiD VOC C ttL' its T 

### bl 2 PI

a e • easure ra ace oa**~2** on en un kg VoC/liter Ibs VOC/gal Coatil\1[ Catelrol'Y

" .....**_.~** .. , ..... ,... "."... ...**'l'q~!L** coatinK Extreme HighCloss Topcoat 0.49 4.1 High Closs Topcoat 0.42 3.5 PretreatmentWashPrimers 0.78 6.5 FinishPrimer/Surfacer 0.42 3.5 High BuildPrimerSurfacer 0.34 2.8 Aluminum SubstrateAntifotllant Coating 0.56 4.7 Other SubstrateAntifoulant Coatinp; 0.33 2.8 All otherpleasurecraft surface coatings for metal 0.42 3.5 orplastic Also, the MMPPC CTC provide an option to meet alternate emissionrate limits based onlowVOC coatings and add-on controls. Table 10 ofthe MMPPC CTCrecommends the following emlssion rate limits for pleasure craft operations: Table 10. Pleasure Craft Surface CoatingVOC Emission RateLimits (VOC DerVolume Solids)

. 'kg VOC/liter Ibs VOC/gal Coath!2 Cate20ry

.... 

### . .... BoJlds solids Extreme High Gloss Topcoat 1.10 9.2 High Gloss TODCoat 0.80 6.7 PretreatmentWashPrimers 6.67 55.6 FinishPrimer/Surfacer 0.80 6.7 High BuildPrimerSurfacer 0.55 4.6 Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating. 1.53 12.8 Other Substrate Antifoulant Coatim! 0.53 4.4 All otherpleasurecraft surface coatings for metal 0.80 6.7 orclastic I. The three pleasurecraft categories thatindustry requestedEPA to reconsider were extreme gloss, high gloss and antlfoulant coatings. Industry urged EPA to revise the MMPPC CTC to include an averaging approach as a compliance optionto allowpleasure craftcoating facilities to use a combination ofhigh and low VaC-containing products as long as the average value was kept

### 3,

below a level specified by EPA. In summary, the pleasure craftindustry suggested thatthe CfG 

### berevised to include (one or all of) the foUowing measures: I. Regulate VOC emissions from facilities using pleasure craft coatings by including an averaging approach as II 

### compliance option. Ifthis is not deemed possible, then points 2 and 3 should apply. 

### 2. Amendthe MMPPC CTG "FinishPrimer/Surfacer" VOC limitfrom

### 420gIL to 

### 600gIL for a four-year interimperiodto allow coatingmanufacturers andusers sufficienttime to 

### develop and implementcompliantcoatings. 3. Make permanentchanges to 

### theMMPPC CTGwith immediate andpermanent effects, as follows:

• Add an additional specialtycategory of"Antifouling SealerlTie Coat" with VOC limit of

### 420gIL to align the MMPPC CTGwiththe International Maritime Organization's International Convention onthe Control ofHarmful Antifouling Systems on Ships;

• Change the VOC emission limits in the category, "Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating" from 

### 33OgILto 

### "OOgIL; , • Change the VOC emission limits inthe category, "Extreme High Gloss" from

### 420 gILto 

### 600 giL, reflecting the very specialized nature ofthe coatings inthis category; and

• Revise the coating category definition of"Extreme High Gloss Topcoat" to read: 

### "Extreme high gloss coatingmeansanycoatingwhich achievesgreaterthan 90percent reflectance on a 600 

### meter when testedby

### ASTMMethodD523-89. ," 4. Make theprovisions and VOC limits in t!Jepleasure craftcategories ofthe MMPPC CfG consistentwiili ilie requirements oftheplanned revision to 

### the Shipbuilding MACf Standard.**OAQPSRECO~ENDATION** After 

### careful evaluationofthe issues mised bythepleasure craftindustry, OAQPS is recommending thatthe pleasurecraftindustIy workwith state agencies during their RACTrule developmentprocess to assess what is reasonable for the specific so1,l1'ceB regulated becausethe CTG impose no legally binding requirements on any entity, includingpleasure craftcoating facilities. CM Section 172(c)(l)provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include ''reasonably available control measures" (RACM), including RACT, for sources ofemissions. Section I82(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, states must'revise their SIPs to include RACffor each category ofVOC sources coveredby a CTGdocument issued between November 15, 1990, and the date ofattainment The CTG areintendedto provide state and local airpollutioncontrol authorities with informationto assistthem indetermining RACffor VOC. Bastdon available information and data, EPA has 

### provided recommendations for RACT for MMPPC operations, including pleasure craft coating operatlons, inthe MMPPC CfG. States can use the recommendations from the MMPPC CTGto informtheirown determination as to what constitutes RACT for VOC for pleasure craftcoating operations in theirparticular ozone nonattainment areas.4



### Regardless ofwhether a state chooses to implementthe recommendations contained inthe MMPPC CrG through state rules, orto issue staterules that adoptdifferent approaches, states must submittheirRACTrules to EPA for review and approval as part ofthe SIP process. EPA will evaluate the state's RACT rules and determine, through notice and commentrulemaking in the SIP approval process, whether the submittedrules meettheRACrrequirements ofthe CAA and EPA's regulations. Ifa stateproposes to adopt any oftherecommendations in the MMPPC CTGinto its stateRACTrules, interested parties can commenton and raise objections aboutthe application ofany specific RACT recommendation inthe MMPPC CTGto aparticularsituation during the development ofthe 

### staterules andEPA's SIP approval process. Should you have further questions, please contact Kaye Whitfield ofmy staffat 919-541- 2509 or whitfield.kaye@epa.gov.

### 5
OAR-l0-000-7927 OAQPS/SPPDINRCG:KWbitfieldJjrogers(xl4487):RTPIE143- 03/0423101F:JRoger08/KWbitfieldJOARlO0007927MMPPC Response StevePage

- Kaye

.. 20MaylO.doc Coordinated with

### AQPD.January 12, 2011 ACA Comments on Pleasure Craft CTG Modifications required to South Coast rille 1106.1 for establishing a

suitable RACT standard forthe pleasure craft coatings industry Summary The required changes to rule 1106.1 to form a RACT standard for the pleasure craft coatings Induslry are summartsed In table 1. font)

• ReVised defimtlon reqUired: Extreme High Gloss coating means any coating which achieves greaterthan 90 percent reflecllon on a 60' meterwhen tested by ASTM Method D523-89

" Revised definition required: Pre-Treatment Wash Primer means a coating which contains no more than 25 percent solids, by weight, and alleas! 0.1 percent acids, by weight; Is used 10 provide surface etching; and is applied directly to fiberglass and melal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent coatings. Tabla 1

- Showlna reaulrad chanaes bv Industrvcam rad 10 limits In rule 1106.1 (chanaos Indlcaled by rad Coating Category CTG 

### vec conten Industry 

### vee taken from South Proposal for RACT Coasl rule 1106.1 (giL) (giL) Extreme High Gloss Coating' 490 600 High Gloss Coating 420 420 Pre-Treatment Wash Primer" 780 780 Finish PrtmerlSurfacer 420 600 High Build Primer Surfacer 340 340 Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating 580 560 Other Substrate Antlloulant Coating 330 400 All other pleasure craft surface coatings for 420 420 metal and plastic !Antifouling SealerlTle Coat (new category) 420



### ..

The following sections provide more delailto substantiate proposed modificationsRevised 

## vee limit for Finish Primer/Surfacercategory Boat owners have very high expectations for the final look of their boats. The finish Is expected to be super smooth, super glossy (almost 'mirror-like') and durable. Coatings can be applied by a variety of application methods (brush, roller or spray) and must fiow out to give a smooth, glossy finish. In order to flow out and achieve such effects, products with a higher solvent content (lower solids contant) are required for both the topcoats and the primers which go beneath them Introducing high solidsllow

## vac primers that provide a smooth, easy-to-sand surface necessary to provide the aesthetics demanded by owners will require significant time to develop and evaluate. Currently, high solids/low

### vec primers often require addltiooal sanding, creating more dust, to achieve the same smooth surface that Is obtained with currently available products. This would necessitate a change in working practices In yards to overcome the Increased health hazard associated with the Increased dust levels. An additional issue relating to a switch to lower

## vac Finish/Primer surfacers Is that the cost can be as much as 40% or more higher than currently availabie, higher VOC products. This, in comblnetlon with increased labor costs associated with the addiUonal sending needed to remove the Increased surface texture, will make yards in areas where a

### vee limit of 420gllt Is Impiemented uncompetltlve with yards In other states. As an interim measure to ensure that competitive products can be supplied Into ozone noocompliance areas during the next four years that meet the aesthetic and performance requirements demanded by boat owners, the Induslry requires

### vec levels of the Ruie 1106.1 "Finish**PrlmerlSurface~'** coating category to be revised from 420 gIL to 600 giL. (See panels showing differences between high and low

### voe containing primers which Ilt into this category)Revised VOC limit for Extreme High Gloss Coating category The Extreme High Gloss Coatings category represents a comparetively small but critical, high value segment of the overall pleasure craft market. The aesthetic propartlas that topcoats give to Ihe topsides of pleasure craft ara of primary imparlance to boal owners, a fact that should be nalther underestimated nor dismissed. The owner has Invested a slgnlflcant sum of money Into owning his yacht and the quality of the final appearance is**~s** 'crowning glory', If boat owners cannot achieve the desired superglossy, mirror-like flnlsh, they will not setlle for an Inferior solution -they will simply have their boats painted elsewhere. These coatings are professionally epplled so any restriction on their use that reduces the competitiveness of individual yards will have a direct and Immediate bearing on employment levels and local revenueS. High solids topcoats have not been well received in the Norlh American pleasure craft coating market. In general, applicators and boat owners have found the flnlsh thatthese products provide to be Inferior to traditional, higher VaG containing prOducts. This can be seen clearly In the**s~uatlon** where a yacht coated with a high solids topcoat Is moored alongside-one coated with a traditional tinish, Although high solids and water-based technologies are availabla and In use In other Industries (e.g. car reflnlshing and aviation) the controlled application conditions which make the use of these coatings possible In those industries are neither available nor possible for the pleasure craft costing Industry" Despite much product development acllvlly, the lower VaG technologies available at this time do not provide the appearance and funcllonallty required from a pleasure craft Extreme High Gloss Coating. Some low VaG topcoats, originating from the car reflnlsh market and now being marketed for pleasure craft usage, are based on a polymer type that provides reduced durability. These coatings have a raduced IUeUme and their use will necessitate a more frequent recoatng schedule which means in relative terms, more VaG is emitted. An additional Issue relating to a swtich to lower VaG extreme high gloss topcoats is that the cost can be as muoh as 60% or more higher than currenlly available, higher VaG products. The resultant Increase In soheme oost will make yards in areas where a vac limit of 490glltls Implemented uncompelltve with yards In other states or in other countries.

. A flnal point of Imparlance Is that In a typloal extreme high gloss coatings scheme, the topcoat represents less than 40% ofthe overall VaG burden and less than 10% of total yacht ooetlngs on an annuallsed basis. Rule 1106,1 was developed to tackle serious ozone nonatlalnment in South Goast AQMD In GalUomia, It is ovarly severe and restrictive for adoption for the majority of non-attainment areas where the problem is 'Moderata' according to the EPA. The Industry feeis that restricting the VaG of some ofthe other coating oategories and selling the VaG limit lor Extreme High Gloss topcoats to 600 giL, wlli provide the state with a balanced VaG reduction strategy lhat is appropriate to the ohallenge and thai does not seriously impact the competitiveness ofthe Industry. This VaG limit change should be permanant as Industry does not foresee any hew technology emerging that oan offer a route to providing performance characterlstlos which are acceptable by the pleasure craft coaling Industry. (see topcoat panels which demonstrate dlfferenoe In appearance between hlg h solids and tredltional formulations). Revised Coating Category Definition for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat As mentioned above, application of topcoats is undertaken In a varietyof environmental conditions that can heve an effect on thetinal gloss level of the product at the point of appllcetion. To manage this variation It Is suggesled that the gloss level stated in the definition of the Extreme High Gloss Topcoats category be lowered slightly to read; "Extreme high gloss coaling means anycoating Which achieves grealer than 90 percant reflectance on a 60"metar when tasted byASTM MethodD 523-89"

3Revised vac limit for ather Substrate Antifoulant Coating Significant time and effort have been invested by industry to develop low 

### vac antifouling coatings suitable for use on pleasure craft. Low 

### VaC/Zero vac technology Is constantly evolvi'1g and Improving. The 

### key is to set

### vac targets at a reallstlc level based on what we know**tod~** in order to ensure the maximum compromise between performance, cost, appearance, drying time and application characteristics. Formulations are currently registered with the EPA on the basis of the percentage weight of biocide in the wet paint. As the 

### vac is reduced then the solvent must be replaced with something non-volatile, effectively reducing the percentage of biocide in the dry film with 8 concomitant reduction in performance/reduced Hfetime of the coating. This may mean more frequent application of the antifouling, potentially leading to a greater overall 

### vac impact. It is also true that high solids/low 

### vae coatings tend to dry slower than their high 

### vae counterparts and this can impact the overall produclivity of a yard for example. Similarly. waler based technologies are nol a panacea to the 

### vae challenge, though water-based technologies are being very heavily scrutinised by coatings manufacturers. In general water based coatings can only be formulated at low volume solids (30% compared to say 60%+ for an equivalent solvent-based system). This Inevitably means thin films containing less biocide (which affects the performance and lifetime of the coating) The data below shows the performance challenge with changing 

### vae. Panels 1-3 (left) are all based on the same active package. The two rightmost panels are standard solvent based controls.



### vae 328g/1 sId 460 gIl w/based 68g/1 sid 468 g/l 350 gIL

In additior'" technologies for low 

### vae antifoulings often result in a rougher film, The roughness of the hull contributes direcUy to drag which is seen as a particular issue in the case of racing yachlsThe National Emission Standard for HAPs for Shipbuilding and Ship Repeir (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart II) limits antifoulings In the US to 400glL. Likewise SCAQMD Marine Rule 1106 applies avac lim" for antifouling coatings of 400g/L. Industry beiieves this Iimli is more suitable to represent RACT for this coating category, given the current state of the existing technology. Certainly we find no justification In setting a limit lower than that applied to the National Emission Standards for HAPs for Shipbulidlng and Ship Repair and the SCAQMD 1106 limits. The foliowing VOC limit amendment Is therefore required; Category of "Olhar Substrate Antlfoulant Coating"

- amend from 330g/L to 40Dg/L

lsee demonstretlon films which show a low VOC water based Antifouling compared to a solvent based equivalent)



# ,Additional Speciality Category and 

## voe Limit: Antifouling SealerlTle Coat Rule 1106.1 Is dated and there are more recent requirements for an additional category 10 reflect pleasure craft coatings of Ihe modern day which are more environmentally friendly and/or compliant with Inlernatlonal law. A newcalegory Is required es e result of the International Maritime Organisation Antifouling Systems convenllon (IMO AFS) and should be added 10 tha categories laken from Rule 1106.1. This convention was ralifted In 2007 and houses a list of subslances benned from use in enllfoullngs in Annex 1. Trl Butyl Tin (TBT) Is the flrst addition to Annex 1 and Ihe use of this biocide In anlifoullngs on the hulls of any marine vessels antarlng the waters of countries which are signatories 10 the convention Is conlrolled according to Ihe requirements of Annex 1 of Ihe AFS. A speclallaed coating typa Is required to seal in old TBT containing**anllfoulI~gs** and 10 promole adhesion of biocide-free, non-slickfoul release coatings when applied 10 vessels. The use of biocide-free coatings brings slgnlflcant environmental benefits. Tha category should be named 'Antifouling Sealarma Coat' with a maximum VOC content of 420 gIL. AnlUouling Sealer Coats and Tie Coats have been introduced Into the markel largely to facilitate compliance with Annex 1 of the IMO-Antlfoullng Systems Convention (2001 ). AntifOUling Sealerffle Coals must contain a VOC up 10 420 gIL In order to facilitate adequete penetration Inlo an underlying painl film for maximum adhesion. They also contain a high degree of polymeric malerial (hence need a higher VOC content 10 maintain an acceplable application viscosity) so the coating cen torm a fiexlble yel complete barrier over an underlying palnl fllm. An appropriale definition for this type of coaling would be

... "a coating appliedovarBIocidalantifouling coating for the purpose of preventingralease of blocJdas Into the environment and/or to promote adhesion batween an antifouling anda primeror otherantlfoullngs. »

6Revised definition for the category of 

### "Pretreatment Wash Primer The current definition of Pretreatment Wash Primer In South Coasl rule 1106.1 Is restricting the development of alternative products which wouid be considerably iess toxic to humans and the environment than lhose used currently. Products which meet the current definition for this are formulated to contain known carcinogens such as zinc chromate (CAS 13530-65·9) and zinc tetroxy chromate (CAS 37300·23-5)' due to the excellent anti-corrosive properties of these materials. In most cases the approach taken in the CTG Is to define the control category In terms of the product ettribute. For example, the definttlon of a High Gloss Topcoat rafars specifically to the performance attribute of the product

- the gloss resull. However, In the case of the "Pretreatment Wash Primer" category, the approach has been to define the category both In terms of the formulation parameters (acld content and solids content) and the performance attribute of the product (surface etclhlng). By teklng this approach, South Coast EPA hes very much tied industry to the current. well established but very toxic zinc-based etch primers. This definition requires amending to allow for the Introduction of safer, alternative etch systems which are not based on zinc tetroxy chromate. IndUstry would like a permanent modification made to the definnlon so that It reads as follows; "PRETREA TMENT WASH PRIMER means a coating which contains no more than 25 percent solids, byweight, andat least O. 1 percentacids, by waight; Is usadto provide surface etching; and is appliad dlracfly to f1breg/ass and matal surfacas to provida corrosion rasistance andadhasion ofsubsequant coatings' The 'percent solids' value must be raised form 12 to 2510 allow for an increased quanUty of safer (non-carclnogenic) raplacement pigment which Is required for eqUivalent coating performance. These replacement formulations require a reduced level of acid to perform adequately therefore It is also necessary to reduce the demlnimus value associated 10 'percent acids' from 0.5 to 0.1. Request Small Container Exemption Many industrial and commercial coatings VOC regulations Include e small container exemption confined to not exceed a litre or a quart. They also often Inciude an annual IImltalion on the amount used. Architectural and Industrial malnlenance rules also contain such exemptions. The purpose behind these exemptions is to allow for small repairs and touches ups to existing coatings that if done In timely manner can oftan avoid larger paint jobs later. In the commercial or Industrial selling. the small container exemptions allows minor repairs at the end of the painting line to avoid heving to completely recoat the object of product. Thus the higher

## vac materials actuelly reduce overall 

## vac emissions by allowing such repairs and touch ups to avoid complete overall or redo paint jobs.

I R-ated os known carcinogens by Occupational Safoty & Health AdministrfttoT (OSHA), Na.tional Toxicology Program (NTP), and InlcrnatiOl1aJ Agency for Research on Cancer (lARC)

7

### Dear Mr. Dowiak, 

# W-4
Please find attached for the American Coatings Association comments on the above referenced 

### CTG as it pertains to VOC limits forpleasure craft coatings. I have also attached a letter sent to OAQPS formally requesting reconsideration ofthis 

### CTG for the reasons listed in said document. As 

### you will see, the ACAbelieves that this matter was not settled with their initial memorandum ofJune 1, 2010 

### (also attached). Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Regards, John John Hopewell Asst. DirectorEnvironmentalAffairs & International Programs American Coatings Association 1500 Rhode Island Ave, NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: +12024626272 Fax: +1 202462 8549 jhopewell@paint.orgModifications required to Pleasure Craft CTG for establishing a suitable RACT standard for the pleasure craft coatings industry
Summary The required changes to rule 1106.1 to form a RACT standard for the pleasure craft coatings industry are summarised in table 1. font)

, ReVised definition reqUired: Extreme High Gloss coating means any coating whIch achieves greater than 90 percent reflection on a 60" meter when tested by ASTM Method D523-89

" Revised definition required: Pre-Treatment Wash Primer 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. Table 1 - SholNina required chances bv industrv compared to limits in rule 1106.1 (chances indicated by red Coating Category CTG 

### vec conten Industry 

### vec taken from South Proposal for RACT Coast rule 1106.1 (giL) (giL) Extreme High Gloss Coating' 490 600 High Gloss Coating 420 420 Pre-Treatment Wash Primer" 780 780 Finish Primer/Surfacer 420 600 High Build Primer Surfacer 340 340 fl'-Iuminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating 560 560 Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating 330 400 fJl other pleasure craft surface coatings for 420 420 metal and plastic Antifouling SealerlTie Coat (new category) 420

...

The following sections provide more detail to substantiate proposed modifications Revised VOC limit for Finish Primer/Surfacercategory Boat owners have very high expectations for the final look oftheir boats. The finish is expected to be super smooth, super glossy (almost 'mirror-like') and durable. Coatings can be applied by a variety of application methods (brush, roller or spray) and must flow out to give a smooth, glossy finish. In order to flow out and achieve such effects, products with a higher solvent content (lower solids content) are required for both the topcoats and the primers which go beneath them Introducing high solidsllow VOC primers that provide a smooth, easy-to-sand surface necessary to provide the aesthetics demanded by owners will require significant time to develop and evaluate. Currently, high solids/low VOC primers often require additional sanding, creating more dust, to achieve the same smooth surface that is obtained with currently available products. This would necessitate a change in working practices in yards to overcome the increased health hazard associated with the increased dust levels.An additional issue relating to a switch to lower vee FinishlPrimer surfacers is that the cost can be as much as 40% or more higher than currently available, higher vee products. This, in combination with increased labor costs associated with the additional sanding needed to remove the increased surface texture, will make yards in areas where a vee limit of 420g/lt is implemented uncompetitive with yards in other states. As an interim measure to ensure that competitive products can be supplied into ozone non-compliance areas during the next four years that meet the aesthetic and performance requirements demanded by boat owners, the industry requires vee levels of the Rule 1106.1 "Finish PrimerlSurfacer" coating category to be revised from 420 giL to 600 giL.

Revised 

## voe limit for Extreme High Gloss Coating category The Extreme High Gloss Coatings category represents a comparatively small but critical, high value segment of the overall pleasure craft market. The aesthetic properties that topcoats give to the topsides of pleasure craft are of primary importance to boat owners, a fact that should be neither underestimated nor dismissed. The owner has invested a significant sum of money into owning his yacht and the quality of the final appearance is its 'crowning glory'. If boat owners cannot achieve the desired super-glossy, mirror-like finish, they will not settle for an inferior solution

- they will simply have their boats painted elsewhere. These coatings are professionally applied so any restriction on their use that reduces the competitiveness of individual yards will have a direct and immediate bearing on employment levels and local revenues. High solids topcoats have not been well received in the North American pleasure craft coating market. In general, applicators and boat owners have found the finish that these products provide to be inferior to traditional, higher vee containing products. This can be seen clearly in the situation where a yacht coated with a high solids topcoat is moored alongside-one coated with a traditional finish. Although high solids and water-based technologies are available and in use in other industries (e.g. car refinishing and aviation) the controlled application conditions which make the use of these coatings possible in those industries are neither available nor possible for the pleasure craft coating industry. Despite much product development activity, the lower vee technologies available at this time do not provide the appearance and functionality required from a pleasure craft Extreme High Gloss Coating. Some low vee topcoats, originating from the car refinish market and now being marketed for pleasure craft usage, are based on a polymer type that provides reduced durability. These coatings have a reduced lifetime and their use will necessitate a more frequent recoating schedule which means in relative terms, more vee is emitted. An additional issue relating to a switch to lower vee extreme high gloss topcoats is that the cost can be as much as 60% or more higher than currently available, higher vee products. The resultant increase in scheme cost will make yards in areas where a vee limit of 490g/lt is implemented uncompetitive with yards in other states or in other countries. A final point of importance is that in a typical extreme high gloss coatings scheme, the topcoat represents less than 40% ofthe overall vee burden and less than 10% oftotal yacht coatings on an annualised basis. Rule 1106.1 was developed to tackle serious ozone non-attainment in South Coast AQMD in ealifomia. It is overly severe and restrictive for adoption for the majority of non-attainment areas where the problem is 'Moderate' according to the EPA. The industry feels that restricting the vee of some ofthe other coating categories and setting the vee limit for Extreme High Gloss topcoats to 600 giL, will provide the state with a balanced vee reduction strategy that is appropriate to the challenge and that does not seriously impact the competitiveness of the industry. This vee limit change should be permanent as industry does not foresee any new technology emerging that can offer a route to providing perform ance characteristics which are acceptable by the pleasure craft coating industry.Revised Coating Category Definition for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat As mentioned above, application of topcoats is undertaken in a variety of environmental conditions that can have an effect on the final gloss level ofthe product at the point of application. To manage this variation it is suggested that the gloss level stated in the definition ofthe Extreme High Gloss Topcoats category be lowered slightly to read;

"Extreme high gloss coating means anycoating which achieves greater than 90percentreflectance on a 60· meterwhen testedbyASTMMethod0 523-89"Revised 

## vac limit for Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating Significant time and effort have been invested by industry to develop low vac antifouling coatings suitable for use on pleasure craft. Low VaC/Zero vac technology is constantly evolving and improving. The key is to set vac targets at a realistic level based on what we know today in order to ensure the maximum compromise between performance, cost, appearance, drying time and application ch aracteri St"ICS. Formulations are currently registered with the EPA on the basis of the percentage weight of biocide in the wet paint. As the vac is reduced then the solvent must be replaced with something non-volatile, effectively reducing the percentage of biocide in the dry film with a concomitant reduction in performance/reduced lifetime of the coating. This may mean more frequent application of the antifouling, potentially leading to a greater overall vac impact. It is also true that high solids/low vac coatings tend to dry slower than their high vac counterparts and this can impact the overall productivity of a yard for example. Similarly, water based technologies are not a panacea to the vac challenge, though waterbased technologies are being very heavily scrutinised by coatings manufacturers. In general water based coatings can only be formulated at low volume solids (30% compared to say 60%+ for an equivalent solvent-based system). This inevitably means thin films containing less biocide (which affects the performance and lifetime of the coating) The data below shows the performance challenge with changing VOC. Panels 1-3 (left) are all based on the same active package. The two rightmost panels are standard solvent based controls.

vac 328g/1 std 460 g/I w/based 68g/1 std 468 g/I 350 gIL

In addition, technologies for low vac antifoulings often result in a rougher film. The roughness of the hull contributes directly to drag which is seen as a particular issue in the case of racing yachtsThe National Emission Standard for HAPs for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart II) limits antifoulings in the US to 400g/L. Likewise SCAQMD Marine Rule 1106 applies a VOC limit for antifouling coatings of 400g/L. Industry believes this limit is more suitable to represent RACT for this coating category, given the current state of the existing technology. Certainly we find no justification in setting a limit lower than that applied to the National Emission Standards for HAPs for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair and the SCAQMD 1106 limits. The following VOC limit amendment is therefore required; Category of "Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating"

- amend from 330gIL to 400g/L

Additional Specialitv Category and VOC Limit: Antifouling SealerfTie Coat Rule 1106.1 is dated and there are more recent requirements for an additional category to reflect pieasure craft coatings of the modem day which are more environmentally friendly andlorcompliant with Intemationallaw. A new category is required as a result of the International Maritime Organisation Antifouling Systems convention (IMO AFS) and should be added to the categories taken from Rule 1106.1. This convention was ratified in 2007 and houses a list of substances banned from use in antifoulings in Annex 1. Tri Butyl Tin (TBT) is the first addition to Annex 1 and the use of this biocide in antifoulings on the hulls of any marine vessels entering the waters of countries which are signatories to the convention is controlled according to the requirements of Annex 1 of the AFS. A specialised 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. The use of biocide-free coatings brings significant environmental benefits. The category should be named 'Antifouling SealerlTie Coat' with a maximum VOC content of 420 giL. Antifouling Sealer Coats and Tie Coats have been introduced into the market largely to facilitate compliance with Annex 1 of the IMO-Antifouling Systems Convention (2001). Antifouling SealerlTie Coats must contain a VOC up to 420 giL in order to facilitate adequate penetration into an underlying paint film for maximum adhesion. They also contain a high degree of polymeric material (hence need a higher VOC content to maintain an acceptable application viscosity) so the coating can fonn a flexible yet complete barrier over an underlying paint film. An appropriate definition for this type of coating would be

... "a coating appliedoverBiocidalantifouling coating forthe purpose of preventingrelease ofbiocides into the environmentand/orto promote adhesion between an antifouling anda primerorotherantifoulings.• Revised definition for the category of "Pretreatment Wash Primer The current definition of Pretreatment Wash Primer in South Coast rule 1106.1 is restricting the development of alternative products which would be considerably less toxic to humans and the environment than those used currently. Products which meet the current definition for this are formulated to contain known carcinogens such as zinc chromate (CAS 13530-65-9) and zinc tetroxy chromate (CAS 37300-23-5) 1 due to the excellent anti-corrosive properties of these materials. In most cases the approach taken in the CTG is to define the control category in terms ofthe product attribute. For example, the definition of a High Gloss Topcoat refers specifically to the perfonnance attribute of the product

- the gloss result. However, in the case of the "Pretreatment Wash Primer" category, the approach has been to define the category both in tenns of the fonnulation parameters (acid content and solids content) and the perfonnance attribute of the product (surface etching). By taking this approach, South Coast EPA has very much tied industry to the current, well established but very toxic

I Rated as known carcinogens by Occupational Safety & Health Administrator (OSHA), National Toxicology Program (NTP), and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)zinc-based etch primers. This definition requires amending to allow for the introduction of safer, alternative etch systems which are not based on zinc tetroxy chromate. Industry would like a permanent modification made to the definition so that it reads as follows; "PRETREATMENT WASH PRIMER 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 fibreglass and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent coatings" The 'percent solids' value must be raised form 12 to 25 to allow for an increased quantity of safer (noncarcinogenic) replacement pigment which is required for equivalent coating performance. These replacement formulations require a reduced level of acid to perform adequately therefore it is also necessary to reduce the deminimus value associated to 'percent acids' from 0.5 to 0.1. Request Small Container Exemption Many industrial and commercial coatings 

### vac regulations include a small container exemption confined to not exceed a litre or a quart. They also often include an annual limitation on the amount used. Architectural and industrial maintenance rules also contain such exemptions. The purpose behind these exemptions is to allow for small repairs and touches ups to existing coatings that if done in timely manner can often avoid larger paint jobs later. In the commercial or industrial setting, the small container exemptions allows minor repairs at the end of the painting line to avoid having to completely recoat the object of product. Thus the higher

### vac materials actually reduce overall 

### vac emissions by allowing such repairs and touch ups to avoid complete overall or redo paintjobs.
Respectfuly Submitted, John Hopewell Asst. Director, Environmental Affairs and Intemational Programs American Coatings Association jhopewell@paint.org

### August 8, 2011 Butch Stackhouse Environmental ProtectionAgency Air and Radiation CS39-0 1, 

### RTP, NC 27711 Lisa Sutton Office ofAir Quality Planning Standards (CS04-03) Environmental ProtectionAgency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
RE: Pleasure CraftControl Techniques Guidelines Dear Mr. Stackhouse and Ms. Sutton, The American Coatings Association (ACA)' is forwarding comments submitted on the Pleasure Craft regulation Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG), previously submitted on this aspect ofthe Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG (Group IV). 

### ACA continues to objectto this standardbeing deemed RACTfor Pleasure Craftcoatings for the reasons outlinedbelow and in the attached documents. In addition, ACA objects to USEPA's June 10, 2010 letterin response to the above referenced comments, which states thatin determining whetherto adoptthis aspect of the CTG, individual states are free to make their own decisions since this is a departure from the traditional USEPAposition that CTGs are presumptively RACT. Unfortunately, this fact is not stated clearly in the letter so that some states believe that ifthey do not adopt the CTG as written, that their SIP submissions will be rejected by USEPA Regional Authorities. ACA has worked closelywith OAQPS for overtwo decades in providing access to its members' coatings expertise when OAQPS has developed national rules and CTGs affecting coatings. We have not always agreed with the final decisions ofOAQPS, but ACA has demonstrated ourwillingness and have been forthcoming with member knowledge and data. Thus, ACAwas unable to provide this input on the Pleasure Craft CTG as 

### it was never publishedfor notice and comment. The first time the Guidelines were published was in the final CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts?

I ACA is a voluntary, nonprofit trade association working to advance the needs of the paint and coatings industry and the professionals who work in it. The organization represents paint and coatings manufacturers, raw materials suppliers, distributors, and technical professionals. ACA serves as an advocate and ally for members on legislative, regulatory and judicial issues, and provides forums for the advancement and promotion of the industrythrough educational and professional development services. 2 Compare the Proposed Determination and Draft CTG in the Federal Register at: h!!P:/Iwww.epa.gov/ttn/atw/183e/genlfr14jy08.pdf (no mention of pleasure craft)

### Given that ACA and the industryhad no advance notice ofthe rulemaking before the final Guidelines were published, ACA identifiedthe difficulties with theVOC limits of the Pleasure Craft standard in as timely a manner as possible once theAssociationwas alerted to the new rule. Industry's concerns about appropriateVOC limits being set for pleasure craft coatings, were, however, noted by USEPA in its Summarv ofPublic Comments Received on Draft Control Techniques Guidelines for Consumer and Commercial Products Categories: "One commenter (0412-0034) reported that they were working with marine coating suppliers to determine appropriate VOC contentlevels to preserve quality and durability, and would provide suggestedlimits at alaterdate." See Summary ofPublic Comments Received on Draft Control Techniques Guidelines for Consumer and Commercial Products Categories (September 2008 EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0415-0024) http://www.regulations.gov

### 1#!documentDetail:D=EPA-HO-OAR-2008-041S-0024 This was in response to comments made by the National Marine Manufacturers Association. In addition, at this time, ACA also contacted OAQPS in this regard, suggestingthat EPA use the information and data submittedto the Agency in the development ofthe NESHAP for Pleasure Craft, which further supported industry assertions that theVOC limits underthe CfG were not appropriate and higher limits are necessary. Finally, others in the industry, once theybecame aware ofthe problem afterthe CTG was final, also alerted USEPA to the problem and followed up. See attachedletterfrom Mankiewicz Coatings. Afternumerous discussions on the issue, OAQPS did provide ACAwith the attached June 10, 2010 letter to the Regions and the states, giving the states permission to develop their own RACf standards forpleasure craftindependentlyofthe CfG. Unfortunately, the letter is not as clear as it mightbe, thus, some states are reluctant to act independently ofthe CfG because theybelieve EPA still views the CfG as "presumptive RACT" and fear their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) will be rejected if they do not adopt the CTG in its entirety. Aside from the fact thatthe CfGprocess here did notfully vet the Pleasure Craft coatings VOC limits ofSCAQMD Rule 1106.1 whichwere identified as RACfin the CTG, byfailing to include it in the proposal, it also was not reviewed bythe Office of Management and Budget (OMB). See OMB material in Docket. http://www.regulations.gov

### 1#!documentDetail:D-EPA-HO-OAR-2008-0411-0003 and http:((www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail:D-EPA-HQ-QAR-2008-0412-0013

to the Final Determination and final CTG in the Federal Register at: h!!P:/twww.epa.gov/ttn/atw/183e/genlfr070c08.pdf (pleasure craft is discussed for first time as a final determination with appeal only by way of federal litigation).

### The Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG (Group IV) was considered a "Significantregulatory action" because EPAfound that it raised "novel legal or policy issues arising outoflegal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles setforth [in] Executive order [12866]". 73 

### Federal Register 58481 (October 7, 

### 2008) http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/183e/genlfr070c08.pdf One ofthose principles is: "(11) Each agency shall tailorits regulations to impose the leastburden on society, including individuals, businesses ofdiffering sizes, and other entities (including small communities and governmental entities), consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives, taking into account, among otherthings, and to the extent practicable, the costs ofcumulative regulations." Hence, a major tenet ofadministrative law

- thatregulations are thoroughlyevaluated for technological feasibility and cost effectivenessbythe affected stakeholders

- and thatof the OMB review thoughtby EPA to be necessary andmandated

### in this 

### instance

- were absent with respectto the Pleasure Craft aspects ofthe Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG (Group IV). Because ofthe nature ofthe CTGprocess we had onlytwo choices

- we couldbring suit within 60 days in federal court orwe could rely on ourlong cooperative relationship with OAQPS to resolve the matter in way that was in keeping with thatrelationship. ACA chose the latter course, and since then has been working with the states and OAQPS to obtain an in depth review ofthe technology. In keeping with that choice, after discussions with EPA Region 6 officials, we decided in April to forego an objection to the proposed Louisiana SIP approval containingthe Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG (Group IV). We did so because itwas made clearby Region 6 officials that a delay in the SIP approval would presentmajor probleIIlS for the Baton Rouge area and that we couldwork with state officials afterthe approval to modify the rule. Unfortunately, our calls to discuss the matter withthe identified state official have notbeen returned. If

### EPA cannot act on this matter now and in a timely matter, eitherby reconsideration of the CTG standards for pleasure crafts as a whole, or atthe veryleast a new, clearerletter in this regardto the Regions and states, ACA will be 

### compelledto objectto any future SIP proposals that contain the Pleasure Craftportion ofthe Miscellaneous and Metal Parts CTG (Group IV). As 

### evidencedin the recent Louisiana SIP approval, ACA will be forced to make the case formally in every instance, delaying and in some cases disrupting SIP approval processes for the states. This would be unfortunate as EPA still possesses the requisite data to change its recommendations for pleasure crafts. Review ofthe NESHAP data would clearly show thatthe limits from Rule 1106.1, which EPA usedin the pleasure craft CTG, are in fact not "reasonably available control technology". Areview ofthe history surrounding the development of1106.1 in SCAQMD and its impact onthe industry should have given pause to anythinking that since the rule had been on thebooks for so long it mustbe "reasonably available technology".

### First it is noteworthy thatthese limits were recognizedby the SCAQMD as being technology-forcing when adopted. 

### "The VOClimits were decreased from 650 gil to 490 gil for Extreme High Gloss 

### Topcoats, 600 gil to 420 gllforFinish Primers, and400gil to 150gllfor Antifoulants. Atthe time of rule adoption, the July 1,1994 

### VOClimits were considered technology forcing. Coatings meeting theJuly 1, 1994 

### VOClimits were eitherin development or 

### undergoing initial introduction into thepleasure craftcoating industry." See http;//www.agmd.gov/hb/1q99/qq012a.html Subsequently as indicated in the 1999 rulemaking amending 1106.1 to provide for higher limits in these key areas, SCAQMD found thatthe hoped for technologyhad not developed. Atwo year suspension ofthe lowerlimits was provided. Unfortunately the limits with which we have issues have still not moved into the realm oftechnical feasibility for the reasons stated in our fuller comments. As 

### ourcomments point out, because ofthe continuing impossibility ofthe lowerlimits to be effectively metfor certainkey categories, the final remnants ofthe industry decamped from the SCAQMD on the expiration ofthe two year suspension ofthe lowerlimits. Further it should be noted that the CTG itselffound thatthe SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 limits were generally stricter than the few rules in other air districts that specifically addressed pleasure coatings. It 

### is noteworthy that two ofthese, Ventura and San Diego

- areas with large pleasure craftpopulations

- specify 650 grams perliterlimits for extreme high gloss coatings. Moreover it appears that the decision to go forward with the stricter SCAQMD limits despite this was basedin partbecause the rule hadbeen onthebooks for some time. "Allbutthree ofthese limits havebeen in place since 1994 and the remaining three (extreme high gloss coatings, finish primer/surfacer, and non-aluminum antifoulant coatings) have been in effect since 2001. There is no indicationthat the SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 VOC limits recommendedby the commenters are unachievable orunreasonable for sources outside these California Districts." CTG Document Thus even on the basis ofsimply examining the rules in California specifically addressing pleasure coatings, a real question shouldhave arisen as to the reasonableness ofselecting the SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 limits for a nationally applicable RACT standard. Another reason for not using the 1994 Rule as current RACT for pleasure craftcoatings is that when 1106.1 was adopted, the antifoulingbiocide TBT had not yetbeenbanned by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Consequently, the regulation does not provide for anAntifouling Sealer/Tie Coat categorywhich is applied to hulls to contain TBT as is required ifit is not completely removed. As 

### a technical matter, Rule 1106.1 was developed on the basis ofthe "bestavailable retrofit control technology" (BARCT) under the California CleanAirAct, which is more

### stringentthanthe national RACT standard. AB characterizedby CaliforniaAir Resources Board staffdocuments3 : 

### "BARCT is a state version ofRACT, although it has stringency more akin to BACT ["best available control technology"] as defined bythe federal Clean AirAct. BARCTis required under certain conditions in California districts having moderate, serious, severe, or extreme air pollution as definedby Section 40921.5, 

### Chapter 10, 

### Part 1, 

### Division 26 

### ofthe Health and Safety Code." While a long-lived BARCT standard may evolve into a national RACT standardwiththe passage oftime and with industry effortto improve technology and application techniques, this has not occurred with all ofthe 1106.1 

### standards. AB is shown in the attached position paper, industry has made significant efforts to develop lowerVOC coatings for the coatings at issue here. It 

### is also noteworthythat there are onlyfour limits with which we disagree, and one of these is for a new coatings category that did not even exist at the time Rule 1106.1 

### was adopted. AB noted earlier the Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat category was developedto seal in TBT antifouling coatings that were subsequentlybannedbythe IMO. ACAhas made great strides in overcoming the position EPA has putthe industryin given the lack ofnotice and comment on the pleasure craft standards in the Miscellaneous Plastic and Metal Parts CTG and the impossibility oftheVOC limits contained in those standards. In fact the following agencies have agreed withACA's position and have or are proposing to modify the CTG accordingly: Connecticut Department ofEnvironmental Protection, Bureau ofAir Management Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, Division ofEnvironmental Quality, Air Pollution Control Program New Hampshire Department ofEnvironmental Services, Air Resources Division TIlinois Environmental ProtectionAgency, Bureau ofAir Ohio Environmental ProtectionAgency, Division of

### Air Pollution Control However, we continue to need EPA's assistance in correcting the matter as some jurisdictions are still concerned with not adopting the CTGin its entirety. Maricopa County, Arizona, for example was considering following ACA's recommendations but has hesitatedto do so because ofconcerns that USEPAwould follow its usual approach ofconsidering CTG standards as presumptively RACT in this case. Indiana and North Carolina have also adopted the CTG limits

- Indiana before we had a chance to discuss the matter, and North Carolina in partbecause ofconcerns ofthe USEPA SIP approval, process. Thus, ACAwould greatly appreciate USEPA's reconsideration ofthe limits it set in the Pleasure Craft aspect ofthe Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG. If

### it determines that itcan not do this, then we would greatly appreciate clarifying in a clearer mannerto

J For more details see htlp:/lwww.arb.ca.gov/bacVdocs/ssrcalifornia.hlm

### the state and regional EPA clean air planning officials thatthey are notboundbythe standards in the CfG and can make their own determinationsbased on current coatings technology information. In closing, we think anyfair minded person would see thatthe normallyfull vetting process employedbyUSEPA in the development ofCTGs with extensive discussions with affected parties did not occurwith respectto the Pleasure Craft aspect ofthe Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTGand thus some ofthe limits specified do not reflect "reasonably available control technology". Again, OAQPS can confirm this by examining the pleasure craft coatings data that has been submittedto it for the development ofthe NESHAP for pleasure craftcoatings. We alsobelieve that any proposal madeby EPA here should alsobe reviewedby OMB as for the reasons stated in the proposal ofthe CTG. In advance, thankyou for your consideration ofthis matter. ACAlooks forward toyourprompt response in this regard. Please do not hesitate to contactus for further information orifyou wouldlike to meet directly on the subject. Sincerely, John Hopewell Asst. Director, EnvironmentalAffairs American Coatings Association

### From: <dmonteleone@flexography.org> To: <dmonteleone@flexography.org> Date: 8/4/20111:05 PM Subject: 201O-016-115-EN 08/04/2011 01:15 PM 

# W-5

This email is a confirmation ofthe comment that was submittedfor the referenced rulemaking.

First Name: Doreen Last Name: Monteleone Company/Organization: F1exographicTechnical Association E-mailAddress: dmonteleone@flexography.org StreetAddress: 3920 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 9 City: Bohemia State: NY Zip Code: 11716 Phone Number: 631-737-6020 Fax Number: 631-737-6813 Rule: 201O-016-115-EN
Comments: The F1exographicTechnical Association (FTA) represents flexographic printers throughout the United States. As such, we are providing the following comments on the proposedrulemaking, Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ReasonablyAvailable Control Technology (RACT) Rule Revisions which will impactflexible packaging printers in Texas. FTA strongly disagrees with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)'s recommendation to require 80% overall control efficiencyofVOCs regardless ofthe first installation date ofthe oxidizer. This may require printers thathave oxidizers installed at an earlier date to replace equipment and wouldbe a significant financial hardship as new oxidizers start in the hundreds ofthousands ofdollars. U.S. EPA's Control Technique Guidelines for F1exible Package Printing (2006) recommends a more reasonable approach consistentwith a RACT regulation. Whereby add on controls installedprior to specific dates may have alower overall control ofVOC emissions as follows:

• 65% for presses installedbefore 3/14/95 with a control device installedbefore the RACT rule was adopted;

• 70% for presses installedbefore 3/14/95 and a control device installed on or after the date the rule is adopted;

### • 75% forpresses installed after 3/14/95 with a control device installedpriorto when the rule was adopted

• 80% for presses installed after 3/14/95 with a control device installed on or after the date the rule was adopted TCEQ's approach would require companies with an olderoxidizer and wants to expand and install a new press to replace its control device. The commentthat U.S. EPA's approach would create backsliding is notjustified. The proposed rule states, "Imposing this policy may encourage the installation ofolder, less efficient equipment and may create potentialbacksliding." Instead, TCEQ's proposal would impose unnecessaryfinancial hardship and preventbusiness expansion in Texas. This is 

### contraryto being Reasonably available control technology.

### 08/08/2011 02:45 PM 

# W-6
This email is a confirmation ofthe commentthat was submittedfor the referenced rulemaking. First Name: Kirk Last Name: Hummel Company/Organization: NASAJohnson Space Center E-mail Address: kirk.e.hummel@nasa.gov StreetAddress: 2101 NASA Parkway City: Houston State: TX Zip Code: 77058-3696 Phone Number: 281-483-6642 Fax Number: Rule: 201O-016-115-EN Comments:Michael Parrish Office of Legal Services (MC 205) Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087
Comment on: Chapter 115 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOe) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Rule Revisions (Rule Log 2010-016-115-EN)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) operates three locations in Houston: the Johnson Space Center (JSC). Ellington Field (EF), and Sonny CarterTraining Facility (SCTF) and one location in EI Paso: the EI Paso Forward Operating Location. TCEQ has proposed rulemaking to implement the recommendations in the EPA's Control Techniques Guideline documents for determining RACT. NASA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the technological and economic feasibility ofthe proposed rules, specifically in the areas of surface coating, solvents, and adhesives. Our comments below address areas ofthe rule on which NASA requests clarification or modification:
1. Exempt on-site maintenance shops; 2. Exempt NASA's manned spacecraft research and development centers from Division 5; 3. Update and Streamline Requirements for Solvent Cleaning Operations; 4. Exempt Janitorial cleaning from Solvent Cleaning; 5. Exempt NASA's manned spacecraft research and development centers from Division 7; and 6. Exempt Consumer adhesives from Division 7

1. On-site maintenance shops
Problem/Issue: According to §115.450(a)(3). the rule applies to miscellaneous metal part and product coating at the original equipment manufacturer, off-sitejob shops that coat new and used parts and products or that recaat used parts and products, and designated on-site maintenance shops that recoat used parts and products. The category of designated on-site maintenance shops was created several years ago and first appeared in the Division 2 applicability at §115.420(b)(9)(F), and is described in the current preamble as an area designated at a site where coatings are applied to one or more miscellaneous metal parts or products on a routine basis. TCEQ should remove on-site maintenance shops from the applicability of both Divisions for the following reasons. First, TCEQ has not defined this type offacility in the rules, and it is unclear what frequency would be considered "routine". Second, EPA's Control Techniques Guideline document for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings does not include on-site maintenance shops'. The Federal MACT standard for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products in 40 CFR 63 Subpart MMMM excludes facility maintenance operations from the rule'. Finally,

1 U.S. EPA, Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings:**(EPA~4S3/R-08-003).** September 2008. (Page 5) "The CTG applies to manufacturers of miscellaneous metal and plastic parts that surface-coat the parts they produce. The final CTG also applies to facilities that perform surface coatIng of miscellaneous metal and plastic parts on a contract basis." 2 40 CFR Section 63.3881(c)(2) states that the rule does not apply to surface coating or a coating operations that occur at research or laboratory facilities, or is part ofjanitorial, bUilding, and facility maintenance operations. or that occur at hobby shops that are operated for noncommercial purposes. 1industrial maintenance coatings are already covered by the National AIM rule in 40 CFR Part S9 Subpart D. NASA is not a manufacturing facility, and does not routinely perform surface coating or recoating on used parts or products in on-site maintenance shops, but we are concerned that the proposed rule applicability is confusing and would be very difficult to implement. Suggestion/Recommendation: TCEQ should delete designated on-site maintenance shops that recoat used parts and products from §l1S.4S0(a)(3) and §l1S.420(b)(9)(F). TCEQ should instead clarify the exemption in §l1S.4S1(1) to add industrial maintenance coatings: For example, architectural coatings applied in thefield to stationary structures and their appurtenances, portable buildings, pavements, orcurbs, orindustrialmaintenonce coatings in on-site maintenonce shops otaproperty would notbe included in the calculations.
2. Exempt NASA's manned spacecraft research and development centers from Division 5 Problem/Issue: In §l1S.4S0(a)(3) and (a)(4), the rules apply to original equipment manufacturer and off-site job shops that coat miscellaneous metal and plastic parts and products. NASA's manned spacecraft centers perform application of specialty surface coatings to non-production mock-ups, prototypes, fixtures, and displays. The current proposed rule exemption in §l1S.4S1(13) has narrowly worded language that exempts coatings that are applied to test panels and coupons as part of research and development, quality control, or performance testing activities at paint research or manufacturing facilities. The current Chapter l1S Subchapter E Division 2 surface coating rule has two exemptions:

• §l1S.427(a)(l)(A) excludes aerospace vehicles and components from coverage underthe miscellaneous metal parts and products (MMPP) coating category, and

• §l1S.427(a)(3)(J) excludes research and development activities from Division 2 where cleaning and coating of aerospace vehicles or components is performed. NASA and Department of Defense are already exempt from the Federal MACT standard (40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products) in 40 CFR §63.3881(c)(4). The basis for this exemption request is that reformulating solvents or coatings requires extensive field testing before they can be approved for use in spacecraft systems including prototype/ development articles. Updating the coatings for which there is a NASA specification requires updating the documentation. The proposed regulation would be impractical and extremely costly for NASA facilities because ofthe complexity of coating operations, the number of coatings and solvents used, and the number of different items and substrates coated. NASA may use small amounts of hundreds of different coatings, and each material is subject to its own engineering specifications. Frequent changes in the mix of prototypes are unpredictable and dictated byfuture mission requirements, and would prevent compliance using eitherthe averaging or add-on control options. Additionally, TCEQ should specifically exempt coating of museum/historical items because NASA must use historically accurate coatings for these items. Therefore, TCEQshould explicitly exempt NASA's manned spacecraft research and development centers. Suggestion/Recommendation: NASA requests a new exemption in §l1S.4S1(14). Proposed revision: (14) The surface coating of metal orplasticparts andproductsperformedon-site at installations owned oroperated by the ArmedForces ofthe UnitedStates (including the Coast Guardand the Texas National Guard) or the NatianolAeranautics andSpaceAdministration, or the surface coating of military munitions manufocturedby orfar theArmed Farces ofthe UnitedStates (including the Caast Guardand the Texas National Guard).
23. Update and Streamline Requirements for Solvent Cleaning Operations
Problem/Issue: Chapter 115 Subchapter E, Division 1 (Degreasing Processes) regulates equipment such as cold cleaners and vapor degreasers that use VaC-containing solvents. Chapter 115 Subchapter E, Division 1 was adopted in 1979 when cleaning solvents were traditional vac such as trichloroethylene or naphtha. This regulation needs to be updated to reflect low-vac and aqueous cleaning solvents. The proposed exemption in Division 6 §115.461(b) to exempt other solvent cleaning operations covered elsewhere in Chapter 115 is a missed opportunity to update and streamline the requirements for degreasing processes. This is also an opportunity to make the air permitting requirements congruent with Chapter 115 requirements. Suggestion/Recommendation: TCEQ should amend or revise the proposed rule to update or replace definitions and existing requirements for solvent degreasing processes in Chapter 115 Division 1. Specifically, aqueous detergents, surfactants, and other cleaning solutions containing not more than one percent of any organic compound should be exempted from Chapter 115 as they are from the permitting process. Additionally, compounds with low vapor pressure <0.01 mm Hg (0.0002 psia) at a temperature not to exceed 104°F are not considered air contaminants for air permitting and should not be subject to Chapter 115 either. TCEQ acknowledges in the preamble that small sources with actual emissions of less than 3 TPY should not be subject to the control requirements because it is not economically feasible and does not constitute RACT. This suggested change would not constitute backsliding because EPA encourages States to use the latest information to determine RACT. EPA's 2006 CTG "presumptive RACT" recommendations cover the entire spectrum of industrial cleaning categories, and specifically included degreasing processes.'
4. Include Janitorial Exemption for Solvent Cleaning Operations
Problem/Issue: In §115.460(b)(3), TCEQ defines Janitorial cleaning, but did not actually include an exemption. EPA's 2006 Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommends janitorial cleaning be excluded from the applicability for the proposed rule requirements. Suggestion/Recommendation: TCEQ should revise the applicability in §115.460(a). Proposed revision: (a) Applicability. Exceptas specifiedin §115.461 ofthis title (relating to Exemptions), the requirements in this division apply to solventcleaning operations in the Dallas-Fort Warth and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas, as defined in §115.10 ofthis title (relating to Definitions). Residentialandjanitorialcleaning are notconsideredsolventcleaning operations.

3 U.s. EPA, Control Techniques Guidelines: Industrial Cleaning Solvents (EPA 453!R-06-001), September 2006. (Page 10) "The total vae emissions from solvent cleaning operations (64,000 Mg/yr (11,000 tpy) were determined by first assigning the VOC emissions from solvent cleaning operations at each facility using the 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEil database to one oftwo general groups: parts cleaners, and other solvent cleaning operations. The parts cleaner subgroup included emissions from all sec codes with a "degreasing" or cold solvent cleaning/stripping classification in SCC_L3. VOC emissions from this subcategory are apprOXimately 4,000 Mg/yr (4,400 tpy). The other solvent cleaning operatIons included all othersees that were identified as solvent cleaning operations." 35. Exempt NASA's manned spacecraft research and development centers from Division 7 Problem/Issue: In §115.470(a), the rules apply to manufacturing or repair facilities with adhesive application processes. NA5A's manned spacecraft centers perform application of adhesives to nonproduction mock-ups, prototypes, fixtures, and displays. The current proposed rule exemption in §115.471 has narrowly worded language that provides exemptions for (1) research and development, quality assurance, or analytical laboratory and (2) assembly, repair, or manufacturing of aerospace or undersea-based weapons systems. The basis for this exemption request is that reformulating adhesives requires extensive field testing before they can be approved for use in spacecraft systems including prototype/ development articles. Updating the adhesives for which there is a NASA specification requires updating the documentation. The proposed regulation would be impractical and extremely costly for NASA facilities because ofthe complexity of adhesive operations, the number of adhesives used, and the number of different items and substrates bonded together. NASA may use small amounts of hundreds of different adhesives, and each material is subject to its own engineering specifications. Frequent changes in the mix of prototypes are unpredictable and dictated by future mission requirements, and would prevent compliance using either the averaging or add-on control options. Therefore, TCEQ should explicitly exempt NASA's manned spacecraft research and development centers. Suggestion/Recommendation: NASA requests a new exemption at §115.471(d). Proposed revision: (d) Adhesives oradhesiveprimers usedon-site at installations ownedoroperatedby the Armed Forces ofthe UnitedStates (incfuding the Coast Guardand the Texas Notional Guard) and the NotionalAeronautics andSpaceAdministration are exempt from the requirements in this division.
6. Exempt Consumer adhesives from Division 7 Problem/Issue: In §l1s.470(a), the rules apply to manufacturing or repairfacilities with adhesive application processes. Among the categories of adhesive materials regulated in §l1s.473 are a number of substances that are more likely to be used for institutional purposes or at construction sites rather than in manufacturing facilities. Such materials include ceramic tile installation adhesive; cove base installation adhesive; floor covering installation adhesives; and single-ply roof membrane installation or repair adhesives. It is not clear how the rule will apply to these materials that are used at thousands of sites statewide that are not manufacturing facilities. In the Federal Register notice for the Industrial Adhesive CTG (73 FR 40255), EPA stated that the miscellaneous industrial adhesives category does not include adhesives and adhesive primers that are subject to the National Volatile Organic Compound Emission 5tandards for Consumer Products, 40 CFR part 59, subpart C. Suggestion/Recommendation: NA5A requests a new exemption at §115.471(e). Proposed revision: (e) Adhesives oradhesiveprimers subject to the Notional Volatile Organic CompoundEmission Standardsfor Consumer Products, 40 CFRport 59, subpart Care exempt from the requirements in this division.

4August 8, 20II Mr. Michael Parrish Office ofLegal Services MC-20S Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 

# W-7

RE: Rnle Project Number 2010-016-115-EN Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 Volatile Organic Compounds Reasonably Available Control Technology Rule Revisions Dear Mr. Parrish: The Texas Chemical Council (TCC) appreciates the opportunity to commeut on the proposed rulemaking by the Texas Commission ou Euvironmental Quality (TCEQ) to amend 30 TAC Chapter liS concerning Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Reasouably Available Control Technology (RACT) rule revisions. TCC is a statewide trade association representing over 70 chemical manufacturers with more than 200 Texas facilities. The Texas chemical industryhas invested more than $SO billion inphysical assets in the state, pays over $1 billion annually in state and local taxes and over $20 billionin federal income taxes. TCC's members provide approximately 70,000 directjobs and over 400,000 indirectjobs to Texans across the state. TCC member companies manufacture products that improve the quality oflife for all Americans and millions ofpeople around the world. Tce appreciates the work that TCEQ staffput into this rule proposal. That said, there are many aspects ofthe proposal that TCC members found confusing and on those issues, seek clarification from the agency. Please find TCC's detailed comments below. Comments on Division 5, Surface Coating Processes (I) According to 30 TAC liS.4S0 concerning applicability and defmitious, the requirements apply to "miscellaneous metal parts and products" (lIS .4S0(a)(3» and to "miscellaneous plastic parts and products" (1IS.4S0(a)(4». However, the proposed rule includes specific surface coating categories defmed in IIS.4S0(c), which include "miscellaneous metal and plastic parts" at IIS.4S0(c)(S). A specific definition of "miscellaneous metal parts and products" is included at IIS.4S0(c)(S)(Q), but there is no subsequentmention ofplastic parts and products. TCEQ should clarifY whethermiscellaneous plastic parts and products are included inthis category aud avoidthe use ofnumerous similartenns that only create confusion. (2) Furthennore, proposed 30 TAC lI5.450(a)(3) indicates the rule applies to miscellaneous metal parts and products coating "at the original equipmentmanufacturer, off-sitejob shops that coat newparts andproducts or that recoat usedparts andproducts, anddesignatedon-site maintenance shops that recoat usedparts andproducts. " A chemical plant may on occasion coat newly fabricated piping or other equipment at an on-site maintenance shop. TCC requests that TCEQ staffclarify whether or not it is their intent to regulate this activity which appears to fall outside ofthe definition of"miscellaneous metal parts and products," while the recoating ofsome equipment at an on-sitejob shop appears included. TCC also points out a statementby the

## u.s. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) in the preamble to the Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) MMMM for Surface Coating ofMiscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (69 Fed. Reg. 143 (Jan. 2, 2004), the intent ofwhich was to exclude "facility maintenance operations" as noted below: Comment:

... One co=enterrequested clarification that coating activities at industrial sites to maintain the structural and operational integrity ofprocess equipment are not covered by the final rule. Many industries coat new and existing support structures. piping. and equipment as part ofroutine maintenance activities, but they do not produce and coat metal parts for commercial sale

.... Response: The EPA agrees that the surface coating ofequipment and tools used by a manufacturing facility (compared to machinery and tools that are sold as industrial products) should be considered part offacility maintenance operations and not part ofthe miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating source category. The final rule includes a definition of' 'facility maintenance operations" that includes the routine repair or renovation (including the surface coating) ofthe tools, equipment, machinery, and structures that comprise the infrastructure ofthe affected facility. Infrastructure may include buildings, tools, and equipmentneeded to support the function ofthe facility that are fixed in place, or are occasionally used offsite."
In addition, TCC requests that TCEQ clarify whetherthis same type ofactivity conducted at an on-site lay-down yard would be a regulated activity. For example, in the currentDivision 2, painting ofpipes in the lay-down yard is covered under I 15.42 1(a)(9) (A)(ii) as "low-bake coating." Therefore, a VOC emissions limit oD.5Ibs/gal applies. However, inthe new Division 5, the same painting ofpipes is covered under 115.453(a)(l)(C) Table I and seems to contain more categories. Ifa regulated entity does not meet the defmition of"extreme performance coating," is that facility now covered under the "General Coating" category and therefore expected to have a reduced VOC emission limit of2.8 lbs/gal? TCC opposes this interpretation as itwill have a significant impact on the types ofpaints its members can use in their lay-down yards. (3) With regard to the exemptions, TCC requests that TCEQ clarify in 115.451 (6)(C) whether exemptions for "safety indicated coatings" include those temperature-sensitive coatings used to identify hazards in an industrial setting. Furthennore, TCC is assuming the exemptions and definition of"architectural coating" in this section includes painting pipes inthe process unit because they are "in the field" and "stationary structures." Please confirm whetherthis

2interpretation is correct and whether the rules apply only to lay-down yards and not pipes in the process units. (4) Ifan activity were subject to the specific surface coating definition for miscellaneous metal andplastic parts (30 TAC 115.450(c)(5)), itmight be classified as "extreme performance coating" (30 TAC II5.450( c)(5)(I)), "heatresistant coating" (30 TAC 115.450 (c)(5)(J)), or as "miscellaneous metal parts and products" coating (30 TAC II5.450(c)(5)(Q)), depending onthe application. The control requirements for miscellaneous metal parts and products are providedin 30 TAC 115.453(a)(C) for the miscellaneous metal parts andproducts category. It is not evident when Table 1 versus Table 2 control requirements governs. TCC requests that the Agency clarify the intended use ofTable 1 versus Table 2. (5) Furthermore, the rules define "Extreme Performance Coating" in 115.450(c)(5)(I) and specifically mention "chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic, or acidic agents." TCC requests clarification ofthatterm, Le., is it intendedto meanpainting outside ofpipes that carry acids and caustics, or does it meanpainting inside ofpipes that carry acids and caustics? Comments on Division 6. Industrial Cleaning Solvents (6) Appendix A ofthe "Draft CTG: Industrial Cleaning Solvents" (EPA-453/P-06-001, August I, 2006) lists the "focus industries" as automotive manufacturing and related businesses, electrical components, furniture, magnetic tape, packaging, andphotographic supplies. In discussing applicability (page 4), EPA states that the "CTG should have broad applicability to industrial cleaning operations thathave VOC emissions ofat least IS Ib/day, before controls." However, EPA suggests that cleaning of"miscellaneous metals parts" coatings be excludedfrom applicability (page 7). Therefore, cleaning ofmiscellaneous.metal parts in the petrochemical industry should be exempted from this division. (7) Furthermore, the Industrial Cleaning Solvents rule should clearly exempt cleaning operations that do not involve the removal ofuncured adhesives, inks, and coatings, and contaminants such as dirt, soil, oil, and grease. For example, in the chemical industry, piping and equipment is often flushed with solvent during process turnarounds or product changeovers. These cleaning operations would likely already be regulated by 30 TAC Chapter liS, Vent Gas Control orBatch Processes rule. (8) The exemption in 115.461 (b) should specifically excludeprocess or operations that are subject to and complying with 30 TAC Chapter liS, Subchapter B, Division 2 (Vent Gas Control) or Division 6 (BatchProcesses), including any qualifying exemptions. The exemption in 115.46I(b) should berevised similar to the wording inthe Reg 5 Vent Gas Control rule (II5.127(a)(6)) to state: "A cleaning operation is exempt from this division (relating to Industrial Cleaning Solvents) ifall ofthe VOC emissions from the cleaning operation originate from a source(s) forwhich another division within Chapter liS (for example, Vent Gas Control, Degreasing Processes, Batch Processes) has established a control requirement(s), emission specification(s), or exemption(s) which applies to that VOC source category in that county."

3(9) The term "janitorial cleaning" is defined in 115.460 as ifit were intendedto be exempted from the Industrial Cleaning Solvents rule. However, the exemption was inadvertently left out oftbe exemption section 115.461 and needs to be added. Comments on Division 7, Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives (10) Applicability in 30 TAC 115.470 is broadly stated to apply to any ownerloperatorofa manufacturing or repair facility using adhesives for any adhesive application process specified in 30 TAC 115.473, which lists as an application process "other adhesive primer" applications. Chemical plants may use adhesives in limited applications such as to attach wear pads on piping to prevent metal-to-metal contact. As another example, adhesives mightbe used from time to time to repair orreplace floor tiles in companybuildings. While we expect these limited applications can meet the 3 ton/year exemption in 30 TAC 115.471, recordkeeping under 30 TAC 115.478 (b) would be required. TCC suggests that TCEQ revise the "applicability" provisions to specifically defme "other adhesive primers" as "other adhesive primers, other than incidental industrial use." Conclusion Thank you again for your consideration ofthese comments on the proposed amendments to 30 TAC Chapter liS. Please contact me at (512) 646-6403 orwisdom(a)txchemcouncil.org should you need additional clarification or information.
Yours respectfully,

Christina T. Wisdom Vice President & General Counsel

4

# AUG 0 82011 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

• REGION 6 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS. TX 75202·2733

Ms. Charlotte Hom Texas Register Tearn Office ofLegal Services, MC 205 Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality POBox 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087
Dear 

### Ms. Hom: 

# W-8

lbank you for the opportunity to submit comments on revisions proposedto the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions are: a) Chapter lIS 

## voe Storage Tank Rule Amendments Rule ProjectNo. 2010·025-1 IS-EN b) Chapter lIS CTO RACT Rule Amendments Rule ProjectNo. 201D-016·11S-EN c) DFW SIP Attainment DemonstrationRevision (including photochemical modeling, weight ofevidence, RACf, RACM, an MVEB, and a contingency plan) Rule ProjectNo. 2010-022-SIP-NR d) DFW SIP Reasonable Further Progress Revision Rule ProjectNo. 20I0-023-SIP-NR e) HOB RACT Analysis Update SIP Revision Rule ProjectNo. 201Q--028-SIP-NR f) DFW Attainment Demonstration and Reasonable FurtherProgress (RFP) SIP Revision Supplements These SIP revisions are important for Texas' 

### plan to address ozone airquality problems inthe stale. We appreciate the efforts ofthe State in developing these SIP revisions. Ourdetailed comments on the proposedrules are inCluded as an enclosure to 

### this letter. Please contact me ormy staffifyou have any questions. Forquestions about our comments on the DFW SIP proposals, please contact Ms. Carrie Paige 

### at214--665-6521. Please direct questions about comments onthe

# vac storage tank rules, CTG RACT rules, orthe DFW or HGB RACTanalysis to Ms. EBen Belk at 214-665-2164. Sincerely yours, 

# ./Jy 

# bJlr-- Guy Donaldson, Chief Air Planning Section(6PD-L) Enclosure 

### Cc: LolaBrown, Me 206 Michael Parrish, MC 205 Jamie Zeck,MC 206 I""'rnel,f\ddl'eSS (UflL) •h\lp;ilwww.epa go'learth1r6! AecydedlReeyclabfe**~rin1ed** with vegetable Oil Based InkS On Recycled**~aper** (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)Detailed Comments Control ofVOCEmissionsfrom Storage andTransfer OperalionsjOr the Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (Rule ProjectNo. 2010-025-1J5-EN) The amendments in this proposed rule would apply to nonattainment and nearnonattaimnent areas, and would change VOC control requirements 

### in 30 TAC Chapter 115, SubchapterB, Division I, Storage ofVolatile Organic COIn.\Xlunds. These revisions would require a more stringent level ofcontrOl for VOC storage inthe Dallas

- Fort Worth 1997 eighthour ozone nonattainment area. In addition, this proposedrulemaking would clarifyrule requirements and allow for the use ofalternative control options for affected owners or opemtors 

### in the following areas: HOB 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, Beaumont-Port Arthur area, and in Arkansas, Bexar, Calhoun, El Paso, Gregg, Matagorda, Nueces, San Patricio, Tmvis, and Victoria Counties. Our comments on this rulemaking projectare as follows: I. EPA Region 6 is supportive ofTCEQ's efforts to expand controls for additional VOC emissions in the DFW area. Also, EPA appreciates the decision made by TCEQ requiring 95% control in 1 15.1 12(f)(3XA). 2. Please confum that this new rule includes all ofthe components needed for enforcement purposes. As explained in the preamble

...... the compliance date for new requirements in the DFW area will be December 1,2012". However, ifcompliance with the new requirements would necessitate emptying and degassing the tank, compliance would not be required until the next time the 

### tank is emptied or degassedbutno later 

### than December I, 2021. 

### In particular, please explain how existing reporting requirements are sufficient for inspectors to be able toverify the most recenttime 

### that a vessel 

### was emptied or degassed and, ifnecessary, add additional reporting requirements whichprovide for the enforceability of

### this rule. 3. Withrespect to any creditwhich may be taken for reductions from this rule inthe reasonable further progress plan orattainmentplan, please explainhow the reductions were calculated. Inparticular, please explain how the credit 

### has been appropriately promted to reflect that.many storage

### tanks may not

### be controlled

### until after the deadline for RFP or attainmentbecause ofthe extended period allowed for compliance.

2Detailed Comments 

### ControlofVOCEmissionsfor Eight Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) Categories. (Rule ProjectNo. 20/0-016-// 5.EN)
The amendments in this proposedrule would change VOC control requirements in 30 TAC Chapter 115 Subchapter E, Solvent-Using Processes for eight Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) categories issued in 2006, 2007, and 200S.The CTG categories included inthis proposal are: Flexible Packaging Printing Materials; Industrial Cleaning Solvents; Large Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; 

### and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. Ourcomments on this rulemaking project are as follows: 1. Compliance Dates Please considerwhetherthese rule revisions should

### be enhanced to require compliance where possible by the beginning ofthe ozone season, March 1,2013. The rules as proposedmake a distinction between owners and operators becoming subject to the requirements and complying with the requirements, allowing an additional 60 days for compliance after becoming subject.
Forexample, as indicated inproposed Division3: FlexiblePackaging Printing Materials 115.439(d), ''The owner or operatorofa flexible package printing line 

### in the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas that becomes subjectto the requirements of this division after March 1,2013, shall comply with the requirements inthis division no laterthan 60 days afterbecoming subject." Given this, please considermodifying the rule to require compliance with these regulations no later than March I, 2013. Also, please use similar modifications 

### in other compliaru:e see;tions which are similarly worded, such as:§115.459(b), and §115.469(b). 2. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RAeT) Requirements. Absentthe requisite demonstration, EPA will notbe able to approve portions ofthe proposedrules. This is because the proposed rules replace emissions limits previously adopted as RACT with less stringent emissions limits. A demonstration from the State showing 

### that the SIP-approvedlimits are no longer RACT, will berequired for EPA's approval. EPA's interpretation ofthe applicable provisions ofthe CAA is contained in the memorandum titled "Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACTRequirements for Certain Coatings Categories" dated March 17,2011. Thismemo is included as an appendix at the end ofour comments. The memo states that "forsituations 

### in which a 

### 3State has previously detennined that more stringent applicability thresholds and/or control levels are RACT for one ormore sources in a source category and the sources have complied with those requirements, then those existing controls should be considered RACT for such sources. Further, "ifa state chooses to revise more stringent rules that are already in the approved SIP, so thatthose rules reflect the Less-stringent recommended limits in the new CTGs, there are additional considerations

... The state would need to first demonstrate thatthe SIP approved control requirements are not reasonably avaiLable considering technological and economic feasibility, consistent with EPA's definition of RACT." Sources have been complying with these limits in some cases for 20 years or more. Texas should explain how it is no longer RACT for these sources to continue to comply with the old limits. Therefore absent a demonstration portions ofthe following proposed Division 5 rules may not be approvable these include: Surface Coating Processes §115.453 and Control Requirements. Specifically, EPA anticipates not being able to approve some ofthe revisions proposed for Large Appliances, Metal Furniture, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products, and possibly other sections, including portions ofthe following: Division 5: Surface Coating Processes §115.453 Control Requirements: §1I5.453(1)(A) Large Appliances §1I5.453(1)(B) Metal Furniture §115.453(l)(C) Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 1§5.453(1)(D) Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products 3. Director's Discretion The proposed § 115.454(b) provides for alternate control requirements approvedby the executive director: §115.454(b) For any surface coating process or processes at a specific property, the executive director may approve requirements different from those in §I 15.453(a)(I)(A) ofthis title (relating to Control Requirements) based upon the executive director's determination that such requirements wJ1l resultin

### the lowest emission rate 

### that is technologically and economically reasonable. When the executive director makes such a detennination, the executive director shall specify the date or dates by which such different requirements must

### be met and shall specify any requirements to be metin the interim. Ifthe emissions resulting from such different requirements equal or exceed 

### 2S tons a year for a property, the detenninations for that property must

### be reviewed every five years. Executive 

### directoraPProval does not necessarily constitute satisfaction ofall federal

. requirements nor eliminate the need for approval by t1)e United States Environmental Protection Agency in cases where specified criteria for determiningequivalency have not been clearly identified in applicable sections of this chapter.



### 4The rule should be revised to make clear that any alternative requirements to §115.453(a)(IXA), approved by the executive director under §115.454(b) would need to be submitted as a site specific SIP.revision for approval by EPA to ensure 

### it meets the requirements for enforceability and public hearings. 4. Division 5: Control Requirements for Surface Coating Processes. Title. It wouldbe helpful to readily distinguish the rules in

### this division from those in Division 2. The proposed title for this new Division 5, "Control Requirements for Surface Coating Processes", seems very similarto Division 2, "Surface Coating Processes".



### 5Detailed Comments: Project No. 2010-022-SIP-NR Dallas-Fort Worth AttainmentDemonstration State Implementation Plan Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard Nonanainment Area The proposed DFW attainment demonstration SIP revision contains Federal Clean AirAct required SIP elements, including a photochemical modeling analysis, a weight ofevidence analysis, a RACT analysis, a reasonably available control measures analysis, a motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) for 2012, and a contingency plan. This proposed revision includes concurrent rulemakings to update control requirements for certain coatings operations, in response to recommended RACT requirements in CTG documents issued by the EPA and VOC storage 

### tankrule revisions to update existing andprovide new control measures for the DFW area This proposedrevision also includes an on-road emissions supplement to the proposed attainmentdemonstration SIP. I. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Requirements: Absent a proper demonstration EPA will not be able to approve portions ofthe proposed rules because the revised limitsreplace emissions limits previously adopted as RACT with less stringent emissions limits. Withouta demonstration from 

### the State that the SIPapproved limits are no longer RACT, considering technological and economic feasibility, the proposed rule will not be approvable. EPA's interpretation ofthe applicable requirements ofthe 

### eAA is provided 

### in tbememorandum entitled, "Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain Coatings Categories" 

### dated March 17, 20II. This memo is included as an.appendix at the end ofourcomments. 

### In general, for situations in which a State has previously detenninedthat more stringent applicability thresholds and/or control levels are RACTfor one ormore sources in a source category andthe sources have complied with those requirements, then those existing controls should be considered RACT fot such sources.... 

### Ifa 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...• The state would need to first demonstrate that the SIP approved control requirements are notreasonably available considering teclmological 

### and economic feasibility, consistent with EPA's definition ofRACT." Therefore, the portions ofproposed Division 5 rules which are not approvable without a RACTdemonstration include: Surface Coating Processes §115.453 Control ReqUirernents. SpecificallY,EPA anticipates not being able to approve some ofthe revisions proposed for Large Appliances. Metal Furniture, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products,and possibly other sections, including portions ofthe following: Division 5: Surface Coating Processes § 115.453 Control Requirements: § 115.453(1)(A) Large Appliances §115.453(1)(B) Metal Furniture §115.453(1)(C) Miscellaneous Metal Parts andProducts 1§5.453(l)(D) Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products 

### 6

.2. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) and use ofthe Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) emission modeling system: EPA Region 6 appreciates the work done by TCEQ and the NCTCOG to incorporate an approximation ofMOVES mobile modeling outputs into the proposed attainment demonstration and RFP SIPs for the DFW area. MOVES is EPA's approved model for use in SIP submissions and transportation conformity analyses, because itrepresents the Agency's most currentassessrnent ofon-road mobile source emissions (75 FR 9411). As noted in the proposed attainment demonstration SIP Revision, Section 3.7.6.3 (ExpectedChanges to SIP Revision Adoption with MOVES), U[w]hetherMOBILE6.2 or MOVES is 

### used for on-road emissions inventory development, the DFW area is anticipated to attain the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15,2013 deadline". It is encouraging to see that the areais predicted to attainthe standard by the deadline when on-road emissions are estimated using MOvES. Consistent withEPA's guidance for the use ofMOVES in

### the development ofSIPS and conformity determinations, Texas should proceed 

### withfinalizing attainment demonstration and RFP SIPs using the MOVES emissions modeling results. This would include establishing MOVES-based MVEBs for the DFW area. 

### TheSupplementto the proposed attainment demonstration incorporates 

### the use ofthe MOVES20l0a emission modeling system. MOVES20l0a incorporates new car and light truck energy and greenhouse gas rates and a number ofother improvements. Unless substantial workwith MOVES has been done, the TCEQ should use MOVES2010a and take full advantage ofthe improvements incorporated in this version. Modeling/Weight ofEvidence The State 

### has .proposed, based on a technical demonstration including modeling and other evidence thatthe DallasIFort Worthareas will attain the 1997 ozone standard bythe end ofthe 2012 ozone season. Based on the current monitoring data and the limited reductions that will happenbetween now in 2012, however, it seems unlikely thatthe area will attain. We note thatthe 2008 and 2009 years 

### and even 2010 hadhigherwind speeds thannormal 

### that resulted 

### in conditions less conducive

### to ozone formation. The 2011 period has been slightly above normal so far, as it has been very hot, but has 

### had some low wind days and higherwind days. We note that

### based on the preliminary data that the area's currentdesign value is 88 ppb, Short ofthe 84 ppb goal. To attainby 2012 will require a significant reduction from current monitored levels. 

### The discussion ofozone design value monitors on page 5-12 and Table 5-4 is not current and does notreflect ozone datafor 2010. This information should be updated 

### to include current data. Evaluation ofthe model performancedata and s6urce apportionment indicates 

### that the model may be overseIlsitive to low-level NOx reductions. We note thatthe kv-200 patch 

### 7to induce more vertical mixing may be resulting in better performance 

### in the base case, but also making the model overly sensitive to low-level NOx reductions as the atmosphere may not be mixing 

### as rapidly 

### as the patch is indicating. lbis may compensate for emission estimationerrors in the base, thus resulting inbetter model performance but also over-predicting the benefit ofNOx. reductions. Comparison ofbaseline modeling and model performance using the MOVES and MOBILE6.2 emissioninventories should provide useful information on the model's sensitivity to changes in low-level NOx emissions.
We also notedthat the modeling seems to project significant reductions in ozone levels due to out-of-state emissionreductions. We think there may be some error in the magnitude ofreductions being projected and request that TCEQ do comparisons with reductions expected with the new Cross State

### Air PollutionReduction Rule. A model sensitivity run may help understand ifthis is part ofthe discrepancies ofthe model system. The calculated RRF values used 

### to project the 2012 DV shownon Table 3-26 range from 0.786 to 0.832, indicating a significant reduction in predicted ozone concentrations over a relatively shortperiod oftime. We note thatthe retrospective analysis (Table 3-24) shows observed RRFs from 1999 to 2006 range from 0.872 

### to 0.966. Incalculation ofRRFs, there is some concern that a cut-offof70 ppb may be too low for determination ofwhich days 

### to include in the RRF calculation. Additional analysis ofthe sensitivity ofthe RRF calculation

### to using a 

### highercut-Qffvalue and including fewer days in the calculation, as well as an evaluation ofthe day-to-day variability ofthe RRFs and meteorology on those days, should be provided. Furthermore, evaluation ofthe sensitivity ofRRF values to cell array size should

### be included, supporting TCEQ's choice ofa 3x3 grid cell array about each monitor. 

### 3. General Throughout the submittal, we notice references to 201 0 ozone data as preliminary. Please provide current ozone values in the fmal submittals.
We are pleased to see improvements to the area source emissions inventories, although the improvements indicate increased emissions from oil and 

### gas activities in the area. Regarding the discussion on the CleanFuel Fleet (CFF) requirement, thc state should review the CFF equivalency demonstration submitted by the TCEQ for the BeawnontIPortArthur area, which was approved on October 20, 2010 (75 FR 64675). Since the CFF must be addressed in the DFW SIP, a similar equivalency demonstration is a reasonable option for considerationin the DFW area. Regarding the discussion on gasoline vapor recovery and the removal ofStage II requirements onpages 4-6 Blld 4-7, please note that Stage II refueling requirements apply in serioUs, severe and extreme ozone nonatl;iinment areas, provided the EPA has not yet 

### 8found that onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) is in widespread use 

### in the motor vehicle fleet and waived the section I82(b)(3) requirement.' Should the EPA finalize the rule as proposed at 76 FR 41731, then Parker, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman and Rockwall counties would notbe required to implement Stage II vapor recovery, nor would the state have to submit a demonstration that ORVR is in widespread use 

### in these counties. Regarding RACM, as indicated 

### in Appendix G ofthe state's submittal, 

### in order to advance attainmentby one year (Le., by June 15,2012), the state wouldhave to implement any additional control measures needed for attainment by 

### the beginning ofthe 20II ozone season, which has already passed. Thus, atthis time, EPAbelieves there is insufficienttime to implement additional controls thatwould advance attainment. However, Section I72(c)(I) ofthe Act requires SlPs to provide for the implementation of all RACM as "expeditiously as practicable" and for attainmentofthe standard. Therefore, and in light ofthe preliminary and increasing ozone design values (DVs) in the area, we encourage the state to provide a more robustRACM analysis that includes 

### the magnitude ofemissions reductions that would advance the attainment date at the monitors with the highest future DVs. Finally, we encourage the State to explore new technologies andpilot test new strategies to further reduce ozone 

### in the DFW area. AU nine counties in the serious ozone nonattainment areamust meet the requirements specified under section I82(c) ofthe CAA We have accountedfor all butthree ofthese requirements; please specify where the state's rules address how Parker, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufmanllr1d Rockwall counties meetthe de minimis rule (section 182(c)(6», 

### the special rules for modification ofsources (section 

### J82(c)(7) and 

### (8», 

### and the increased offset ratio of 1.2 to 

### J (section 182(c)(10».
In the On-roadEmissions Supplement to the ProposedDFW AttainmentDemonstration, the sentence at

### thebottom ofpage 2 appears to be unfinished. We suspect it would direct the readerto Tables 2-3 and 2-4. Please confirm by finishing the sentence. The state has submittedtwo recent revisions to Chapter 1

### J7 for: J) low-temperature dryingovens at 117.403(a)(12); and 2) biogas fired lean-bum engines. Please confirm that emission increases from these revisions have been captured in the att;linment modeling.

IOn July 15,2011 (76 FR41731). the EPA proposedcriteriafor determiningwhemer ORVRis in widespreaduse for purposes ofcontrolling motor vehicle refueling emissions throughoutthe motorvehicle fleet Based onthe proposed criteria, the EPA is prqposing 10 determine that June 30. 2013 wiltbe the date when widespread use will occurandthe Stage 11 waiver will be effective. 

### 9Detailed Comments: Project No. 2010·023-SIP·NR Dallas-FortWorth Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard The proposed DFW RFP SIP revision contains an analysis ofthe DFW serious ozone nonattainment area's progress toward attainment ofthe 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. RFP requirements include annual incremental reductions in ozone precursor emissions (NOx and VOC) outto an area's attainment year, reductions in ozone precursor emissions as contingency measures for designated milestone years and for the attainment year, and updated RFP MVEBs for an area's milestone years. This proposed SIP revision would incorporate a concurrently proposed revisionto Chapter 115 that wouldreduce VOC emissions from affected sources in the DFW area. (We are providing comments on

### the proposed revisions to Chapter 115 under Rule Project No. 201 0-025-1 IS-EN elsewhere.) I. The Supplement to the RFP indicates that the state is considering using the emissions reductions earned through the TERP to successfully demonstrate RFP for 2011, which we fully support. 2. The state's modeling analysis demonstrates that reducing NOx emissions 

### in the DFW area is more effective in reducing the area's 8-hour ozone design value 

### than reducing VOC emissions, thus substitution ofcreditableNOxemissiollS reductions is allowable in this RFP.2 Forthe 2012 milestone year, the proposed VOCemissioDS reductions fall short ofmeeting the VOC target by 9.79% to 13.82%, depending on whichtransportation model is used. The NOx emissions reductions musttherefore provide an excess ofthe same percentage as the VOC shortfall (9.79% to 13.82%) to compensate for the VOC shortfall and maintainthe increment ofRFP of3% and this is provided. We showthe calculations below, using the emission levels providedinthe state's proposal and supplement. Lines 6-8 are notincluded inthe state's submittals, but are required to demonstrate consistency with RFP and the EPA's NOx Substitution Guidance.

2 See EPA's NOx Substitution Guidance, December 1993. In addition, on August 5,1994, we issued "Clarification ofPolicy (orNitrogen Oxides (NOx) Substitution," Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards. 10NOx emissions reductions needed to balance

## voe shortfall, in tnd unless otherwise noted. Description NOx 

## voe UsinllMobile6.2 model

. . ... . ..... 

### I. 2012 Target emissions levels 393.59 463.25 2.2012 ForecastlProiected emissions levels 324.28 517.11 3. Excess (shortfall) [(line

# n- (line 2)1 69.31 I (53.86) 4. Amount for contingencv measure (3% of2012 

### ABYY 15.43 (3%) 0% 5. Excess (shortfall) [(line 3)

- (line 4)1 53.88 1(53.86) 6. Percent ofshortfall from

## voetarl!et 11.63% 7. 11.63% ofNOx tarP:et (to cover 11.63%

## vee shortfall) 45.77 (J 1.63%) 8. Adiusted excess in NOx reductions mine 5)

- (line 7)1 8.11**Usinl!MO\ll3$~I';'"** .i; 

### ....,·L·;.· •.;;· L; 

# ..... ' 

### . 1. 2012 Target emissions levels 500.21 445.89 2. 2012 ForecastlProiected emissions levels 398.81 507.50 3. Excess (shortfall) [(line n": Cline 2)1 101.40 (61.6n 4. Amount for contingency measure (3% of2012 ABy)4 19.43 (3%) 0% 5. Excess (shortfa\l) Wine 3)

- (line 4)1 81.97 (61.6n 6. Percent ofshortfall from

## voe tarl!et 13.82% 7.13.82% ofNOx tarllet (to cover 13.82%

## vee shortfall) 69.13 (13.82%)

# ~~~~ NOx reduetilifiit

-

# ()jne'~i 12.84 ;·.i· Fe· F.';;'·.';. ../;; ;··;;F·F;;;; .•. 

### 1. 2012 Target emissions levels 481.78 471.95 2.2012 ForecastlProiected emissions levels 379.09 518.14 3. Excess (shortfall) mine

# n- (line 2)1 102.69 (46.19) 4. Amount for continRencv measure (3% of2012 

### ABY)' 18.91 (3%) 0% 5. Excess (shortfall) Wine 3)

- (line 4)1 83.78 (46.19) 6. Percentofshortfall from

## voe tarllet 

### 9.79"10 7. 8.91 % ofNOx target (to cover 9.79%

## voe shortfall) 47.17 (9.79%) 8. Adiusted excess in NOx reductions mine 5)

- (line 7)1 36.61
Forthe Mobile6.2 and both ofthe MOVES models, the percent ofexcess in NOx emissions reductions is greater than the percent ofshortfall inV

## oe emissions reductions 

### and provides the area withthe required average of3% peryear in emissions reductions. However, the 

### state will need to adjust the amount of"excess reductions from 2012 RFP demonstration" inthe tables that show how the state satisfies the 3% emissions reductions that arerequired for contingency measures, should the area fail to attain the 1997 ozone standard by June 15,2013. 3. One ofthe creditable reduction strategies used in the calculation ofthe total 2011-2012 control reductions is "Storage

### tank rule 95 control/25 limit." See Appendix I, sheet43. The

## voe emissions reductions provided for this strategy is 14.37 tpd. On sheet44 ofAppendix 1, we see

, Per the state's proposal, the 20t2 adjusted baseyear (ABY) emissions invenlory fOtNO", usinglbe Mobile6.2 model, is 514.47 tpd.

, Perthe stale's proposal, the 2UI2 ABY emissions inwntory forNOx, using the MOVES model, 

### Is 647.80 tpd

, Perthe Slate's proposal, the 2012 ABY emissions inwntoty fOrNOx, using MOVES20IOa, is 630,46 tpd 

### 11the creditable reduction strategies used in the calculation for the 2012-2013 contingency measures. Againthe "Storage tank rule 95 controll25 limit" is listed as one ofthe control strategies, but the total

# vac emissions reductions for this strategy is 0.00. Please confmn that the credit for emissions reductions has been appropriately prorated for 2011-2012 and 2012- 2013, to reflectthe extended period allowed for compliance with this rule. 4. Please review the tables throughout the proposed submittal (including Appendices and Supplements) for mathematical errors. We found several errors, for example: Table 3-1 in Chapter 3, the sum at step 5D is 105.44 but the table reads 106.96; step 6 shows an error 

### in subtraction; Table 4-29 shows an error in addition; etc.

12Detailed Comments The proposed HOB SIP revision provides a RACT analysis update inresponse to (CTO) documents that have.not yet been included in the HOB AttainmentDemonstration (AD) SIP Revision forthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard and incorporate concurrently proposed CTG-related rulemaking for the HOB area SIP Project No. 2010-028-SIP-NR. Our comments on this ruIemaking project are as follows:
I. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Requirements. The EPA will not be able to approve portions ofthe proposed rules which replace emissions limits previously adopted as RACT with less stringent emissions limits without a demonstration from the State that the SIP-approved limits are no longer RACT, considering technological and economic feasibility, as explained furtherbelow. The EPA's interpretation ofthe applicable requirements ofthe CAA is provided in the memorandum entitled, "Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain Coatings Categories" dated March 17, 2011. This memo is included as an appendix atthe end ofour comments. In general, for situations in which a State has previously determined thatmore 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. . .. 

### Ifa state choose to revise more stringentrules that are already in the approved SIP, so that those rules reflect the less-stringent recommended limits inthe new CTGs, there are additional considerations

... The stale would need to first demonstrate that the SIP approved control requirements are not reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility, consistentwith the EPA's definition ofRACT." Therefore, the portions ofproposed to Division 5 rules which may not be approvable include: Surface Coating Processes §115.453 Control Requirements. Specifically, EPA anticipates not being able to approve some ofthe revisions proposed for Large Appliances, Metal Furniture, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products, 

### and possibly other sections, including portions ofthe following: Division 5: Surface Coating Processes §115.453 Control Requirements: §115.453(1)(A) Large Appliances §115.453(l)(B) Metal Furniture §115.453(lXC) Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products 1§5.453(1)(D) Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products



### 13AppendiJ>

Attached Memorandum: "Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain Coatings Categories", dated March 17, 2011 from Scott Mathias to Regional 

### Air Division Directors. (3 pages)

14

### MEMORANDUMUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711



### MAR I 7 2011 OFFICE oF AIR QUAlJTV PLANNiNG ANDSTANDAADS



### SUBJECT: Approving SIP Revisions AddressingVOC RACrRequirements for Certain Coatings Categories FROM: ScottMathias, Interim Direct 

# !**~/ ~4e.**  Air Quality PolicyDivision

# (~W14 TO: Regional Air Division Directors The Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standards has received requests from Regional Offices for guidance on approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions resulting from newly-issued Control techniques Guidelines (CrGs) documents. These CrGs provide recommen,dations to Inform state determinations as to whatconstitutes reasonably available controltechnology (RACT). In 

### somecases, the newly-issued CTGs contain recommended emission limits thatare less stringentthan 

### limits recommended in older crOs covering the same induslQ', and 

### may be 

### less stringentthan limits already adopted into SIPs based on the older CTOs. This is the case for industries covered by cros pertaining to 

### LargeApplianceCoatings, Mellll Furniture Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal and PlasticParts Coatings. rhe U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issuednew cros for these categories in2007 and 2008, under authority ofClean AirAct (CM) section 183(e), to 

### address volatile organic compound (VOe) emissions from categories ofconsumer and commercial products. They replace similarcrGs issued byEPA in 1977 and 

### 1978. The new CrGs recommendmore stringentlimits for general usecoatings, but also include new recommendations for several "specialty use" categories that are less stringentthan 

### the general use limits established in the I970s guidelines. States are required to SUbmitaSIP revision inresponseto any newly-issued crGs. 1 

### Ifan existing SIP contains requirements .that 

### arenot lessstringent than the applicability thresholds andIDt

### coating operations limits recommended innew CTOs, the state may choose to submitas a SIPrevision acertification 

### !:hatthe existing SIP meets RACrrequirements.

I eM section 182(b)(2) requires Moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas torevkcSJPs when anew CTG is issued by**EPA.~** 1990. EPA is required**\O$~** SIP submisslOlldeadlitlewhh the issuance ofeach CTG. For CTGs we have)ssued In thepast several 

### years. we have specified. subml$5iOll deadline ofoneyear after the CTG was issucd(Sec 72 FR 57215 0<19, 2007 IlIId73 FR5848 Oct7, 2008).

Inl8m.l Add",

.. (URL) • h11p:JIwww.epa.gov**ReoVG~eor.~.** Pmtedwin Vegelable onBased Inkson Recycled Peper (t.lJlnImUtn25". Postoonsumer)

### We anticipate that EPA Regional Offtces would be 

### able to approve the RACT determinations in these circumstances. We \lotethatEPA's recommendations in CTGs ate generally treated as "presumptive" RACT and states may demonstrate that other limits are RACT for one or more sources within the source category addressed bythe CTG. Where a state has 

### previously determined that more stringent applicability thresholds and/orcontrol levels ate RACTfor one or more sources in a source category and the sources have complied with those requirements, then those existingcontrols should be considered RACT for such sources. If

### a state chooses to revise more stringentrules that are already in the approved SIP, so thatthose rules reflect the less-stringentrecommended limits in the new CTOs, there are additional considerations that mustbe factored into any EPA decision to approve the SIP revision. The state would need to frrst demonstrate thatthe SIP-approved control requirements are notreasonably available**~nsidering** 

### technological and economic feasibility, consistent with EPA's definition ofRACT. 

### See 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979). In addition, in order 10 comply with the SIP approval conditions ofCAA section 110(1), the statewould need to demonstrate that 

### the revision to the SIP would not interfere with attairunent of, orreasonable fUl1herprogress toward attainment of, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, nor interfere with any otherapplicablerequirement ofthe CAA. This would 

### bedemonstrated ifthe stricterlimits on general use coatings provide sufficient emissionreductions 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 additionalemission reductions from another source category in another industry to 

### offsetthe 

### increased emissions from the specialty coatings. [n general, ifa proposed SIP revision achieves the same or greater emissionreductions as the approved SIP within the same timeframe asprovided under the existing plan, the Regional Office shouldbe able to determine that the SIP revisioll is consistent with the approval conditions of

# eM section [10(1). The public dockets for the LargeAppliance Coatings and the Metal Furniture Coatings CTGs contain information thatstates may find helpful in**de~ining** 

### the reductions thatcanbe achieved by adopting the 

### new general use category CrG lirnits for these industries. Accordingto the docketed information, the estimated**reduc~iorisfrom** 

### the new crGs are 30 to 

### 35 percent greater than from the older cros. 

### See documents EPA-HQOAR-2007-0329-0009 

### and EPA-ItQ-OAR-2007-0334-00lOin dockets.EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0329 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0334, respectively. The increase inemissions reductions in any specific nonattainment area may vary depending on the 

### volume usage distribution among the general and specialtyCBtegOries in that area. The dockets forthe new cros do notcontain area-specifiC analyses ofpotential emissions reductions. Generally, ifa statebelieves the volume usage distribution among the general 

### and specialty categories in the docketis representative ofthe distribution in the nonattainment area, we believethat ifa state undertakes wholesale adoption ofthe new categoricallimitB in a specific CTG, the state may rely onthe assessments in the docketto 

### demonstrate that the range ofnew limits will result in an overall reduction inemissions from the collection ofcovered coatings. However, ifa state adopts some specialty category limits, butnotall ofthe newcategoricilllimits, or determines that ithas a different volume usage distribution among categories, the state 

### may need to do an area-specific assessment ofwhether tighter restrictions for some coatihgs, coupled with 

### 2

### less stringent restrictions on other coatings would provide overall equal or greater emissions

.reductions than the set ofrules based on the recommendations in the 1970s guidelines. If

### you have further questions on SIP-related issues you should contactButch Stackhouse at (919) 541-5208. Ifyou have further technical questions on the topics covered in this memorandum you should contact Kaye Whitfield at (919) 541-2509.

cc: Robin Dunkins, SPPD Kimber Scavo, AQPD David Orlin. OGC Sara Schneeberg, OGC

3

### 08/08/2011 04:32 PM This email is a confirmation ofthe commentthat was submitted for the referenced rulemaking. First Name: Kate Last Name: Bates Company/Organization: 

## us Navy E-mailAddress:kate.bates@navy.mil StreetAddress: PO Box 30, Bldg 903 City: 

### Jacksonville State: FL 

### Zip Code: 32210 Phone Number: Fax Number: Rule: 2010-016-11S-EN Comments: 

# W-9Frances Dowiak Air Quality Planning Section (MC 206) Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Comment on: Chapter 115 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOe) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Rule Revisions (Rule Log 201D-016-115-EN)

The United States Navy operates in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan area and currently ourfacility operations are not subject to the proposed rule. Yet, due to our ever changing operations and mission requirements the Navy could become subject to the rule and our increasing budget constraints would make it difficult for the Navy to meets these requirements in the future. Therefore, the Navy considers it prudent to makes comments on this proposed rule at this time. TCEQ has proposed rulemaking to implement the recommendations in the EPA's Control Techniques Guideline documents for determining RACT. The Navy welcomes the opportunity to comment on the technological and economic feasibility of the proposed rules, specifically in the areas of surface coating, solvents, and adhesives. Our comments below address areas of the rule on which the Navy requests clarification or modification:
1. Exempt on-site maintenance shops; 2. Exempt Department of Defense activities from Division 5 3. Update and Streamline Requirements for Solvent Cleaning Operations; 4. Exempt Janitorial cleaning from Solvent Cleaning; 5. Exempt Consumer adhesives from Division 7
1. On-site maintenance shops
Problem/Issue: According to §115.450(a)(3), the rule applies to miscellaneous metal part and product coating at the original equipment manufacturer, off-site job shops that coat new and used parts and products orthat recoat used parts and products, and designated on-site maintenance shops that recoat used parts and products. The category of designated on-site maintenance shops was created several yearsago and first appeared in the Division 2 applicability at §115.420(b)(9)(F). and is described in the current preamble as an area designated at a site where coatings are applied to one or more miscellaneous metal parts or products on a routine basis. TCEQ should remove on-site maintenance shops from the applicability of both Divisions 2 and 5 for three reasons. First, TCEQ has not defined what constitutes an on-site maintenance shop, and it is unclearwhat frequency is "routine". Second, EPA's Control Techniques Guideline document for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings does not include on-site maintenance shops'. The Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products in 40 CFR 63 Subpart MMMM excludes facility

1 U.S. EPA, Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings: (EPA-4S3/R-08-0031, September 2008. (Page 5) "'The CTG applies to manufacturers of miscellaneous metal and plastic parts that surface-coat the parts they produce. The final CTG also applies to facilities that perform surface coating of miscellaneous metal and plastic parts on a contract basis. H 1maintenance operations from the rule'. Finally, industrial maintenance coatings are already covered by the National Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) rule in 40 CFR Part S9 Subpart D. The Navy is concerned the proposed rule applicability is confusing and would result in inadequate compliance efforts or unnecessary costs to effectively comply with the rule. Suggestion/Recommendation: TCEQ should delete designated on-site maintenance shops that recoat used parts and products from §l1S.4S0(a)(3) and §l1S.420(b)(9)(F). TCEQ should instead clarify the exemption in §l1S.4S1(1) to add industrial maintenance coatings: Forexample, architecturalcoatings applied in thefield ta statianarystructures and their appurtenances, portable buildings, pavements, orcurbs, ar industrialmaintenance caatings in an-site maintenance shaps atapraperty wouldnatbe includedin the calculatians.
2. Exempt Department of Defense (000) activities from Division S
Problem/Issue: In §l1S.4S0(a)(3) and (a)(4), the rules apply to original equipment manufacturer and off-site job shops that coat miscellaneous metal and plastic parts and products. The current proposed rule exemption in §l1S.4S1(13) has narrowly worded language that exempts coatings that are applied to test panels and coupons as part of research and development, quality control, or performance testing activities at paint research or manufacturing facilities. The current Chapter l1S Subchapter E Division 2 surface coating rule has two exemptions:

• §l1S.427(a)(1)(A) excludes aerospace vehicles and components from coverage under the miscellaneous metal parts and products (MMPP) coating category, and

• §l1S.427(a)(3)(J) excludes research and development activities from Division 2 where cleaning and coating of aerospace vehicles or components is performed. NASA and Department of Defense are exempt from the Federal MACT standard (40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products) in 40 CFR §63.3881(c)(4). We request that a similar exemption be included in this rule. The basis for this exemption request is that reformulating solvents or coatings requires extensive and costly field testing before they can be approved for use in military applications. Updating the coatings for which there is a Military specification requires updating the documentation Navy wide. The proposed regulation would be impractical and extremely costly for DoD facilities because of the complexity of coating operations, the number of coatings and solvents used, and the number of different items and substrates coated. The DoD may use small amounts of hundreds of different coatings, and each material is subject to its own engineering specifications. Frequent changes in the mix of prototypes are unpredictable and dictated by future mission requirements, and would prevent compliance using either the averaging or add-on control options. The alternate option of adding vapor control technology can be equally as challenging and costly due to the number and quantity of coating operations that can occur on DoD installations. Additionally, TCEQ should specifically exempt coating of museum/historical items because the DoD must use historically accurate coatings for these items. Suggestion/Recommendation: The Navy requests a new exemption in §l1S.4S1(14) to reflect the Federal MACT standard exemption already in place. Proposed revision:

240 CFR Section 63.3881(c)(2) states that the rule does not apply to surface coating or a coating operations that occur at research Or laboratory facilities, or is part ofjanitorial, building. and facility maintenance operations, or that occur at hobby shops that are operated for noncommercial purposes. 2(14) The surface coating ofmetal orplasticparts andproductsperformedan-site at installations awned oroperated by the ArmedFarces ofthe UnitedStates (including the Coast Guardand the Texas National Guard) orthe NationalAeronautics andSpaceAdministration, orthe surface coating ofmilitary munitions manufacturedby or for the Armed Farces ofthe United States (including the Coast Guardand the Texas National Guard).
3. Update and Streamline Requirements for Solvent Cleaning Operations Problem/Issue: Chapter 115 Subchapter E, Division 1 (Degreasing Processes) regulates equipment such as cold cleaners and vapor degreasers that use VOC-containing solvents. Chapter 115 Subchapter E, Division 1 was adopted in 1979 when cleaning solvents were traditional VOC such as trichloroethylene or naphtha. This regulation needs to be updated to reflect low-VOC and aqueous cleaning solvents. The proposed exemption in Division 6 §115.461(b) to exempt other solvent cleaning operations covered elsewhere in Chapter 115 is a missed opportunity to update and streamline the requirements for degreasing processes. This is also an opportunity to make TCEQ air permitting requirements congruent with Chapter 115 requirements. Suggestion/Recommendation: TCEQ should amend or revise the proposed rule to update or replace definitions and existing requirements for solvent degreasing processes in Chapter 115 Division 1. Specifically, aqueous detergents, surfactants, and other cleaning solutions containing not more than one percent of any organic compound should be exempted from Chapter 115 as they are from the Texas permitting process. Additionally, compounds with low vapor pressure <0.01 mm Hg (0.0002 psia) at a temperature not to exceed 104°F are not considered air contaminants for air permitting in Texas and should not be subject to Chapter 115 either.
4. Include Janitorial Exemption for Solvent Cleaning Operations
Problem/Issue: In §115.460(b)(3), TCEQ defines Janitorial cleaning, but did not include an exemption forjanitorial cleaning. EPA's 2006 Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommends excluding janitorial cleaning from the applicability for the proposed rule requirements. Suggestion/Recommendation: TCEQ should revise the applicability in §115.460(a). Proposed revision: (a) Applicability. Exceptas specifiedin §115.461 ofthis title (relating to Exemptions), the requirements in this division apply to solventcleaning operations in the Dallas-Fort Warth and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas, as defined in §115.10 ofthis title (relating to Definitions). Residentialandjanitorial cleaning is natconsideredsolventcleaning operations. S. Exempt Consumer adhesives from Division 7 Problem/Issue: In §115.470(a), the rules apply to manufacturing or repairfacilities with adhesive application processes. Among the categories of adhesive materials regulated in §115.473 are a number of substances that are more likely to be used for institutional purposes or at construction sites rather than in manufacturing facilities. Such materials include ceramic tile installation adhesive; cove base installation adhesive; floor covering installation adhesives; and single-ply roof membrane installation or repair adhesives. It is not clear how the rule will apply to these materials that are used at thousands of non-manufacturing facility sites statewide.
3Suggestion/Recommendation: The Navy requests a new exemption at §115.471(e). Proposed revision: (e) Adhesives oradhesiveprimers used forgeneral consumer and/ornon-manufacturing applications are exempt from the requirements in this division.

4Reference Number 0-1 INDEX OF ORALTESTIMONY

July 18, 2011- Houston-GalvestonArea Council

Submittedby Thomas A Hoermann, onbehalfofMr. James Sell, American Coatings Association (similarto W-3)

July 22, 2011

- TCEQ 10:00 a.m. No oral comments were received atthis public hearing that pertained to this SIP revision.BEFORE THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115

- and to the State Implementation Plan Rule Project No. 2010-025-115-EN

************************************************* VOLUME 1 OF 1 PUBLIC HEARING JULY 18, 2011

*************************************************

The above-entitled matter came on for public hearing, pursuant to notice, on July 18, 2011, at 6:43 p.m., at the Houston-Galveston Area Council, 3555 Timmons Lane, Conference Room C, before Kathy Genung,
court reporter and notary public for the State of Texas. BEFORE: Lola Brown, SIP Coordinator Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building E Austin, Texas 78753

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Chance Goodin, TCEQ Mr. Bob Gifford, TCEQ Ms. Frances Dowiak, TCEQ Mr. Thomas A. Hoermann, AkzoNobel Ms. Shelley Whitworth, HGAC Mr. Sean Dowiak Ms. Gloria DowiakRule Project 

### No. 2010-025-115-EN

- 7/18/2011 2 1 2 3 SPEAKER
4 Mr. Thomas A. Hoermann 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 

### 23 24 25 I N 0 E X

PAGE
4

Integrity Legal Support Solutions www.integrity-texas.com

### Rule Project No. 2010-025-115-EN

- 7/18/2011 3 1 

### MS. BROWN: Good evening. I would like to 2 welcome everyone to the public hearing being conducted by 3 the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. My name 4 is Lola Brown. I'm with the Air Quality Division. And 5 with me are Chance Goodin, Frances Dowiak, and Bob 6 Gifford, all with the Air Qual i ty Division. 7 We're here this evening to receive oral 8 and written comments on the proposed 9 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Reasonably Available Control 10 Technology, or RACT, Analysis Update State Implementation 11 Plan, or SIP, Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone 12 Standard and proposed revisions to 30 Texas 13 Administration Code Chapter 115, Subchapter E, to 14 implement RACT for volatile organic compounds, or VOC 15 emissions from coatings, adhesives, and cleaning solvents 16 used in various processes, and also Chapter 115, 17 Subchapter B, Division 1, to clarify existing rule 18 requirements for VOC storage and provide alternative 19 control options for sources that are currently subject to 20 these rules and to require a more stringent level of 21 control for VOC storage in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. 22 Copies of the proposed SIP and rule revisions are 23 available on the registration table. 24 If you've not already signed in, please -- 25 and wish to speak, please sign in now. On the Integrity Legal Support Solutions www.integrity-texas.com

### No. 2010-025-115-EN

- 7/18/2011 Rule Project 

### 4

1 

### 2 3 

### 4 5 

### 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 , t' t bl we also have copies of the public reglstra lon a e, hearing notice that you may take with you so that you can quickly find information on how to submit the written

comments on these proposals. We will continue to accept written comment

on these proposals until August 8th, 2011. This hearing is structured strictly for the receipt of oral or written comments on these proposals. Open discussion during the hearing is not allowed; however, if you have questions after the hearing, there will be an opportunity to discuss that with the staff. We will now receive comments in the order 13 in which you registered. When I call your name, please 14 come up to the podium, state your name and who you 15 represent, and begin your comments. 16 MR. HOERMANN: Thank you. My name is 17 Thomas A. Hoermann. I am Regional Regulatory Affairs 18 Specialist for International Paint, LLC, which is the 19 Americas Business Unit for Marine, Protective, and Yacht 20 Coatings within AkzoNobel, the world's largest paints and 21 coatings company. International Paint Yacht Coatings, 22 sold under the brand names Awlgrip and Interlux, are 23 recognized for their continuing technical innovation, 24 stringent quality controls, and superlative finish on 25 pleasure' craft, ranging from family boats to superyachts Integrity Legal Support Solutions www.integrity-texas.com

### Rule Project No. 20l0-025-ll5-EN

- 7/18/2011 

### 4 1 registration table, we also have copies of the public 2 hearing notice that you may take with you so that you can 3 quickly find information on how to submit the written 4 comments on these proposals. 5 We will continue to accept written comment 6 on these proposals until August 8th, 2011. 7 This hearing is structured strictly for the 8 receipt of oral or written comments on these proposals. 9 Open discussion during the hearing is not allowed; 10 however, if you have questions after the hearing, there 11 will be an opportunity to discuss that with the staff. 12 We will now receive comments in the order 13 in which you registered. When I call your name, please 14 corne up to the podium, state your name and who you 15 represent, and begin your comments. 16 

### MR. HOERMANN: Thank you. My name is 17 Thomas A. Hoermann. I am Regional Regulatory Affairs 18 Specialist for International Paint, LLC, which is the 19 Americas Business Unit for Marine, Protective, and Yacht 20 Coatings within AkzoNobel, the world's largest paints and 21 coatings company. International Paint Yacht Coatings, 22 sold under the brand names Awlgrip and Interlux,are 23 recognized for their continuing technical innovation, 24 stringent quality controls, and superlative finish on 25 pleasure" craft, ranging from family boats to superyachts

. 

### Integrity Legal Support Solutions www.integrity-texas.com

### Rule Project No. 20l0-025-ll5-EN

- 7/18/2011 5 

### 1 around the world. International Paint proudly operates a 2 major coatings manufacturing facility, with associated 3 R&D labs and administrative offices, at 6001 Antoine 4 Drive in northwest Houston. 5 

### I am here today on behalf of Mr. James 6 Sell, Senior Counsel of the American Coatings 7 Association, or ACA. Although Mr. Sell is unable to 8 participate in today's proceedings, he has previously 9 submitted informal comments on this rulemaking to TCEQ 10 staff. These were entitled "ACA Comments on Pleasure 11 Craft CTG: Modifications Required to South Coast Rule 12 1106.1 for Establishing a Suitable RACT Standard for the 13 Pleasure Craft Coatings Industry," and were sent via 14 e-mail on January 12, 2011. 15 Also included in that e-mail was an EPA 16 Memorandum from Steven D. Page, Director of the Office of 17 Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated June 1st, 2010, 18 subj ect: "Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous 19 Metal and Plastic Part Coatings

- Industry Request for 20 Reconsideration." For the sake of brevity, the "EPA 21 Control Technique Guideline for Miscellaneous Metal and 22 Plastic Part Coatings" will be subsequently referred to 23 as "the EPA CTG." 24 With reference to the information 25 previously submitted by Mr. Sell, and to formal written Integrity Legal Support Solutions www.integrity-texas.com

### Rule Project No. 2010-025-115-EN

- 7/18/2011 6 

### 1 comments that will be submitted during the comment period 2 for this rulemaking, the following summary points are 3 offered for the Commission's consideration: 4 The Pleasure Craft provisions of the EPA 5 CTG do not represent Reasonably Available Control 6 Technology (RACT) for this industry sector.
7 

### The draft EPA CTG did not mention pleasure 8 craft surface coating operations. EPA introduced the 9 language of South Coast Air Quality Management Division, 10 or SCAQMD, Rule 1106.1, "Pleasure Craft Coating 11 Operations" into the Final EPA CTG. This was apparently 12 done with concern that pleasure craft surface coating 13 operations might otherwise be subject to the various 14 general categories, and their more restrictive VOC 15 limits, for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, which 16 was based on South Coast AQMD Rules 1107 and 1125, and 17 Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products, based on South 18 Coast AQMD Rule 1145 and Michigan Rule 336.1632. 19 However, there was no opportunity for the pleasure craft 20 industry to provide comments on this EPA action. 21 Had that opportunity been extended, the 22 pleasure craft industry would have provided the following 23 reasons to support our contention that South Coast AQMD 24 Rule 1106.1, as included in the Final EPA CTG, does not 25 represent RACT: Integrity Legal Support Solutions www.integrity-texas.com

### Rule Project No. 20l0-025-ll5-EN

- 7/18/2011 7 1 

### First, the VOC limits and compliance dates 2 in South Coast AQMA Rule 1106.1 were too restrictive to 3 allow coating manufacturers to formulate products that 4 meet the VOC limits, while also maintaining adequate 5 technical performance and meeting customers' aesthetic 6 requirements. As a result, pleasure craft manufacturers 7 relocated from the South Coast area to other locations in 8 the US. 9 

### Second, the compliance dates in South Coast 10 AQMD Rule 1106.1 and the EPA CTG do not provide 11 sufficient time for coating manufacturers to formulate 12 products that comply with the restrictive VOC limits, 13 while also meeting the technical performance and 14 aesthetic requirements of pleasure craft manufacturers 15 and owners. An example is antifouling coatings, which 16 must be registered as biocidal products under the Federal 17 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and 18 corresponding State programs. This process can add years 19 to the actual development and performance testing of new 20 lower-VOC antifouling coatings. 21 Third, South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1, like 22 other South Coast rules, was developed and adopted to 23 deal with the severe ozone nonattainment conditions in 24 the South Coast air basin. These conditions are not 25 experienced in other areas of California or the US, and Integrity Legal Support Solutions www.integrity-texas.com

### Rule Project No. 2010-025-115-EN

- 7/18/2011 8 

### 1 thus the provisions of South Coast regulations should not 2 be identified as "RACT" for other areas. 3 Fourth, even in the state of California, 4 only five other Air Quality Management Districts have 5 found the need to introduce rules to regulate pleasure 6 craft surface coating operations. These rules differ 7 from South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1 in varying degrees. 8 Fifth, South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1 was 9 adopted in 1992, and most recently revised in 1999. 10 Since then, there have been developments in the marine 11 and pleasure craft industry that provide the basis for 12 revised VOC limits for some coating categories, and the 13 introduction of new categories and VOC limits for other 14 coatings. An example is a new category of "Antifouling 15 Sealer/Tie Coat." This category of coatings was 16 developed to allow the use of nonbiocidal coatings that 17 comply with Annex 1 of the International Maritime 18 Organization Antifouling Systems Convention, which was 19 written in 2001. These developments are not addressed in 20 South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1 or the EPA CTG. 21 Development of RACT that is appropriate for 22 Pleasure Craft Surface Coating operations should address 23 the following points: 24 First, consideration of an "Averaging 25 Approach" as an alternative compliance option. Integrity Legal Support Solutions www.integrity-texas.com This

### Rule Project No. 20l0-025-ll5-EN

- 7/18/2011 9 

### 1 approach is successfully used in Europe to provide 2 flexibility to coating manufacturers and end-use 3 customers to provide VOC emission reductions while 4 minimizing adverse economic and productivity impacts at 5 each affected facility. 6 Second, provision of appropriate time until 7 the final compliance date to allow the development, 8 testing, and commercial introduction of low-VOC pleasure 9 craft coatings. Rushing products into this market has 10 the potential for disastrous consequences, as boat 11 builders and pleasure craft owners tend to be 12 conservative; they tend -- they tend to choose coatings 13 with demonstrated performance that best protect the value 14 of their products and investments. A period of four 15 years is suggested to allow completion of existing 16 development projects to bring lower-VOC pleasure craft 17 coatings to the US market. 18 Third, revision of the categories and VOC 19 limits from the CTG to address current and future product 20 developments in the pleasure craft industry. 21 include revised VOC limits for several coatingExamples

22 categories; a revised definition of "Extreme Gloss 23 excuse me -- "Extreme High Gloss" topcoats; and the 24 introduction of a new category definition and VOC limit 25 for "Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat" coatings. Integrity Legal Support Solutions www.integrity-texas.com

### Rule Project No. 20l0-025-ll5-EN

- 7/18/2011 10 1 Also, the EPA CTG should be consistent with 2 other EPA rulemaking for this industrial sector. 3 The pleasure craft industry is aware that 4 EPA is currently evaluating the Natural Emission Standard 5 for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Shipbuilding and Ship 6 Repair Operations. That's 40 CFR Part 63 SUbpart II. 7 This process may result in a revised Subpart II MACT 8 Standard and/or a new Area Source Standard for HAPs 9 emissions from Pleasure Craft Surface Coating operations. 10 Coatings manufacturers have already provided product 11 information to EPA to assist in this process, and the 12 industry supports rulemaking that will provide a 13 consistent approach to reduce emissions of both VOC and 14 HAPs in this industrial sector. 15 Finally, the Pleasure Craft Industry is 16 ready and willing to work with Federal, State, and Local 17 air agencies on this issue. 18 The pleasure craft industry was not 19 afforded the usual opportunity to consult with EPA during 20 the development of the EPA CTG. We, therefore, feel it 21 is imperative to work with EPA, its Regional Offices, and 22 State and Local agencies to develop RACT rules that 23 provide reductions in VOC emissions, while meeting the 24 performance and productivity requirements of an important 25 US industry that is under increasing pressure from Integrity Legal Support Solutions www.integrity-texas.com

### Rule Project No. 20l0-025-ll5-EN

- 7/18/2011 11 1 economic conditions and global competition. Thank you 2 for your attention and consideration. 3 

### MS. BROWN: Thank you. Is there anyone 4 else that would like to present testimony? Okay. Then, 5 once again, the Commission will continue to accept 6 written comments on these proposals until August 8th, 7 2011. All comments should reference the rule or SIP 8 project number that the comment pertains to. 9 There's a handout on the table that tells 10 you how to sign up for e-mail updates. And we appreciate 11 your comments, and we thank you for coming. And this 12 hearing is now closed. 13 14 concluded) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Whereupon, at 6:55 p.m., this hearing was

Integrity Legal Support Solutions www.integrity-texas.com

### Rule Project No.**2010-025-115~EN** 

### - 7/18/2011 12 1 C E R T I F I CAT E 2 THE STATE OF TEXAS 3 COUNTY OF FORT BEND 4 IN RE: TCEQ Rule Project No. 2010-025-115-EN 5 LOCATION: Houston, Texas 6 DATE: July 18, 2011
7 

### 8 I, the undersigned certified shorthand 9 reporter and notary pUblic in and for the State of Texas, 10 do hereby certify that the matters set forth in the 11 caption to the foregoing proceedings are true and 12 correct; that the statements were taken down in shorthand 13 by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my 14 direction; and that the foregoing pages comprise a true, 15 correct and complete transcript of the proceedings. 16 I further certify that I am not counsel, 17 attorney or relative of either party, or otherwise 18 interested in the event of this suit. 19 GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this 20 the 20th day of July A. D., 2011. 21 22 23 24 25 Kathy Genung, Texas CSR 2080 Expiration Date: 10/20/13 Firm's Registration Number 528 Integrity Legal Support Solutions LLC 3100 West Slaughter Lane, Suite 101 Austin, Texas 78748 Telephone: 512.320.8690 Integrity Legal Support Solutions www.integrity-texas.comPage 1

0-028-SIP-NR (HGB RACT Update SIP Revision), 2010-016-115-EN (Chapter 115 

### vac RACT Rule Revisions), 2010-025-115-EN (Chapter 115 

### vac Storage Rule Revisions) 

## TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PUBLIC HEARING REGISTRATION ---------,

-----t-----t------j If Yes, check all projects you Ian to comment on RACT vae RACT Storage

SIP Rule Rule Revision Revision Revisions

Yes No Yes No Yes No Presenting Oral Testimony? (Circle One) 

# 0'0 No

Yes No

-----_. Yes 

# G

---- Yes No

- --- -------- - -----------
--- ---- ----- ----- REPRESENTING /1)

### /-"TIl,dlpn 

### 'f/ 

### At';,-")L:

# /,j), z" ,0/'<)

### ;',:L c'!c 

## AI "-J( r /Cr, ()

### C~(-l h'lt)A 

## 11 ,I

### r:l~! 

### J--,;".,

------------------------- ---I July 18, 2011, 6:30 p_m_ Houston-Galveston Area Council, 3555 Timmons Lane, Houston

------- 

### - ----------+-- -- ----------

E Print)**rn/~nn** r-----.,',. -----_._--""".-

Project Nos.: 201

NAM (Please

-- 

### "lhiJm",J 

## 11. /Ill "r

.•.._-- 

# C9lM**L~W** cJl0

# ~L \

---

--

f------------

--

### - 1 -

- -- 

# Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Public Hearing Registration
Date: July 22, 2011

Time: 10:00AM Rule Projects.: 201O-025-115-EN and 201O-016-115-EN SIP Projects: 201O-028-SIP-NR Location: Austin, Building E, Room 201S, at the commission's central office located at 12100 Park 35 Circle Concerning: Proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 and to the State Implementation Plan

If yes, check all projects you wish to Presenting comment on Oral Name and Phone No. or E-mail Address Representing Testimony? HGB SIP CTG STORAGE (Please Print) (Circle RACT RULE One) RULE REVISION REVISION 

# Ap0c**1::;0cL~Tc0** Yes 

# € \,./' v'" 

# ..--- A"JOE.

. E.0 E;L3ruuV.s'P\n.::\K....C.c...u...:Y.'ju.\.....Tt "';E...(

### m (i:,OM-+S 

### Eq**L~** S 7't,J-J S.rt**r~fll!.** ...= G J'iVIa.O IV M t!.-,u rA£ eOA/SUL,**'~"(;**

## Yes~ V**';;~,41A** S. 

## E(1t;7"l-srJ.AJ @ 

## :;"1 TF"**J,~f!C** 

## (.OIU tUL </ 

## ..,. lAic;

. (.0..,
Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

-- Yes No

- Yes No

### HEARING OFFICERREPORT



### I am the hearing officer assigned to conduct the public hearing regarding proposedrevisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 andto the StateImplementation Plan. A public hearing was scheduled for July 22, 2011, 10:00 a.m., at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality complex, Building E, Room 201S, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas. At 9:30 a.m., the room was open and TCEQ staff 

### members were available to discuss the proposal. At 10:00 a.m., TCEQ staffand a courtreporter were present andready to open the hearing forpublic comment. Afterwaiting for 10 minutes, no one had arrived to make comments on the record. Therefore, the public hearing was notformally openedfor comment and a transcript was notprepared.

Hearmg eer

7-n-1I

### Datesign~d

# EVALUATION OF TESTIMONY

# Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Interoffice Memorandum
To: 

### Thru:

From: 

### Commissioners Bridget Bohac, ChiefClerk Mark R. Vickery, P.G.,**EXeCUti~'"ve** 

### Director Susana M. Hildebrand, P.E. ChiefEngineer Date: 

### November 18, 2011

Subject: Docket No.: 

### 2011-0083-SIP CommissionApproval for Adoption ofthe Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) ReasonablyAvailable Control Technology (RACT) Analysis Update State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard Project No. 201O-028-SIP-NR Background and reason(s) for the SIP revision: 

### The purpose ofthis HGB RACTAnalysis Update SIP Revisionforthe 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (HGB RACT Update SIP revision) is to provide the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) a RACT analysis update to include Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) thatwere not addressed inthe HGB Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision forthe 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision) and to incorporate concurrent 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115 CTGrelated rulemaking for the HGB area (Rule Project No. 201O-016-115-EN). The eight-county HGB nonattainment area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, andWaller Counties) is classified as severeunderthe 1997 eight-hourozone National AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS). Fornonattainment areas classified as moderate and above, Federal CleanAirAct (FCAA), §182(b)(2) requires the stateto submit a SIP revision that implements RACT for volatile organic compounds (VOC) emission sources addressed in a CTG documentissued from November 15,1990, through the area's attainment date. Forthe HGB area, the attainment date is June 15, 2019. CTG documents provide informationto assist states in determining RACT for specific emission sources and provide the EPA's RACT

### recommendations. FCAA, §183(e)(3) requires the EPAto regulateVOC emissions from consumerand commercial products by issuing national regulations orby issuing CTG 

### documents in lieu ofnational regulations. TheEPAissued 11 CTG documents from 2006 through 2008 with RACT 

### recommendations for controlling VOC emissions from avariety ofconsumer and commercialproducts. Ofthe 11 

### CTG documents, the commission has previously acted on four. On March 10, 2010, with the adoption ofthe HGB AD SIP revision, the commission adopted portions of the Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTGrecommendation and provided a negative declaration for the FlatWood Paneling Coatings CTG, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG, andAutomobile and Light-Duty TruckAssembly Coatings CTG source categories. The commission determinedthat no sources meeting the applicability criteria recommended in these CTG documents were located inthe HGB area.

### Commissioners Page 2 November 18, 2011 Re: Docket No. 2011-0083-SIP
Additionally, due to the EPA's concerns regarding federal enforceability, staff recommended withdrawing the two RACT recommendations forthe Flexible Package Printing and the Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CfG categories thatwere proposed on September 23, 2009. RACT determinations were not made forthe following five CTG emission source categories atthattime because additional researchwas necessaryto determine the number ofsources affectedby the CfG recommendations andthe EPAhad notformally respondedto the state's December 8, 2008, request for clarification regarding the CTGrecommendations: Industrial Cleaning Solvents; LargeAppliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives; andMiscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. On March 17, 2011, the EPAissued a guidance memorandum entitled

### Approving SIPRevisionsAddressing 

## vacRACTRequirements for Certain Coatings Categories regarding the following three CTG categories: Large Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; andMiscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. Additional discussion regarding the EPA's guidance onthese three CTG categories is provided in Appendix A: 

### ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis. Seven CTG categories for the HGB areahave pending RACT determinations to be submitted to the EPA. This HGB RACfUpdate SIP revision includes the analyses and RACfdeterminations for these seven CfG source categoriesto determine ifadditional VOC controls are necessaryto fulfill RACT requirements. This SIP revision provides a detailed RACfanalysis update andincorporates concurrent Chapter 115 CTG-related rulemaking for the HGB area into the Texas SIP. The concurrentrulemaking revises Chapter 115, Subchapter Eto implementRACT forthe CTG emission source categories in the HGB area as requiredby FCAA, §172(C)(1) and §182(b)(2). 

### Scope ofthe SIP revision: Becausethis HGB RACT Update SIP revision focuses specifically on the seven CfG documents issuedby the EPAfrom 2006 through 2008 thathave notbeen addressed in the HGB AD SIPrevision adoptedMarch 10, 2010, the RACfanalysis only provides an update to the HGB VOC RACfdemonstration. 

### A.) Summary 

### ofwhatthe SIP revision will do: Although the FCAA requires the stateto implement RACT, EPAguidance on RACT indicates that states may chooseto implementthe CfG recommendations, implement an alternative approach, or demonstrate that additional control forthe CfG emission source categoryis nottechnologically or economically feasible in the area. This SIP revision provides a detailed RACfanalysis update for the HGB area andincorporates any necessary rule revisions. The following seven CfG documents have been evaluated as part ofthe concurrent Chapter 115 CTG-relatedrulemakingto determine ifadditionalVOC controls are necessaryto fulfill RACT requirements:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issuedin 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issuedin 2006;

• Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

### Commissioners Page 3 November 18, 2011 Re: Docket No. 2011-0083-SIP

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issuedin 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008. B.) Scope required

### byfederal regulations or state statutes: 

### This HGB RACT Update SIP revision contains the FCAA requirement that states must revise their SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas with moderate and above classifications to include RACT, as applicable, for each category ofVOC emission sources coveredby a CTG document. C.) Additional 

### staffrecommendations that are not required

### byfederal rule or state statute: 

### None Statutory authority: 

### The authorityto propose and adopt SIP revisions is derivedfrom the following sections of Texas Health and SafetyCode, Chapter 382, Texas CleanAirAct (TCAA), §382.002, which provides that the policy andpurpose ofthe TCAAis to safeguardthe state's air resources from pollution; §382.011, which authorizes the commissionto control the qualityofthe state's air; and §382.012, which authorizes the commission to prepare and develop a general, comprehensive planforthe control ofthe state's air. This SIP revision is required by FCAA, §l1o(a)(l) andimplementing rules in40 Code ofFederal Regulations Part 51. Underthe 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, the HGB area is required to meetthe mandates ofthe FCAA, §172(c)(1) and §182(b)(2) and (f). 

### Phase II ofthe EPA's implementation rule forthe 1997 eight-hourozone NAAQS publishedin the November 29, 2005, issue ofthe 

### FederalRegister (70 FR71612), requires states containing areas classified as moderate nonattainment andabove to submit a SIP revision demonstratingthattheircurrent rules fulfill the RACT requirements for 

### all CTG emission source categories. Effect on the: A.) 

### Regulated community: 

### The affectedregulated communityare those sources affectedby the concurrent Chapter 115 CTG-relatedrulemaking that will be incorporatedin this SIP revision. Affected sources may be required to install control technologies oruse reformulatedproducts to meetthe emission specifications, implement newworkpractices, or comply with additional monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. Seethe executive summarymemo for the Chapter 115 CTG-relatedrulemaking being adopted concurrently with this SIP revision (Rule Project No. 201O-016-115-EN) for further information.

### Commissioners Page 4 November 18, 2011 Re: Docket No. 2011-0083-SIP


### B.) Public: The public couldbenefitfrom improved air quality due to lower ozone levels as a result of the concurrent Chapter 115 CfG-relatedrulemaking. However, there is apossibilitythat the economic impactto affectedindustries couldbe passedto consumers in the form of increased product costs. Seethe executive summary memo forthe Chapter 115 CTG-related rulemakingbeing adopted concurrentlywith this SIP revision (Rule Project No. 2010-016- 115-EN) for further information. 

# c.) Agencyprograms: The CTG rules couldincrease the Office ofCompliance and Enforcementworkloadwhen inspecting affected facilities to ensure thatthe additional requirements are met and could increaseworkloads for the Small Business and Environmental Assistance Division due to a likelyimpact on many smallbusiness owners. Seethe executivesummary memo forthe Chapter 115 CTG-related rulemaking being adopted concurrentlywiththis SIP revision (Rule Project No. 201O-016-115-EN) for further information. 

### Stakeholdermeetings: ACTG Stakeholder Group meeting was held on December 1, 2010, andinformal comments were accepted until January 12, 2011, for the concurrent Chapter 115 CfG-related rulemaking. Seethe executive summary memo for the Chapter 115 CTG-relatedrulemaking being adopted concurrently with this SIP revision (Rule ProjectNo. 2010-016-115-EN) for further information. 

### Public comment: Public hearings for the proposed SIP revision and concurrent Chapter 115 CfG-related rulemaking were held on July 18, 2011, atthe Houston-Galveston Area Council officein Houston and on July 22, 2011, attheTexas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) headquarters in Austin. Question and answer sessions were held 30 minutes priortothe hearings. American Coatings Association (ACA) presented oral comments atthe July 18, 2011, hearing applicable to this HGB RACT Update SIP revision and the concurrent Chapter 115 CTG-related rulemaking. TheJuly 22, 2011, hearing in Austin was not officially openedbecause no partyindicated a desireto provide comment. The public commentperiod opened on June 24, 2011, and closed on August 8, 2011. Written comments were accepted via mail, fax, andthrough the eComments system (http://www5.tceq.texas.gov(rules(ecommentsD. Written comments were receivedfrom the ACA, Flexographic Technical Association (FTA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Texas Chemical Council (TCC), EPA, United States Navy (US Navy), and one individual. The EPA commentedthat in orderfor portions ofthe proposedrules for Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings to be approved as RACT, the state must also demonstrate thatthe existing statelimits for these CTG categories, which were based onthe EPA's original CTGrecommendations, are

### Commissioners Pages November 18, 2011 Re: DocketNo. 2011-0083-SIP

no longer technologically or economicallyfeasible. The EPA also requested clarification of the alternate control requirement concerning miscellaneous metal parts and products coating. The ACA commentedthatthe pleasure craft industrywas notprovidedthe opportunity to comment onthe EPA's CTG RACT recommendations because the draft Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG did notmention pleasure craft surface coating operations andthatEPA's final CTG-recommended pleasure craftcoating limits do not represent RACT for the pleasure craftindustry. The ACA requested several revisions to the proposed rules to establish appropriate RACT requirements for the pleasure craftcoating operations. TCC suggested an exemption for solventcleaning operations associatedwith processes or operations that are subjectto the control requirements or emission specification in another division in Chapter 115 and clarification ofcertain definitions in the proposed rules. Comments received more directly relatedto the Chapter 115 CTG-related rulemakingbeing adopted concurrently with this SIP revision (Rule ProjectNo. 201O-016-115-EN) are addressed in the preamble to those rules and a summary ofthe comments is includedin the executive summary memo forthose rules. 

### Significant changes from proposal: This SIP revision was revised in response to comments received onthe RACT update for the following CTGcategories: Industrial Cleaning Solvents; Large Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. In response to comments, the TCEQ revised the industrial cleaning solvents rules to exempt from these requirements operations that are subjectto the control requirements or emission specifications in another division in Chapter 115. The exemption provides flexibility andreduces the complianceburden for affected sources. The exemptionis consistentwith the EPA's CTG recommendations and at least as effective as complying with the industrial cleaning solvents rules. The commissionproposedto implementthe CTG-recommended RACT limits for the large appliance, metal furniture, and miscellaneous metal andparts coatings categories and provided a demonstration that implementing the CTG-recommended approach forthese three categories would notinterfere with attainment ofthe 1997 ozone standard. However, the EPA commentedthat in order for the proposedrules to be approved as RACT, the state must also demonstrate thatthe existing state limits for these CTGcategories, which were based on the EPA's original CTG recommendations, are nolongertechnologically or economicallyfeasible. Staffcontends thatby promulgating higher CTG-recommended RACT limits for these source categories, the EPA has establishedthatthe original CTGrecommendedlimits, and thus the existing statelimits, are no longer technologically or

### Commissioners Page 6 November 18, 2011 Re: Docket No. 2011-0083-SIP economically feasible. However, inthe absence ofany specific information indicatingthat the state's existing limits for these source categories are no longertechnologically or economicallyfeasible and considering the EPA's intentto disapprove the rules as proposed without such a demonstration ofinfeasibility, the TCEQ is obligated underthe FCAAto revise the proposed rules to only include the CTG-recommendedVOC limits that are equivalentto orlowerthan the state's existinglimits. Where the EPA's new CTGrecommended emissionlimits areless stringentthan the original CTG-recommended limits, the TCEQ is retaining the original emissionlimit inthe current rules, exceptforthe highperformance architectural coatings limitforthe miscellaneous metal parts and products category. Inresponse to comments, the TCEQ determinedthat some ofthe pleasure craftcoating VOC emissionlimits included inthe EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTGrecommendations are nottechnologicallyfeasible atthis time andtherefore do not constitute RACT for Texas. The adoptedrules includehigherVOC limits for extreme high-gloss coating, finish primer/surfacer coating, and other substrate antifoulantcoating. Additionally, VOC limits have been introducedfor antifoulant sealer/tiecoating, a new coating category. Additional details regarding these changes are providedinthe Response to Comments section andAppendix Aofthis HGB RACT Analysis Update SIP revision and also inthe executive summary memo andpreamblefor the Chapter 115 CTG-relatedrulemakingbeing adopted concurrently with this SIP revision. Potential controversial concerns andlegislative interest: Due to the broad applicability recommendedinthe Industrial Cleaning Solvents and Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesive CTG documents, the concurrent Chapter 115 CTGrelated rulemaking impacts many smallbusinesses. Inresponse to comments, the TCEQ determinedthat some ofthe pleasure craftcoating VOClimits included in the EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTGrecommendations are nottechnologicallyfeasible atthis time andtherefore do not constitute RACT for Texas. The EPA may not agree with this conclusion. Does this SIP revision affectany currentpolicies orrequire development of new policies? No What are the consequences ifthis 

### SIP revision does not go forward? Are there alternatives to this SIPrevision? There are no practical alternatives to this HGB RACT Update SIP revision. The FCAA and the EPArequire sources ofVOC emissions in ozone nonattainmentareas classified as moderate and above to implement RACT measures and require states to

### Commissioners Page 7 November 18, 2011 Re: Docket No. 2011-0083-SIP

submit revisions to the SIP in response to any CTG document issuedfrom 1990 through the area's date ofattainment. States can adopt and implement the recommendations contained within the CTG documents ifthey are determinedto be RACT, or they can adopt alternative approaches, but in either circumstance, the RACT analysis and any rule revisions must be submittedto the EPAfor review and approval as part ofthe SIP. Ifa finding offailure to submit is issuedby the EPA, states that do not submit RACT determinations within 18 months after such a finding couldbe subject to federal sanctions. EPA Region 6 has verbally indicatedthat the EPAis considering issuing afinding offailure to submit for states that have not submittedRACT determinations for the 11 consumer and commercial products CTG documents issuedfrom 2006 through 2008. Additionally, failure to update the RACT analysis couldjeopardize the approvability ofthe HGBAD SIP revision submittedto the EPA on April 6, 2010. 

### Keypoints in the adoption SIP revision schedule: 

### Texas Registerproposal publication date: NA Anticipated 

### Texas Registerpublication date: NA Anticipated effective date: NA Six-month 

### Texas Register filing deadline: NA 

### Agency contacts: Lola Brown, Project Manager, 239-0348, Air Quality Division John Minter, StaffAttorney, 239-0663

cc: ChiefClerk, 2 copies Executive Director's Office Susana M. Hildebrand, P.E. Anne Idsal Curtis Seaton Ashley Morgan Office ofGeneral Counsel Lola BrownRESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED CONCERNING THE HOUSTON GALVESTON-BRAZORIA (HGB) 

### REASONABLYAVAILABLE CONTROLTECHNOLOGY (RACT) ANALYSIS UPDATE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) REVISION FORTHE 1997 EIGHT-HOUR 

### OZONE STANDARD Public hearings for this proposed RACf analysis update SIP revision andthe associated rulemaking were held on July 18, 2011, atthe Houston-GalvestonArea Council offices in Houston and on July 22,2011, at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) headquarters inAustin. Question and answer sessions were held 30 minutes priorto the hearings. The hearing in Austin was not officially opened because no partyindicated a desire to provide comment. One person provided oral comments applicable to this HGB RACfSIP revision andthe associated rulemaking atthe Houston public hearing. The commentperiod opened onJune 24, 2011, and closed onAugust 8, 2011. The commission received comments from the American Coatings Association (ACA), FlexographicTechnical Association (FTA), National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA), Texas Chemical Council (TCC), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States Navy (US Navy), and one individual. Comments more directly relatedto the concurrentrulemaking in 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115 Volatile'Organic Compounds (Va

### C) RACfRule Revisions (Rule Project No. 2010- 016-115-EN), which are incorporatedby reference into this SIP revision, are respondedto in the Response to Comments section ofthe preamble to the rulemaking. Those comments are included in this RACfupdate revision through the adoption ofthose rules. Some changes were made to the proposedversion ofthis SIP revision in response to those comments. TABLE OF CONTENTS 

### Table ofContents 1 General 1 Flexible Package Printing 5 Industrial Cleaning Solvents 6 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 8 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings 8 Pleasure Craft Coatings 8 Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coatings 10

GENERAL 

### TheACAcommentedthat the EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CfG) shouldbe consistent with otherEPA rulemakings for this industrial sector. TheACA commentedthat coatings manufacturers have provided the EPAproduct informationto assist in the evaluation ofthe National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair I 

### of 13Operations, andthatthe industry supports rulemaking that will provide a consistent approach to reduce emissions ofbothVOC and hazardous air pollutants in this industry sector. 

### The commission appreciates the comment. However, ensuring consistency among future federal rulemakings forthis coating categoryis beyondthe scope ofthis rulemaking. The commission makes no change 

### in response to this comment. An individual commented thatthe one thing no successful businessman can handle is the constant changing ofregulations thatpotentiallyrequire equipment andincreased employment to support such equipment, when one neverknows ifhe or she will be allowedto operate the purchased equipment. The individual commentedthat a reasonable andprudentbusinessman needs to be able to plan, andthathas been impossible with the ever-changing regulations that the EPAhas come forth with. 

### The commission appreciates the comment and acknowledges thatthe changing regulations can be challenging. Thepurpose ofthis rulemakingis to 

### fulfill the state's obligation under Federal Clean

### AirAct (FCAA), §172(C)(1) 

### and §182(b)(2), 

### to submit a SIP revisionthatimplements RACT forVOC emission sources located

### in nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above, addressed

### in a CTG issued from November 15,1990, 

### through an area's attainment date. When enacting rules, the commission considers the appropriate implementation deadlines. The commission makes no change 

### in response to this comment. The EPA commentedthat approval ofthe portions ofthe control requirements in §115.453 for the surface coating oflarge appliances, metal furniture, andmiscellaneous metal andplastic parts andproducts ofthe proposedrules thatreplace emissions limits previously adopted as RACT withless stringent emissions limits would not be possible without a demonstration from the state showing thatthe SIP-approvedlimits are no longer RACT. On March 17, 2011, the EPAissued a memorandum entitled

### Approving SIPRevisionsAddressing 

## vacRACT Requirementsfor Certain Coatings Categories indicating that: "for situations in which a State has previously determined that more stringent applicabilitythresholds and/orcontrollevels are RACT for one ormore sources in a source category andthe sourceshave compliedwiththoserequirements, thenthose existing controls should be considered RACT for such sources. 

### Ifa state chooses to revise more stringentrules that are already in the approved SIP, so thatthose rules reflectthe less-stringentrecommendedlimits inthe new CTGs, there are additional considerations

... The statewould needto first demonstrate thatthe SIP-approved control requirements are not reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility, consistentwiththe EPA's definition ofRACT." The EPA requestedthe commission explain howthe existing limits are no longer RACT for these sources that in some cases have been complying withthese limits for 20 years or more. 

### Byletter dated December 8, 2008, 

### the TCEQ requested the EPA clarify 

### several issues related to the recommendations 

### in the followingthree CTG documents: 

### Control Techniques GuidelinesforLargeAppliance Coatings (EPA453/R-07-004), 

### issued 

### in 2007; 

### Control Techniques GuidelinesforMetalFurniture Coatings (EPA 453/R-07-005), 

### issued 

### in 2007; 

### and 

### Control Techniques Guidelinesfor Miscellaneous MetalandPlastic Parts Coatings (EPA 453/R-08-003), 

### issued 

### in 2 of 132008. A nUlTIbcr oftherecolTIlTIendedVOC contentlilTIits for specific coatings categories in these 2007 and 2008 erG doculTIents are less stringentthan the lTIore general VOC contentliITIits specified inthe following EPA guideline series recOlTIlTIendations: 

### Control of Volatile Organic 

### Emissionsfrom Existing Stationary Sources 

### Volume V: Surface Coating of LargeAppliances (EPA-450/2- 77-034), issued in 1977; 

### Control of Volatile OrganicEmissionsfrom Existing Stationary Sources 

### Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (EPA-450/2- 77-032), issued in 1977; and 

### Control of Volatile Organic

### Emissionsfrom Existing Stationary Sources 

### Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous MetalParts and Products (EPA-450/2-78-015), issued in 1978. The TCEQ requested clarificationto ensure that iITIplelTIenting the new 2007 and 2008 erG recommendations would notbe considered backsliding and to be certain that the TCEQ has the appropriate inforlTIation to determine whether the CTG recolTIlTIendations actually represent RAer for Texas. On March 17, 2011, the EPAissued a guidance melTIorandum regarding these three CTG categories entitled

### Approving SIPRevisionsAddressing VOCRACTRequirementsfor Certain Coatings Categories. The EPAstated in the memorandulTI that: "

... ifa state believes the volume usage distribution among the general and specialty categories in the docket is representative ofthe distribution in the nonattainlTIent area, we believe that ifa state undertakes wholesale adoption ofthe new categoricalliITIits in a specific erG, the state may rely onthe assessments in the docketto delTIonstrate thatthe range ofnew liITIits 

### will result in an overall reduction in emissions from the collection ofcovered coatings." Consistent with this EPAmelTIorandum, on June 8, 2011, the commission proposed rulelTIaking (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN) concurrentwith this SIP revision to iITIplelTIent the 2007 and 2008 erG-recolTIlTIended RACT liITIits for these three emission source categories. The proposed rulelTIaking provided discussion regarding the estiITIatedpercentreductions forthese CTG categories that supported the EPA's position that applying the new 2007 and 2008 CTGrecolTIlTIended linrlts as a whole 

### will result in netVOC emissions reductions. Despite the state's demonstration that iITIplementing the 2007 and 2008 CTGrecolTIlTIended approach would not interfere with attainITIent of, orreasonable progress towards attainment of, the ozone standard for the HGB area, the EPA cOlTIlTI'ented that in orderfor the proposed rules to be approved as RACT, the state must also demonstratethat the existing Chapter 115 liITIits for these CTG categories, which were based on the EPA's original 1977 and 1978 recomITIendations, are no longer technologically oreconolTIica11yfeasible. The commission contends that bypromulgating higher CTG-recommended RAer limits for these source categories in 2007 and 2008, the EPAhas establishedthat the original 1977 and 1978 recOlTIlTIended limits, and thus the existing Chapter 115 limits, are no longer tecl1nologically or economically feasible. The EPA defines RAer as the lowest eITIission linrltation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application ofcontrol tecl1nologythat is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762, SeptelTIber 17, 1979). In the 2007 and 2008 erG documents, the EPAprovides recommendations for RAer for these source categories based on available information. The EPA clams the 2007 and 2008 CTG RAerrecolTIlTIendations were based on available 

### 30f13information and a review ofexisting federal and state regulations, including the original 1977 and 1978 recommendations forthese emission source categories. The EPA goes onto indicate that 21 states have adopted the EPA's 1977 recommendations for large appliance coating; 32 states have adoptedthe EPA's 1977recommendations for metal furniture coating; and as many as 36 states have adopted the EPA's 1978 recommendations for metal parts surface coating. Given thatTexas hadpreviously adoptedthe EPA's 1977 and 1978 recommendations for these three source categories, the Chapter 115 rules shouldhave been includedin EPA's review ofexisting regulations. Ifupon review ofthe existing Chapter 115 regulations the EPAhad determinedthatthe limits recommended in 1977 and 1978 were technologically and economicallyfeasible, then those limits preswnably wouldhavebeen included in the final 2007 and 2008 CTGrecommendations for these source categories. In accordance with FCAA, §183(e)(3)(C), the EPA determinedthe 2007 and 2008 CTGdocwnents issuedfor these three source categories wouldbe substantially as effective as national regulations in reducing VOC emissions (72 FR57215, October 9,2007; 73 FR40230, July 14,2008). FCAA, §183(e)(3)(A) requires any regulations issuedunderFCAA, §183(e), including the 2007 and 2008 CTG documents, to be based onbest available controls, which are definedunder FCAA, §183(e)(1)(A) as the degree ofemissions reduction thatthe EPA determines, onthe basis of technological and economic feasibility, health, environment, and energyimpacts, is achievable through the application ofthe most effective equipment, measures, processes, methods, systems ortechniques, including chemical reformulation, product orfeedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for use, conswnption, storage, or disposal. Ifthe lower limits in the EPA's original 1977 and 1978 recommendations were infact technologically or economicallyfeasible for these specialty coating categories, the EPApresumablywould have retainedthese limits in the 2007 and 2008 final CTG docwnents in accordance with FCAA, §183(e)(1)(A). The Large Appliance Coatings andMetal Furniture Coatings 

### draft CTG only recommended general coating limits for these source categories. However, in response to public comments (72 FR57215, October 9, 2007), the EPA's final 2007 CTGrecommendations for these two source categories also includedhigherlimits for several specialty coatings. The specialty coating limits included inthe 2007 CTG are higherthan the EPA's 1977 recommendations forthese two source categories. Inthe response to public comments, the EPA acknowledgedthat the higher specialty coating limits recommended in the final 2007 CTGwere necessary to accommodate the range ofcoatings needed inthese industries. However, the EPA's 2007 and 2008 CTG docwnents do not specifically explainwhy the lowerlimits included inthe EPA's original 1977 and 1978 recommendations for these source categories are no longer technologically or economicallyfeasible. In absence ofany specific information indicatingthatthe existing Chapter 115 limits for these source categories are not technologically or economicallyfeasible, and given the EPA's stated intention to disapprove the rules without such a demonstration, the commission is obligated underthe FCAAto revise the proposed 

### 40f13

### limits for these source categories. Therefore, in response to this comment, the commission is revising the proposedlimits for these three source categories to only include the EPA's 2007 and 2008 CTG-recommendedlimits that are equivalentto orlowerthanthe existing Chapter 115 limits. Where the EPA's 2007 and 2008 CTGrecommendedlimits are less stringentthanthe EPA's original 1977 and 1978 recommended limits, the commission is retaining the original emissionlimit inthe current Chapter 115 rule, exceptfor the high performance architectural coatings limitfor the miscellaneous metalparts andproducts category. The EPAonly addressed the technological and economicfeasibility issues associated withhigh performance architectural coatings in support ofits presumptive RACT recommendations in the 2008 CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and PlasticParts Coatings. The commission agrees withthe EPAthat the 6.2 pounds of VOC per gallon ofcoating (lb VOCjgal coating) constitutes RACT for this coating type and thatpromulgating a VOC limitless than 6.21b VOCjgal coating may restrictthe application ofliquid high performance architectural coatings that are currently available and in use today. The cost ofconvertingto powder coatings or installing and operating add-on controls to meet a lowerlimit is not a reasonable alternative compared to the emission reduction thatwouldbe achieved. In 

### light of this information, as provided inthe EPA's 2008 CTG, the commissionhas determined a VOC limit of6.2 lb VOCjgal coatingfor highperformance architectural coatings to be RACT. The commission contends that the adoption of this coatingVOC limitfor highperformance architectural coatings, which is higher than inthe existing Chapter 115 rules, does not interfere with attainment of, or reasonable progress towards attainment of, the ozone standard for the HGB area. Therefore, the commission 

### is making no change to the proposedVOC limit of6.2 lb VOCjgal coating for highperformance architectural coatings in the Chapter 115 miscellaneous metalparts andproducts coatings rules in response to this comment; the commission is adopting to retainthe EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG-recommended 6.21b VOCjgal coatinglimitfor high performance architectural coatings inthe adopted Chapter 115 miscellaneous metal parts andproducts coatings rules. FLEXIBLE PACKAGE PRINTING The FfA strongly disagreed with the requirement in §1l5.432(c)(1)(C) for flexible package printers to meet an 

### 80% overall control efficiency regardless ofthe first installation date ofthe oxidizer. The FfA commentedthatthis approach may require printers that installed oxidizers at an earlier date to replace equipment and wouldbe a significantfinancial hardship, as new oxidizers start in the hundreds ofthousands ofdollars. The FfA commentedthatthe EPA's Flexible Package Printing CTG recommends a more reasonable approach consistent with a RACT regulation, which allows add-on controls installed priorto specific dates to have lower overall control ofVOC emissions. The FfA addedthat the commission's claim thatthe EPA's approach wouldcreate backsliding is notjustified. 

### The commission maintains thatthe EPA's crG-recommended approachfor controllingVOC emissions from flexible package printing may encourage the installation ofolder, less efficient equipment and may create backsliding issues 

### ifa
5 of 13

### source becomes subjectto a lower efficiency standard as a result ofequipment replacement. The commissionhas determinedthat an 80% overall control efficiencyrepresents RACT for flexible package printingprocesses in the HGB area. Based on a review of permits forflexographic printing and rotogravure printingprocesses, the onlytwo types ofprintingprocesses identified in the CTG as conducting flexible package printing, the majority ofprinters are using add-on control equipmentthat achieves atleast an 80% overall control efficiency, demonstrating that this 

### level ofcontrol is reasonably available consideringtechnological and economic feasibility. Flexible package printers withthepotential to emit greaterthan or equal to 25 tons per year ofuncontrolledVOC emissions that chooseto use a vapor control system to complywith the adopted rules, are notlimitedto operating at an 80% overall control efficiency. The adoptednew control requirements in §115.432(C) provide different compliance options to provide flexibility for affected owners and operators. Flexible package printers can instead choose the compliance optionthat requires the use ofcoatings in conjunction with a vapor control systemto meetthe VOC limits. Under this compliance option, an owner or operator does nothave to meet a certainVOC limit or meet a certain overall control efficiency; rather, the combined coatingVOC content andthe overall control efficiencymust meet the VOC limits. The commission makesno change in response to this comment. INDUSTRIAL CLEANING SOLVENTS TheACA requestedthe commission exempt resin manufacturing from the Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 6, industrial cleaning solvents rules sincetheproposedVOC limits would not allow effective cleaning ofresin manufacturing equipment. TheACAcommentedthatboth the BayAreaAir Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and South CoastAir Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules, whichthe EPArelied onto develop the CTG 

### recommendations, exemptresin manufacturing operations from solvent cleaningVOC limits as follows: the SCAQMD Rule 1171(g)(2)(E) exempts cleaning operations subjectto Rule 1141

- Control ofVolatile Organic CompoundEmissions from Resin Manufacturing and Rule 1141.1

- Coatings and InkManufacturing; andthe BAAQMD Regulation 8, 

### Rule 4, Section 113 exempts operations that are subjectto the requirements ofotherrules ofRegulation 8, 

### or which comply with appropriate limitations ofthose rules priorto their effective dates. The ACA commented that since the BAAQMD regulates resin manufacturing under Regulation 8, 

### Rule 36, the BAAQMD solvent cleaning rule does notapply to resin manufacturing operations. As 

### an alternative to completely exempting resin manufacturing operations from the Chapter 115 industrial cleaning solvents rules, theACAsuggested implementing aVOC limit of1.67 pounds of VOC per gallon ofsolution Ob VOC/gal solution), workpractices, and an overall control efficiency ofatleast 80% 

### or 90% ifincineration is used. The commission agrees that requiring resin manufacturing operations to comply with the 0-421bVOC/gal solutionVOC limit for cleaning solutions poses technical feasibilityissues, as described inthe ACA's formal comments and supporting documentation. The EPA's 2006 Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommends excluding 

### ink, adhesive, and coating manufacturingfrom the industrial cleaning solvents rule applicabilitybecausethe 0.421b VOC/gal solutionVOC contentlimit 

### 6 of 13

### is nottechnologically and econonricallyfeasible for these manufacturingprocesses. The comnrission expects that the same technological and economic feasibility issues associated with manufacturing 

### inks, coatings, and adhesives also existfor resin manufacturing. TheVOC limit established in the industrial cleaning solvents rules preventthe use ofadequate cleaning solutions, potentially causing cross contamination ofmanufactured products and poorproduct quality resulting in disposal ofoff-specification products. The 0.421b VOCjgal solutionVOC content limit 

### is not technologically feasible for resin manufacturing operations and therefore does not represent RACT for 

### this industry. In response to this comment, the comnrission is revising §115.461(d)(13) to exempt resin manufacturing from the VOC contentlinrlts for industrial cleaning solvents. The TCC commentedthat §115-461(b) should specifically exclude processes or operations that are subjectto and complying with Chapter 115, Subchapter B, Division 2 or Division 6, including any qualifying exemptions. Specifically, the TCC suggested revising §115-461(b) to exempt a cleaning operation from the requirements in Division 6 ifall ofthe VOC emissions from the cleaning operation originate from a source for which another division within Chapter 115 has established a control requirement, emission specification, or exemption that applies to thatVOC source category in that county. 

### The comnrission agrees with the TCC's suggestion to provide an exemption for cleaning operations that are controlledby enrission specifications or control requirements established in another Chapter 115 division. As 

### proposed, the rules for industrial cleaning solvents exempted cleaning operations subjectto another division in Chapter 115 that establishes cleaningworkpractices or cleaningVOC limits used during a solvent cleaning operation. However, in light of

### this comment, the comnrission acknowledges that not all Chapter 115 rules contain cleaning requirements, butthat owners and operators ofsome processes may consider cleaning activities to be a part oftheirproduction process or may find itto bemore efficientto control enrissions from cleaning activities in accordance with the process control requirements orenrissions specifications. However, the comnrission declines to incorporate the TCC's request to exempt a cleaning operation from this division if

### the cleaningVOC enrissions originatefrom a source that qualifies for an exemption in another Chapter 115 division. Basing an exemption for a cleaning operation on a process-specific exemption in another Chapter 115 division, is inconsistent with the EPA's stated purpose thatthe CTG recommendations are intended to apply to all industrial cleaning operations that are not already subjectto or complying with other control requirements. Therefore, in response to this comment, the comnrission is adopting new §115.461(c) to exemptfrom this division a solvent cleaning operationwherethe process the cleaning operation is associated with is subjectto another division in Chapter 115 and the VOC emissions from the solvent cleaning operation are controlled in accordance with an enrission specification or control requirement of the division that the process is subjectto. This exemption is intendedto provide affected owners and operators withthe flexibility to comply with control requirements or enrission specifications in another Chapter 115 rule to minimize 70fl3

### compliance burden. The conunission expects that an owner or operatorchoosing to comply withthe control requirements or emission specifications for a cleaning operationis at least as effective as complying with the industrial cleaning solvent rule requirements. MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIALADHESIVES NASA commentedthat adhesives are appliedto non-production mock-ups, prototypes, fixtures, and displays atmanned spacecraft centers. NASArequested a complete exemptionbe addedto 

### §115-471 for adhesives or adhesive primers used on site atinstallations owned or operated bythe Armed Forces ofthe United States (including the Coast Guard andthe Texas National Guard) and NASA. NASA requestedthe exemptionbecause extensivefield testing is requiredbefore adhesives canbe approvedfor use andthe proposed regulations wouldbe impractical and extremely costlyfor NASA due to the complexity ofadhesive operations, the number ofadhesives used, and the numberofdifferent items and substrates bondedtogether. 

### The rules inDivision 7 are necessary to implement RACTfor nliscellaneous industrial adhesives as required in FCAA, §172(C)(1) and §182(b)(2). The commission disagrees that a complete exemption for NASA

### is consistentwith the EPA's recommendations forthis CTG emission source category. Granting the categorical exemption requested forNASA and othermilitary organizations could potentially resultin EPAdisapproval ofthe Chapter 115 RACTrules and corresponding SIPrevisions. The cOmnllssion does not considerthe adopted rules any less teclmologically or econonlicallyfeasible for NASA and the US Navy as the rules are for other affected entities, whichincludes some smallbusinesses. The EPA's 2008 CTG is intended to apply to adhesive and adhesive primer applicationprocesses at manufacturing operations that are not already regulated. Forpurposes ofthe rules, a manufacturing operation refers to a manufacturerthat uses adhesives tojoin surfaces in the assembly or construction ofa product involving the application processes listed in §115.473(a). Accordingly, the adopted rules in Division 7 do not apply to adhesives and adhesive primers used in the applicationprocesses specified in §115.473(a) that are subjectto another division in Chapter 115. Forexample, owners and operators subjectto the aerospace surface coating requirements in Division 2 qualifyfor the exemption in §115.471(C) because adhesives are regulated underthe Division 2 aerospace rules. Additionally, the EPA's 2008 CTG explicitly states thatthe miscellaneous industrial adhesives rules are not intended to include adhesives that are addressedby CTG documents already issuedfor categories listed underFCAA, §183(e) orby an earlier CTG, which includes aerospace coatings. The cOmnllssion makes no change in response to this comment. MISCELLANEOUS METALAND PLASTIC PARTS COATINGS Pleasure Craft Coatings The ACA commentedthat it is imperative to workwith the federal, state, andlocal agencies to develop RACTrules given thatthe pleasure craft industrywas not affordedthe usual opportunity to comment onthe EPA's CTG RACT recommendations becausethe draft Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings CTG did notmentionpleasure craftsurface coating operations. The 

### 80fB

### ACA commentedthat the EPA's final CTG-recommendedpleasure craft coatinglimits do not represent RACT for the pleasure craftindustry. TheACA commented that the SCAQMD Rule 1l06.1, 

### which was the basis for these CfG recommendations, should notbe identified as RACT for pleasure craft coating operations in other areas since these requirements were adoptedto address the severe ozone nonattainment conditions in the South Coastairbasin. The ACA commentedthatthe CfG-recommendedVOC limits and compliance dates are too restrictive to allow coating manufacturers to formulate products that meet the VOC limits, while also maintaining adequate technical performance and meeting customers' aesthetic requirements. The ACA requested several revisions to the proposed rules to establish appropriate RACf requirements for pleasure craft coating operations. For 

### extreme high-gloss coatings, the ACA suggested implementing aVOC limit of5.0 lb VOC/gal coating and revising the definition to any coating that achieves greaterthan 90% reflectance on a 60 

### degree meter. The ACAcommentedthat the controlled application conditions that makethe use ofhigh solids and water-basedtechnologies possible in otherindustries are not available for the pleasure craft coating industry. TheACA also commentedthat the low-VOC technologies available atthis time do notprovide the aesthetic properties, functionality, and durability required from an extreme high-gloss coating. Forfinish

### primer/surfacer coatings, the ACA suggested implementing aVOC limit of5.0 lb VOC/gal coating. The ACA commentedthat a higherVOC solventis required forboththe topcoats and the primers that go beneath them to achievethe finish that is extremely smooth, glossy, and durable. In addition, high solids orlow-VOC primers often require additional sanding to achieve the necessary smooth surface andthe use ofthese coatings necessitates a change in traditional working practices in yards to overcome the increased health hazard associatedwith the increased dust levels. For 

### othersubstrate antifoulantcoatings, the ACA suggested implementing aVOC limit of3.341b VOC/gal coating. Antifoulant coating formulations are currently registered with the EPAbased on the percentage weight ofbiocide in the wet paint. Reducing theVOC content ofthe coating reduces the percentage ofbiocide in the dryfilm with a concomitantreduction in performance of the coating andincrease in recoating frequency. In addition, low-VOC antifoulant coatings often result in a rougher film; the roughness ofthe hull contributes directly to drag. For 

### annfoulantsealer/tie coatings, the ACA suggested introducing aVOC limit of3.slbVOC/gal coating andthe following definition: a coating applied over a biocidal antifoulant coating for the purpose ofpreventing release ofbiocides into the environment, orto promote adhesion between an antifoulant and a primer or other antifoulants. The 2007 

### International Maritime Organization Antifouling Systems convention prohibits the use ofcertain biocides in the antifoulant coatings applied to the hulls ofany marine vessels entering the waters ofcountries that are signatories to the convention. Aspecializedcoating, an antifoulant sealer/tie coat, is requiredto seal in certain prohibited antifoulant coatings andto promote adhesion ofbiocide-free, non-stickfoul release coatings when appliedto vessels. As 

### alternative compliance options, the ACAsuggested implementing an averaging approach and extending the compliance date to allowthe development, testing, and commercial introduction oflow-VOC pleasure craft coatings. In response to the ACA's 

### requestfor reconsideration ofthe 

### pleasure craft CfGVOC 

### limits, the EPA issued a memorandum on June 1, 2010, 

### entitled 

### Control Technique 90f13

### GuidelinesforMiscellaneous Metal andPlasticPart Coatings-IndustryRequest forReconsideration, "recommendingthatthe pleasure craftindustryworkwith

state agencies during theirRACfrule developmentprocess to assess what is reasonable for the specific sources regulatedbecause the CfG iInpose no legally binding requirements on any entity, includingpleasure craft coatingfacilities." Based on the information submittedby the ACA, andin accordance withthe EPA's guidance to workwith the pleasure craftindustry onthis 

### issue, the commission agrees that some ofthe pleasure craft coatingVOC liInits included inthe EPA's CfG recommendations are not technologicallyfeasible atthis time. The commission agrees that the coatingVOC liInits requestedby the ACA are technologically and economicallyfeasible andtherefore constitute RACffor the pleasure craftindustry inTexas. In response to this comment, the commission is revising §115.453(a)(1)(F) to reflectthe ACA's recommendedVOC liInits for 

### extreme high-gloss coating, finishprimer/surfacercoating, othersubstrate antifoulantcoating, and 

### antifoulantsealer/tie coating. The commission has also revised §115.450(c)(8) to includethe commenter's suggested definitions for 

### extreme high-gloss coating, pretreatmentwashprimer, and 

### antifoulantsealer/tie coating. Because the commission is revising the rules to incorporate the suggestedVOC liInits, the commission does not agreeitis also necessaryto include the averaging approach andextended compliance period thatwere suggested as alternative compliance options. TheACArequested a small container exemption for pleasure crafttouch-up and repair coatings to allowminorrepairs atthe end ofthe painting line and avoid having to completelyre-coatthe pleasure craft. In 

### response to this 

### comment, the commissionis adopting new §115.451(n) to exempttouch-up and repair coatings from meetingtheVOC IUnits in §115.453(a)(l)(F) if

### those coatings are supplied bythe manufacturerin containers that do not exceed 1.0 quart and the use ofthose coatings atthe site does not exceed 50 gallons per calendaryear. The commenter didnot suggest a quantity for the annualliInit on touch-up and repair coatings. The 50-gallon liInitis equivalentto thevolume ofcoatings exempt in §115.451(i)(4) for miscellaneous plasticparts and products. In addition, the commission is including definitions for repair coatings andtouch-up coatings in §115-450(c)(8)(I) and (K), respectively. The commission agrees that providing an exemption for touch-up and repair coatings used in small quantities eliminates the needto completelyre-coat a pleasure craft and, as a result, reduces overall VOC emissions from pleasure craft coating. This 

### exemption for coatings used in small quantities is also consistentwiththe EPA's recommended exemptions for other coating categories in the Miscellaneous Metal andPlastic Parts Coating CfG. Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coatings NASA andthe US Navy suggested the commission remove designated on-site maintenance shops from the rule applicabilityin Chapter 115, SubchapterE, Divisions 2 

### and 5 forthe following reasons: there is no definition ofthis type offacilityin the proposed rules; the frequency ofwhat is considered routine is unclear; the federal maximum available controltechnology standards for 

### 10 of 13f miscellaneous metal parts andproducts excludes facility maintenance operations; industrial maintenance coatings are already coveredbythe national Architectural and Industrial Maintenance rule; andthe EPA's Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings 

## erG does not include designated on-site maintenance shops in the applicability. 

### The existing Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 rules were revised in July 2000 (25 TexReg 6754) to reflect a rule interpretationthat determinedthe miscellaneous metalparts andproducts coatings rules shouldbe appliedto original equipment manufacturers, off-sitejob shops that coat new or usedparts orproducts, and designated on-site maintenance shops that re-coat usedparts orproducts. Because this rulemaking was submitted as a SIP revision and approvedbythe EPA, providing an exemption for designated on-site maintenance shops that are currently complying with the existing Division 2 rules wouldbebacksliding. However, the commission has determinedthatit is notnecessary to applythese RAerrequirements to designated on-site maintenance shops that re-coat used parts orproducts in orderto meet the mandates ofFCAA, §172(C)(I) and §182(b)(2). The EPA's 1978 erGrecommendations for this source category, which were thebasis for the Division 2 rules, were clearlynot intendedto apply to designated on-site maintenance shops that re-coat usedparts orproducts. The commission also agrees that the EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings erG recommendations do notapply to designated on-site maintenance shops. Therefore, in response to this comment, the commissionis adopting §115.427(a)(8) to limit the rule applicability to the designated on-site maintenance shops inthe HGB area that were subjectto §115.421(a)(9) priorto January 1, 2012. Onlythose designated on-site maintenance shops that re-coat used parts orproducts thatwere exemptfrom §115.421(a)(9) in Division 2 priorto January 1, 2012, thebeginning of the calendaryearimmediatelyfollowing the approximate effective date ofthese rules, orthat begin operation on or after January 1, 2012, are exemptfrom all requirements in Division 2. Additionally, in response to this 

### comment, the commission is revising §115.450(a) to exclude re-coating ofused miscellaneous metal parts andproducts at designated on-site maintenance shops from the coatings rule applicabilityin Division 5. The adopted revisions prevent any potentialbacksliding concerns byrequiring sources that are currently complying withthese rules in Division 2 to continue to meet these VOC 

### limits. The adopted revisions are consistent withthe intent ofthe EPA's 1978 and 2008 erG RAer recommendations for miscellaneous metalparts andproducts coatings andthe commission maintains the rules continueto satisfy RAerrequirements for this erG emission source category. NASA andthe US Navy requested an exemption be addedto §U5-451 for miscellaneous metal or plastic parts and product surface coating processes performed at on-site installations owned or operatedbythe Armed Forces ofthe United States or NASA, or the surface coating ofmilitary munitions manufacturedby or for the ArmedForces ofthe United States. NASA andthe US Navy requestedthe exemption because extensive field testing is requiredbefore reformulated coatings and solvents can be approvedfor use andbecause the proposed regulations wouldbe impractical II of 13

### and extremely costly for NASA andthe US Navy dueto the complexity ofcoating operations, the numberofcoatings and solvents used, andthe number ofdifferentitems and substrates coated. NASA and the US Navy also requested exemption from the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings rules because historically accurate coatings for these items mustbeused. The rules in Division 5 are necessaryto iJnplement RACT requirements for miscellaneous metal andplasticparts coatings as required in FCAA, §172(C)(1) and §182(b)(2). The commission disagrees that a complete exemption for the Armed' Forces ofthe United States orNASAis consistentwiththe EPA's recommendations for this erG emission source category. Some ofthe specific coating categories recommendedbythe EPAfor miscellaneous metal andplasticparts andproducts are specificto military application. Grantingthe categorical exemption requested for NASA. the US Navy, and othermilitary organizations couldpotentiallyresult in EPAdisapproval ofthe Chapter 115 RACT rules andcorresponding SIP revisions. However, the miscellaneous metal andplasticparts coatings rules do not applyto the other coating categories specificallyregulatedin Divisions 2 or5. The commission recognizes that an explicit exemptionfor those specific coating categories from the miscellaneous metal andplasticparts coatings rules in Division 5, sinrilarto the exemption providedin Division 2, was notincorporated into the proposedrules and may have created confusion. In response to 

### this comment, the commission is adding an exemption in §115.451(b)(4) to reflectthe exclusion ofall other coating categories in Divisions 2 and5 from the miscellaneous metal and plasticparts coatings rules. Adoptednew §115-451(b)(4) clearlyindicates that any item characterizedbythe othercoating categories specifiedin Division 2 and Division 5 is not consideredmiscellaneous metal orplasticparts andproducts and is therefore not subjectto any ofthe corresponding requirements. Additionally, the commission does not considerthe adoptedrules anyless teclmologically or economicallyfeasible for NASA andthe US Navy as the rules are for other affected entities, which include some smallbusinesses. The EPAcommentedthatthe alternate controlrequirements proposed in §115.454(b) 

### should be revisedto make clearthat any alternativerequirements to §115.453(

### a)(l)(A), approvedbythe executive directorwouldneedto be submitted as 

### a site-specific SIP revision for approval by

### the EPAto ensure itmeets the requirements for enforceability andpublic hearings. The adopted alternate control requirementin §115.454(b) is identicalto the existing SIP-approvedrequirementin §115.423(4), exceptthat the rule citations referencethe applicable process inthe adoptednew Division 5 rules. The commissionnotes thatthe rule citation inthe proposedrules incorrectly referencedlarge appliance coating, andthe commission

### is revising §115.454(b) to accuratelyreference miscellaneous metalparts andproducts surface coating processes in §115.453(a)(l)(C). The colDlnission agrees that any alternate control requirement approved bythe executive director under §115.454(b) wouldneedto be submitted as a site-specific SIPrevision for EPA approval. However, the commission does not agree that revisions to adopted §115.454(b) are warrantedto clarifythat EPA approval of 12 

### of 13

### alternate control requirements is necessary. The commission makes no change in response to this comment. The TCC requested clarification on whetherit is the commission's intentto regulate the coating of-newly fabricated piping or other equipment at an on-site maintenance shop, which appears to fall outside ofthe miscellaneous metal parts and products definition, while the re-coating of some equipment at an on-sitejob shop appears to be included. In addition, the TCC requested clarification on whetherthe coating ofnewly fabricated piping or other equipmentat an on-site lay-down yard would be a regulated activity. The TCC stated that the EPA excludes the coating of newand existing support structures, piping, and equipment as part ofroutine maintenance activities, considered to be facility maintenance operations, from 40 Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 63, Subpart MMMM for Surface Coating ofMiscellaneous Metal Parts and Products. 

### In response to other comments onthis rulemaking, the comntission is revising §1l5.450(a) to exclude designated on-site maintenance shops from the miscellaneous metal parts andproducts coatings rule applicability in Division 5. Additionally, the commission is adding §1l5-427(a)(8) to limit the Division 2 rule applicabilityto only those designated on-site maintenance shops that re-coat used parts and products that were required to complywith the emission specifications in §1l5.421(a)(9) priorto January 1,2012, which is the beginning ofthe calendaryear immediately following the approximate effective date ofthis rulemaking. The recoating ofused miscellaneous metal parts and products at a designated on-site maintenance shop that was exemptfrom §1l5.421(a)(9) priorto January 1,2012, or thatbegins operation on or after January 1,2012, is exemptfrom all requirements in Division 2. The coating ofnewly fabricated miscellaneous metalparts andproducts, including piping or other equipment, for a site's own use does not constitute coating at a designated on-site maintenance shop and does not meet the miscellaneous metal parts and products coatings rule applicability in Division 2. Only designated areas where the routine re-coating ofmiscellaneous metalparts andproducts takes place is considered a designated on-site maintenance shop. The location ofthe designated on-site maintenance shop is irrelevantfor purposes ofthe Division 2 rules; the designated on-site maintenance shop maybe an area reserved inside a sitebuilding or a location on the site's grounds outdoors. The TCC requested clarification on whether extreme performance coatings appliedto newly fabricated piping and equipment, which do not meet the corresponding definition in the Division 5 rules, would nowbe considered a general-use coating. 

### Coatings that do not meet a specific coating category definition in Division 5, are consideredgeneral-use coatings and are subjectto the VOC content or emission limitfor general-use coatings. This requirement is adopted directlyfrom the EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings erG 

### recommendations. Conversely, the commission recognizes that some coatings may meet more than one coating category definition. Forthese instances, the commissionis revising the rules to indicate that the least stringentVOC limit applies.

13 of 13

# STAFF RECOMMENDATIONSREVISIONS TO THE STATE OF TEXAS AIR QUALI1Y IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FORTHE CONTROL OF OZONEAIR POLLUTION

HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA 1997 EIGHT-HOUR OZONE STANDARD NONAITAINMENTAREA

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALI1Y P.O. BOX 13087 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-3087



### HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIAREASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGYANALYSIS UPDATE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION FORTHE 1997 

### EIGHT-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

PROJECT NUMBER 2010-028-SIP-NR

Adoption December 7, 2011

### Thispage intentionally leftblankEXECUfIVE SUMMARY 

### The eight-county Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) nonattainment area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, andWaller Counties) is currently classified as severe under the 1997 eight-hour ozone NationalAmbientAir Quality Standard (NMQS) of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) with an attainment date as expeditiously as practicablebut no later than June 15, 2019. Texas was requiredto submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision addressing the severe ozone nonattainment area requirements ofthe 1990 Federal CleanAirAct Amendments (FCAA) to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) byApril 15, 2010. On March 10, 2010, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) adopted two revisions to the Texas SIP for the HGB ozone nonattainment area. The Houston-GalvestonBrazoriaAttainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan Revisionfor the 1997 EightHour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision) includes a photochemical modeling analysis and a weight ofevidence analysis to demonstrate attainment ofthe 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2019. In addition, the HGB AD SIP revision incorporates revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101 and 115, also adoptedon March 10, 2010, which include the Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program Cap Integrity, the Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions Cap and Trade Program Cap Reduction andAllowance Reallocation, and the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ControlTechniques Guidelines (CTG) Update. The HGB Reasonable Further Progress SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard demonstrates that an 18% emissions reduction requirement will be met for the analysis period from 2002 through 2008 and an average of3% peryear emissions reduction for each ofthe milestoneyears 2008,2011,2014,2017, and 2018. For nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above, FCAA, §182(b)(2) requires states to submit a SIP revision that implements reasonably available control technology (RACT) forVOC emission sources addressed in a CTG document issuedbythe EPAfrom November 15, 1990, through the area's attainment date. CTG documents provide information to assist states in determining RACT for specific emission sources and provide the EPA's RACT recommendations. FCAA, §183(e)(3) requires the EPAto regulate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products byissuing national regulations orbyissuing CTG documents in lieu ofnational regulations. The EPA issued 11 CTG documents from 2006 through 2008 with RACT recommendations for controlling VOC emissions from a variety ofconsumer and commercial products. Ofthe 11 CTG documents, the commission has acted on four. On March 10, 2010, withthe adoption ofthe HGB AD SIP revision, the commission adopted portions ofthe Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTGrecommendation and provided a negative declaration for the FlatWood Paneling Coatings CTG, Fiberglass BoatManufacturing Materials CTG, andAutomobile and Light-DutyTruckAssembly Coatings CTG source categories. The commission determined that no sources meeting the applicability criteria recommended in these CTG documents were located in the HGB area. Additionally, due to the EPA's concerns regarding federal enforceability, staffrecommended withdrawing the two RACT recommendations for the Flexible Package Printing Materials and the Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CTG categories that were proposed on September 23, 2009. RACT determinations were not made for the following five CTG emission source categories atthat time because additional research was necessary to determine the numberofsources affected bythe CTG recommendations and the EPA had not formally responded to Texas' December 8, 2008, request for clarification regarding the CTG recommendations: Industrial Cleaning Solvents; LargeAppliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives; and ES-l

### Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. On March 17, 2011, 

### the EPAissued a guidance memorandum entitled

### Approving SIPRevisionsAddressing VOCRACT Requirements for Certain Coatings Categories regarding the following three CTG categories: LargeAppliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. Additional discussion regarding the EPA's guidance on these three CTG categories is provided in Appendix A: 

### ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis. The following seven CTG categories for the HGB area have pending RACT determinations to be submitted to the EPA:

.

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;



### • Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;



### • Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;



### • Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;



### • Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;



### • Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; 

### and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008. 

### This SIP revision provides a RACT analysis update to includethe seven CTG documentslisted above issued bythe EPAfrom 2006 

### through 2008 

### that were not addressedin the HGB AD SIP revision adopted on March 10, 2010, 

### and incorporates concurrent CTG-related rulemaking for the HGB area (Rule Project No. 201O-0l6-11S-EN) 

### intothe Texas SIP. The associated rulemaking revises Chapterl1S, Subc1Iapter E, to implement RACTfor thepreviouslylisted CTG emission source categories in the HGB area as requiredbyFCAA, §172(C)(I) 

### and §182(b)(2).

ES-2I SECTION V: LEGALAUTHORITY 

### General The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has the legal authority to implement, maintain, and enforce the National AmbientAir Quality Standards andto control the quality of the state's air, including maintaining adequate visibility. The first airpollution control act, known as the CleanAirAct ofTexas, was passed bytheTexas Legislature in 1965. In 1967, the Clean AirAct ofTexas was supersededby a more comprehensive statute, the Texas Clean Air

### Act (TCAA), found inArticle 4477-5, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes. The legislature amended the TCAAin 1969, 1971, 1973,1979,1985,1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997,1999,2001,2003,2005,2007,2009, and 2011. In 1989, the TCAAwas codified as Chapter 382 ofthe Texas Health and Safety Code. Originally, the TCAA stated that the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) is the state air pollution control agency and is the principal authority in the state on matters relatingto the quality ofair resources. In 1991, thelegislature abolished the TACB effective September 1, 1993, andits powers, duties, responsibilities, and functions were transferred to the Texas Natural Resource

. Conservation Commission (TNRCC). With the creation ofthe TNRCC, the authority over air

quality is found inboth the Texas Water Code and the TCAA Specifically, the authority ofthe TNRCCis found in Chapters 5 and 7. Chapter 5, Subchapters A - F, H - J, 

### and L, 

### include the general provisions, organization, and general powers and duties ofthe TNRCC, and the responsibilities and authority ofthe executive director. Chapter 5 also authorizes the TNRCC to implement action when emergency conditions arise and to conducthearings. Chapter 7 gives the TNRCC enforcement authority. In 2001, the 77thTexas Legislature continued the existence of the TNRCC until September 1, 2013, and changedthe name ofthe TNRCC to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). In 2009, the 81StTexas Legislature, during a special session, amended §5.014 ofthe Texas Water Code, changingthe expiration date ofthe TCEQ to September 1, 2011, unless continued in existence by the Texas SunsetAct. In 2011, the 82ndTexas Legislature continued the existence ofthe TCEQ until 2023. The TCAA specifically authorizes the TCEQ to establish the level ofquality to be maintainedin the state's air and to control the quality ofthe state's airbypreparing and developing a general, comprehensive plan. TheTCAA, Subchapters A - D, also authorize theTCEQ to collect information to enable the commission to develop an inventory ofemissions; to conduct research and investigations; to enter property and examine records; to prescribe monitoring requirements; to institute enforcementproceedings; to enter into contracts and execute instruments; to formulate rules; to issue orders taking into consideration factors bearing upon health, welfare, social al).d economic factors, and practicability and reasonableness; to conduct hearings; to establish air quality control regions; to encourage cooperation with citizens' groups and other agencies andpolitical subdivisions ofthe state as well as with industries andthe federal government; and to establish and operate a system ofpermits for construction or modification offacilities. Local government authority is found in Subchapter Eofthe TCAA. Local governments havethe same power as the TCEQ to enterproperty andmakeinspections. They also may make recommendations to the commission concerning any action ofthe TCEQ that affects their territorialjurisdiction, maybring enforcement actions, and may execute cooperative agreements with the TCEQ or otherlocal governments. In addition, a city ortown may enact and enforce

### ordinances for the control and abatement ofairpollution notinconsistentwith the provisions of the TCAA andthe rules or orders ofthe commission. Subchapters Gand H ofthe TCAA authorizetheTCEQ to establishvehicle inspection and maintenance programs in certain areas ofthe state, consistentwith the requirements ofthe Federal CleanAirAct; coordinate with federal, state, andlocal transportation planning agencies to develop andimplementtransportation programs and measures necessaryto attain and maintain the NationalAmbientAir 

### Quality Standards; establish gasoline volatility and low emission diesel standards; and fund and authorize participating counties to implementvehicle repair assistance, retrofit, and acceleratedvehicle retirementprograms. Awlicable Law The following statutes and rules provide necessaryauthorityto adopt and implementthe state implementationplan (SIP). The rules listedbelowhave previouslybeen submitted as part ofthe SIP. Statutes All sections ofeach subchapter are included, unless otherwise noted. TEXAS HEALTH & 

### SAFETYCODE, Chapter382 TEXAS WATER CODE September 1, 2011 September 1, 2011 Chapter 5: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission SubchapterA: General Provisions SubchapterB: Organization ofthe Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Subchapter C: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission SubchapterD: General Powers and Duties ofthe Commission SubchapterE: Administrative Provisions for Commission SubchapterF: Executive Director (except §§5.225, 5.226, 5.227, 5.2275,5.231, 5.232, and 5.236) SubchapterH: Delegation ofHearings SubchapterI: Judicial Review SubchapterJ: Consolidated PermitProcessing SubchapterL: Emergency andTemporary Orders (§§5.514, 5.5145, and 5.515 only) SubchapterM: Environmental Permitting Procedures (§5.558 only) Chapter 7: Enforcement SubchapterA: General Provisions (§§7.001, 7.002, 7.0025, 7.004, and 7.005 only) SubchapterB: CorrectiveAction and Injunctive Relief(§7.032 only) SubchapterC: Administrative Penalties SubchapterD: Civil Penalties (except §7.109) SubchapterE: Crinlinal Offenses and Penalties: §§7.177, 7.179-7.183 Rules All ofthe following rules arefound in 30 Texas Administrative Code, as ofthe following latest effective dates: Chapter7: Memoranda ofUnderstanding, §§7.110 and 7.119December 13, 1996 andMay 2, 2002 Chapter 19: Electronic Reporting
ii 

### March 15, 2007Chapter 35: Subchapters A-C, K: Emergency and Temporary Orders and Permits; Temporary Suspension orAmendment ofPermit Conditions July 20, 2006 Chapter 39: Public Notice, §§39·201; 39-401; 39-403(a) and (b)(8)-(1O); 39-405(f)(1) and (g); 39-409; 39-411 (a), (b)(1)-(6), and (8)-(10) and (c)(1)-(6) and (d); 39-413(9), (11), (12), and (14); 39-418(a) and (b)(3) and (4); 39-419(a), (b), (d), and (e); 39-420(a), (b) and (C)(3) and (4); 39-423 (a) and (b); 39.601-39.605 June 24, 2010 Chapter 55: Requests for Reconsideration and Contested Case Hearings; Public Comment, §§55.1; 55.21(a)

- (d), (e)(2), (3), and (12), (f) and (g); 55.101(a), (b), and (c)(6)

- (8); 55.103; 55.150; 55.152(a)(1), (2), and (6) and (b); 55.154; 55.156; 55·200; 55.201(a)

- (h); 55.203; 55.205; 55.209, and 55.211 June 24, 2010 Chapter 101: General Air Quality Rules May 15, 2011 Chapter 106: Permits by Rule, SubchapterA May 15, 2011 Chapter 111: Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter July 19, 2006 Chapter 112: Control ofAir Pollution from Sulfur Compounds July 16,1997 Chapter 113: Standards ofPerformance for Hazardous Air Pollutants and for Designated Facilities and Pollutants May 14, 2009 Chapter 114: Control ofAir Pollution from MotorVehicles August 11, 2011 Chapter 115: Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds February 17,2011 Chapter 116: Permits for New Construction or Modification March 17,2011 Chapter 117: Control ofAir Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds May 15,2011 Chapter 118: Control ofAir Pollution Episodes March 5,2000 Chapter 122: §122.122: Potential to Emit ·Chapter 122: §122.215: Minor Permit Revisions Chapter 122: §122.216: Applications for Minor Permit Revisions Chapter 122: §122.217: Procedures for Minor Permit Revisions December 11, 2002 June 3, 2001 June 3, 2001 December 11, 2002 Chapter 122: §122.218: Minor Permit Revision Procedures for Permit Revisions Involving the Use ofEconomic Incentives, Marketable Permits, and Emissions Trading

iii June 3, 2001SECTIONVI: CONTROL STRATEGY 

### A. Introduction (No change) B. Ozone (Revised) 1. 

### Dallas-FortWorth (No change) 2. 

### Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (Revised) Chapter 1: 

### General (Revised) Chapter 2: 

### Anthropogenic Emissions Inventory (EI) Description (No change) Chapter 3: Photochemical Modeling (No change) Chapter 4: Control Strategies and RequiredElements (Revised) Chapter 5: Weight ofEvidence (No change) Chapter 6: Ongoing and Future Initiatives (No change) 3. Beaumont-PortArthur (No change) 4. El Paso (No change)

. 5. Regional Strategies (No change)

6. NortheastTexas (No change) 7. AustinArea (No change) 8. SanAntonio Area (No change) 9. Victoria Area (No change) C. Particulate Matter (No change) D. Carbon Monoxide (No change) E. 

### Lead (No change) F. Oxides ofNitrogen (No change) G. SulfurDioxide (No change) H. Conformity with the NationalAmbientAir Quality Standards (No change) 1. 

### Site Specific (No change) 

### J. Mobile Sources Strategies (No change) K CleanAir Interstate Rule (No change) L. 

### Transport (No change) M. Regional Haze (No change)

ivTABLE OF CONTENTS 

### Executive Summary Section V: Legal Authority Section VI: Control Strategy Table ofContents ListofAcronyms List ofTables List ofAppendices Chapter 1: 

### General 1.1 

### Background
1.2 

### Introduction 1.2.1 

### One-Hour Ozone National AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS) History (No change)
1.2.21997 

### Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS History
1.2.2.1 

### May 23, 2007 

### (No change)
1.2.2.2 

### March 10, 2010 1.2.3 

### Existing Ozone Control Strategies (No change)
1.2-4 

### Current SIP Revision
1.3 

### Health Effects (No change)
1.4 

### StakeholderParticipation and Public Hearings
1.4.1 

### Stakeholder Participation 1.4.2 

### Public Hearings and CommentInformation
1.5 

### Social and Economic Considerations 1.6 

### Fiscal and Manpower Resources (No change) Chapter 2: 

### Anthropogenic Emissions Inventory (EI) Description (No change) Chapter 3: Photochemical Modeling (No change) Chapter4: Control Strategies and Required Elements
4.1 

### Introduction (No change)
4.2 

### Existing Control Measures 4.3 

### Updates to Existing Control Measures (No change)
4-4 

### ReasonablyAvailable Control Technology (RACT) Analysis
4.4.1 

### General Discussion

v44.2 NOx RACfDetermination (No change) 4+3 VOC RACfDetermination 443.1 Flexible Package Printing 443.2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents 443.3 LargeAppliance Coatings 4434 Metal Furniture Coatings 44.3.5 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings 443.6 Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives 443.7 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings 4.5 ReasonablyAvailable Control Measures (RACM) Analysis (No change) 4.6 New Control Measures (No change) 4.7 MotorVehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) (No change) 4.8 Monitoring Network(No change) 4.9 Contingency Plan (No change) 4.10 References (No change) Chapter 5: WeightofEvidence (No change) Chapter 6: Ongoing and Future Initiatives (No change)

vi

### ACT AD CFR CTG 

### DMA DMX EPA FCAA HECT H-GAC HGB HRVOC LDAR MECT mph MVEB 

### NAAQS NOx 

### ppm RACM RACT RFP RVP 

### SB SIP TACB TCAA TCEQ TNRCC tpy TxLED VOC LIST OF ACRONYMS 

### alternative control techniques attainment demonstration Code ofFederal Regulations Control Techniques Guidelines Marine Distillate FuelA Marine Distillate Fuel X United States Environmental Protection Agency Federal Clean Air Act Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Cap andTrade Program Houston-Galveston Area Council Houston-Galveston-Brazoria highly reactive volatile organic compounds leak detection and repair Mass Emissions Cap andTrade Program miles per hour motorvehicle emissions budget National AmbientAir Quality Standard nitrogen oxides parts per million reasonably available control measures reasonably available control technology. reasonablefurtherprogress Reid vapor pressure Senate Bill state implementation plan Texas Air Control Board Tel\as Clean AirAct Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission tons peryear Texas LowEmission Diesel volatile organic compounds

viiLIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1: Existing Ozone Control Measures Applicable to the HGB Eight-County NonattainmentArea

viiiAppendix Appendix A 

### LIST OFAPPENDICES Appendix Name Reasonably Available Control TechnologyAnalysis

ix

### CHAPTER1: GENERAL 1.1 BACKGROUND The 

### History of the Texas State ImplementationPlan, a comprehensive overview ofthe state implementationplan (SIP) revisions submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) bythe State ofTexas, is available onthe Introduction to the SIP Web page (http:}/www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/sipintro.html#History) on the Texas Commission on Environmental Ouality's (TCEmWeb site (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/). 

### 1.2 INTRODUCTION The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area presents a complex air pollution challenge because ofthe nature ofthe emissions and meteorology ofthe area. The HGB area's hot, sunny climate, large urban population activities, and extensive, highly concentratedindustrial complex provide the ingredients for ozone formation: sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NOx ), andvolatile organic compounds (VOC). The Houston area's significantbiogenicVOC emissions and complex meteorology, which includes land/seabreeze airparcel recirculation, complicate photochemical modeling. Economic and population growth continue to create air quality challenges for the HGB area. Despite these challenges, key ozone-targeting regulatory programs have reducedthe number and magnitude ofozone exceedances, the area ofexceedance, andthe population exposed to exceedances ofthe ozone NationalAmbient

### Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Summaries ofHGB area 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS SIP revisions, as well as information regarding this HGB ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis Update SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (HGB RACT SIP revision) are provided. 

### 1.2.1 One-Hour Ozone NationalAmbient

### Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) History (No change) 1.2.2 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS History In 1997, the EPArevised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) based onthe three-year average ofthe annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitorwithin an area. The final 1997 eighthour ozone NAAQS was published in the

### FederalRegisteron July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), and became effective on September 16, 1997. OnApril 30, 2004, the EPAfinalized nonattainment designations and promulgatedthe first phase ofits implementation rule for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23951). These actions became effective on June 15, 2004. The EPA classified the HGB area as a moderate nonattainment area for the standard. TheTCEQ was required to submit a SIP revisionfor the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS to the EPAbyJune 15, 2007, and demonstrate attainment ofthe standardbyJune 15, 2010. In the November 29, 2005, issue ofthe 

### FederalRegister (70 FR71612), the EPApublishedthe secondphase ofthe implementation rule forthe 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS, which addressedthe control obligations that apply to areas designated nonattainment for the standard. The commission adoptedthe 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area SIP revision andthe reasonablefurther progress (RFP) SIP revision for the HGB area on May 23, 2007. These SIP revisions were the first step in addressing the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard in the HGB area. The TCEQ demonstrated reasonablefurther progress toward attaining the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard and committedto developing an HGB 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision to attainthe 1997 standard as expeditiously as practicable. On June 15,20°7, these two revisions to the Texas SIP and a letter from the governor ofTexas requesting

1-1

### that the HGB ozone nonattainment area be reclassified from a moderate nonattainment area to a severe nonattainment area were submitted to the EPA. The EPA granted the governor's request to voluntarily reclassify the HGB ozone nonattainment area from a moderate to a severe nonattainment areafor the 1997 

### ozone NAAQS in the October 1, 2008, 

### issue ofthe FederalRegisterC73 

### FR 56983). 

### The EPA setApril 15, 2010, 

### as the date for the state to submit a revised SIP addressing the severe ozone nonattainment area requirements ofthe Federal Clean AirAct (FCAA) (42 

### United States Code, §§7401 

### etseq.). 

### The area's new attainment date for the 1997 

### eight-hour ozone standard is as expeditiously as practicablebut no laterthan June 15, 2019.
1.2.2.1 

### May 23, 2007 

### (No change) 1.2.2.2 

### March 10, 2010 

### On March 10, 2010, 

### the commission adopted two revisions to theTexas SIP forthe HGB ozone nonattainment area. The HGB Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 

### Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision) included a photochemical modeling analysis and a weight ofevidence analysis to demonstrate attainment ofthe 1997 

### eight-hourozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2019, 

### deadline. This SIP revision also included a motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB), aVOC RACT analysis, a NOxRACT analysis, a reasonably available control measures analysis, a contingency plan, and a mid-course review commitment. In addition, the HGBAD SIP revision incorporated revisions to 30 

### Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101 

### and 115, 

### also adopted on March 10, 2010, 

### which included the Mass Emissions Cap andTrade Program Cap Integrity, the Highly ReactiveVolatile Organic Compounds Emissions Cap andTrade Program Cap Reduction andAllowance Reallocation, and the VOC Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) Update for offsetlithographicprinting. The HGB RFP SIP Revision for the 1997 

### Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (HGB RFP SIP revision), as required by the EPA, demonstrated that an 18% 

### emissions reduction requirementwas met for the analysis period from 2002 

### through 2008 

### and an average of3% 

### peryear emissions reduction willbe metfor each ofthe milestoneyears 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 

### and 2018. 

### The RFP SIP revision establishedbaseline emission levels, calculated reduction targets, identified control strategies to meet emission target levels, andtracked actual emission reductions against established emissions growth. An 

### MVEB for each milestoneyear and a contingencyplan were also includedin the RFP SIP revision. In the January 25, 2011, 

### issue ofthe FederalRegister (76 

### FR 4342), 

### the EPApublished a notice ofits determination that the MVEBs in the HGB AD and RFP SIP revisions were adequate for transportation conformity purposes, effective February 9, 2011. 

### 1.2.3 Existing Ozone Control Strategies (No change) 1.2.4 Current SIP Revision 

### Because this SIP revision focuses specifically on the seven CTG documents issuedbythe EPA from 2006 

### through 2008 

### that were not addressed in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, 

### the RACT analysis in this SIP revision onlyprovides an update to the HGB VOC RACT demonstration. Although the FCAA requires the state to implement RACT, EPAguidance on RACTindicates that states may choose to implementthe CTG recommendations, implement an alternative approach, or demonstrate that additional controls for the CTG emission source category are not technologically or economicallyfeasible in 

### the area. The following seven CTG documents have

1-2

### been evaluated during the concurrent associated rulemaking (Rule ProjectNo. 2010-016-115- EN) to determine ifadditionalVOC controls are necessaryto fulfill RACT requirements:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008. This SIP revisionprovides a detailed RACT analysis update for the HGB area andincorporates the concurrentrulemaking, which revises Chapter 115, Subchapter E, to implementRACTfor the previouslylisted CTG emission source categories in the HGB area. 1.3 HEALTH EFFECTS (NO CHANGE) 1.4 STAKEHOLDERPARTICIPATIONAND PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.4.1 

### StakeholderParticipation The TCEQ held a stakeholdermeeting on December 1, 2010, and accepted informal comments until January 11, 2011, for the associated Chapter 115 rulemaking (Rule Project No. 2010-016- 115-EN). Forfurther information, please referto the CTG StakeholderGroup Web page (http:jjwww.tceq.texas.govjimplementationjairjrulesjctgjcontroLtechniques_stakeholder.ht mI). 

### 1.4.2 Public 

### Hearings and Comment Information The commission heldpublic hearings for this SIP revision and associatedrulemaking on July 18, 2011, at 6:30 p.m. atthe Houston-GalvestonArea Council office in Houston and on July 22, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. atthe TCEQ headquarters in Austin. Question and answer sessions were held 30 minutes priorto the hearings. One person presented oral comments atthe July 18, 2011, hearing applicable to this HGB RACT SIP revision. The July 22, 2011, hearing in Austin was not officially openedbecause no partyindicated a desireto provide comment. The public co=entperiod opened on June 24, 2011, and closedonAugust 8, 2011. Written comments were acceptedvia mail, fax, andthroughthe eCo=ents system (http:jjwww5.tceq.texas.govjrulesjecommentsJ). Nine written comments were received. Summaries ofpublic comments and TCEQ responses applicable to this 

### HGB RACT SIP revision are addressedinthe Response to Comments section ofthis SIP revision. Comments received applicable to the Chapter 115 CTG rulemaking (Rule ProjectNo. 2010-016-115-EN) are addressed inthe preamble to those rules. An 

### electronicversion ofthe SIP revision and appendix canbe found attheTCEQ's Texas State Implementation Plan Web page (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/texas-sip). 1.5 SOCIALAND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 

### There are no social or economic issues ofconcernattributable to this HGB RACTAnalysis Update SIP Revision. For a detailed explanation ofany social and economic issues involvedwith the associated Chapter 115 rulemaking (Rule Project No. 2010-016-115-EN), please referto the preamble thatprecedes those rules, accessedfrom the TCEQ Air Ouality Rule ProjectsWeb page (http:jjwww.tceq.texas.govjairqualityjstationary-rulesjrule_log.html).

1-3

### 1.6 FISCALAND MANPOWERRESOURCES (NO CHANGE)

1-4

### CHAPTER 2: 

### ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY (EI) DESCRIPTION (NO CHANGE)

2-1, 

# , CHAPTER3: PHOTOCHEMICALMODELING (NO CHANGE)

3-1

### CHAPTER4: CONTROLSTRATEGIES AND REQUIRED ELEMENTS 

### 4.1 INTRODUCTION (NO CHANGE) 4.2 EXISTING CONTROLMEASURES Over several years of ozone planning in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area, a broad range of control measures have been implemented for each emission source category. Table 4-1: 

### Existing Ozone ControlMeasuresApplicable to the HGBEight-CountyNonattainmentArea lists the existing ozone control strategies that have been implemented for the one-hour and 1997 eight-hour ozone standards in the HGB area. 

### Table 4-1: Existing Ozone Control Measures Applicable to the HGB Eight-County NonattainmentArea Date($) April 1, 2003, and phased in through April 1, 2007 Overall 80% NOxreduction from existing industrial sources and utility power plants, implemented through a cap and trade program 

### l\IIeasure Nitrogen Oxides (NOx ) Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) Program
Affects utility boilers, gas turbines, heaters and furnaces, stationary internal combustion engines, industrial boilers, and many other industrial sources Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds (HRVOC) Rules and HRVOC Emissions Cap and Trade (HECT) Program Affects cooling towers, process vents, and flares, and establishes an annual emissions limit with a cap and trade for each site in Harris County Seven perimeter counties subject to permit allowable limits and monitoring requirements Monitoring requirements began January 31, 2006 Cap and trade program implemented January 1,2007 HECT cap incrementally stepped-down from 2014 through 2017 for a total 25% cap reduction HRVOC Fugitive Rules More stringent leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements for components in HRVOC service March 31,2004

Additional components included in LDAH program: more stringent repair times, lower leak detection, and third part audit requirements

4-1·..... Measure' .. .'. ,r· ,. 

### "iii;"'.," ·;,'DescriptioO,i\\,iii

### i" '. ":'

. Start Date(sl 

### , Volatile Organic Requires controls for slotted guide poles and January 1, 2009 Compounds (VOC) Rules more stringent controls for other fittings on

- Storage Tanks floating roof tanks, and control requirements or Compliance with operational limitations on landing floating roof revised monitoring tanks and testing requirements required Eliminates exemption for storage tanks for crude by March 1, 2013 oil or natural gas condensate, and regulates flash emissions from these tanks VOC Rules

- Degassing Requires vapors from degassing to be vented to a January 1, 2009 Operations control device for a longer time period, and removes exemption from degassing to control for tanks with capacity of 7S,000 to 1,000,000 gallons
Clarification of rule and monitoring and testing February 17, 2011 requirements, additional control options, and notification requirements NO, Emission Standards NO, emission standards for nitric acid and adipic November lS, 1999 for Nitric Acid and Adipic acid manufacturing facilities in the HGB area Acid Manufacturing Utility Electric NO, control requirements (approximately SS %) May 1, 2003, through Generation in East and on utility boilers and stationary gas turbines at May 1, 200S Central Texas utility electric generation sites in East and Central Texas VOC Control Measures Additional control technology requirements for December 31, 2002, batch processes, bakeries, and offset lithographic and earlier printers by December 31, 2002
Additional VOC measures adopted earlier for reasonably available control technology (RACT) purposes: storage, general vent gas, industrial wastewater, loading and unloading operations, general VOC LDAR, solvent using process, etc. (see AppendiX D: ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis ofthe Houston-GalvestonBrazoria Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan Revision for the 1997 EightHour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision) adopted March 10, 2010, for more details}

4-2

### ~':':""'::':::_ :::'iF'::', ",: .:.".:',::, '::':"':::StartDatl!(s)":::i: :< ""'. ...,," VOC Control Measures- Additional control technology requirements for December 31, 2002 Offset Lithographic offset lithographic printers Printers Revision to limit VOC content of solvents used by March 1, 2011, for offset lithographic printing facilities and to major sources include smaller sources in rule applicability (see Appendix D ofthe HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 1, 2012, for March 10, 2010, for more details) minor sources Refueling

- Stage I Captures gasoline vapors that are released when 1990 gasoline is delivered to astorage tank Vapors returned to the tank truck as the storage tank is being filled with fuel, rather than released into the ambient air Refueling

- Stage II Captures gasoline vapors when avehicle is being 1992 fueled at the pump Vapors returned through the pump hose to the petroleum storage tank, rather than released into the air Federal Area/Non-Road Series of emissions limits, implemented by the Through 2018 Measures United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for area and non-road sources Examples: diesel and gasoline engine standards for locomotives and leaf-blowers Texas Emissions Provides grant funds for on-road and non-road January 2002 Reduction Plan heavy-duty diesel engine replacement/retrofit California Gasoline California standards for non-road gasoline May 1, 2004 Engines engines 2S horsepower and larger Stationary Diesel Engines Prohibition on operating stationary diesel and April 1, 2002



## .. dual-fuel engines for testing and maintenance purposes between 6:00 a.m. and noon Natural Gas-Fired Small NOxemission limits on small-scale residential and 2002 Boilers, Process Heaters, industrial boilers, process heaters, and water and Water Heaters heaters equal to or less than 2.0 million British thermal units per hour Minor Source NOx NOxemission limits on boilers, process heaters, March 31, 200S Controls for Non-MECT stationary engines, and turbines at minor sites Sites not included in the MECT program (uncontrolled design capacity to emit less than 10 tons per year (tpy))

4-3

### . .lIIIeasure

........

. I .' i! 

### iPes'ription!

. !. • ···i •••. 

## .St<lrtPate(s)

... ! •. VOC Control Measures Additional control technology requirements for December 31, 2002, batch processes and bakeries by December 31, and earlier 2002
Additional VOC measures adopted earlier for RACT purposes: storage, general vent gas, industrial wastewater, loading and unloading operations, general VOC LDAR, solvent using process, cutback asphalt, etc. (see Appendix D of the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, for more details) Texas Low Emission Requires all diesels for both on-road and non- Phase in began Diesel (TxLED) road use to have a lower aromatic content and a October 31, 2005 higher cetane number TxLED for Marine Fuels Adds marine distillate fuels Xand A, commonly June 24, 2007 known as DMX and DMA, or Marine Gas Oil, into the definition of diesel fuels, requiring them to be TxLED compliant Texas Low Reid Vapor Requires all gasoline for both on-road and non- April 2000 Pressure (RVP) Gasoline road use to have a RVP of 7.8 pounds per square inch or less from May 1 through October 1 each year Voluntary Mobile Voluntary measures administered by the Through 2018 Emissions Reduction Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) (see Program Appendix F: Evaluatian ofMobile Source Control Strategiesfor the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria State Implementation Plan (With Detailed Strategies), prepared for H-GAC by ENVIRON International Corporation, of the HGB AD SIP adopted March 10, 2010) Federal On-Road Series of emissions limits, implemented by the Phase in through 2013 Measures EPA, for on-road vehicles Examples: Tier 1 and Tier 2 vehicle standards, low sulfur diesel standards, National Low Emission Vehicle standards, and reformulated gasoline Vehicle Inspection/ Yearly treadmill-type testing for pre-1996 vehicles May 1, 2002, in Harris Maintenance and computer checks for 1996 and newervehicles County May 1, 2003, in Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, and Montgomery Counties Speed Limit Reduction Five miles per hour (mph) below what was posted September 2003 before May 1,2002, on roadways where speeds were 65 mph or higher

4-4**~,** Measure Transportation Control Measures Voluntary Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid Various measures in H-GAC's long-range transportation plans (see Appendix Fofthe HGB AD SIP adopted March 10, 2010, for more details) Energy efficiency and renewable energy projects encouraged by Senate Bill (5B) 7, 76th Texas Legislature, 1999 and SB 5, 77th Texas Legislature, 2001 VOC content limitation on automotive windshield washerfluid sold, supplied, distributed, or manufactured for use in Texas c,

### SlIIltDate(s) Phase in through 2018
September 1, 1999, and September 1, 2001 January 1, 1995



### 4.3 UPDATES TO EXISTING CONTROLMEASURES (NO CHANGE)
4.4 REASONABLYAVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) ANALYSIS 4.4.1 General Discussion The HGB area is currently classified as a severe nonattainment area for the 1997 eight-hour ozone National AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS). Underthe 1997 eight-hourozone standard, the HGB area is requiredto meetthe mandates ofthe Federal Clean

### AirAct (FCAA) under §172(C)(1) and §182(b)(2) and (f). According to the EPA's final rule to implementthe 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS (40 Code ofFederal Regulations §51.912, November 29, 2005), a state containing areas classified as moderate nonattainment and above must submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision demonstrating that its currentrules fulfill the RACT requirements for all Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) emission source categories and all non-CTG major sources ofNOx andVOC. The major source threshold for severe nonattainment areas is a potential to emit 25 tpy or more ofeither NOxorVOC. In the September 17, 1979, issue ofthe

### FederalRegister (44 FR 53762), RACT is defined as the lowestemissions limitation that aparticularsource is capable ofmeeting by the application of controltechnology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. RACT requirements for nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above are included in the FCAAto assure that significantsource categories atmajor sources ofozone precursor emissions are controlled to a reasonable extent, but not necessarily to best available control technology levels expectedofnew sources orto maximum achievable controltechnology levels requiredfor major sources ofhazardous airpollutants. While RACT and reasonably available control measures (RACM) have similar consideration factors like technological and economic feasibility, there is a significant distinction between RACT and RACM. To be considered RACM, a control measure must advance attainment ofthe areatowards meeting the NAAQS for that measure (see FCAA, §172(C)(1)). Advancing attainment ofthe area is nota factor ofconsideration when evaluating RACTbecausethebenefitofimplementing RACT is presumed underthe FCAA. Underthe current state rules, the HGB area is subjectto some ofthe most stringentNOx and VOC emission control requirements inthe countrY, andfor many source categories, the existing rules are more stringent than recommended RACT standards for those categories. In the final approval notice for the revised HGB one-hourozone attainment demonstration SIP revision published in the September 6, 2006, issue ofthe 

### FederalRegister (71 FR 52676), the EPAnoted thatthe HGB VOC rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115 and NOxrules in Chapter

4-5117 

### were previously detennined to meet the FCAA RACfrequirements. Under the one-hour ozone NAAQS, the HGB area was also designated as a severe nonattainment area and the threshold for major stationary sources under the one-hour ozone nonattainment designation was identical to the currentthreshold under the 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment designation. Therefore, controls to satisfy RACTfor sources addressed in CfG and alternative control techniques (ACT) documents issued priorto 2006 

### and most major sources underthe 1997 eight-hour ozone designation were implementedbythe Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) underthe one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision and previously approved bythe EPA. 4-4.2 

### NOx RACfDetermination (No change) 4-4.3 VOC RACfDetermination 

### The TCEQ's analysis demonstrates that the currentVOC rules and controls for the HGB area satisfythe FCAA requirements for RACT for all CTG or ACfVOC source categories specificto any CTG orACT documents issued priorto 2006. 

### For all non-CTGjACT majorVOC emission source categories that controls aretechnologically and economically feasible, RACTis fulfilled bythe EPA-approved Chapter 115 

### rules or otherfederally enforceable measures. The EPA issued 11 

### CfG documents from 2006 

### through 2008 

### with recommendations for VOC controls on a variety ofconsumer and commercial products. Some ofthe new CfG recommendations are updates to previously issued CTG documents and some are recommendations for new categories. The TCEQ evaluated these new CTG documents to determine ifadditional VOC controls were necessary to fulfill RACT requirements. The RACT analysis included in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, 

### addresses the following CTG documents:

• FlatWood Paneling Coatings, Group II, issued in 2006;



### • Offsetlithographic and Letterpress Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;



### • Auto and light-Duty TruckAssembly Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008; 

### and

• Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Group IV, issued in 2008. 

### The RACT analysis included in this SIP revision addresses the follov.ing CTG documents:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;



### • Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;



### • Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;



### • Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;



### • Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issuedin 2007;



### • Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; 

### and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008. 

### The remainder ofthis section includes briefsummaries ofthe TCEQ's determinations regarding these seven CTG documents. Additional details regarding the evaluation ofthe seven CTG documents addressed in this SIP revision are provided inAppendixA: ReasonablyAvailable Control TechnologyAnalysis.
4.4.3.1 

### Flexible Package Printing The TCEQ has determined that portions ofthe Flexible Package Printing CfG recommendations are RACTfor the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commissionis adopting

4-6

### rulemaking (Rule Project 2010-016-11S-EN) to limitthe VOC contentofcoatings usedby flexible package printing sources in the HGB area. The rulemaking implements the CTG recommendations to reduce the VOC content ofcoatings and imposes workpractices for cleaning materials used during flexible packageprinting. 4.4.3.2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents The TCEQ has determined that the Industrial Cleaning Solvents CfG recommendations are RACffor the HGB area. Concurrentwiththis SIP revision, the commission is adopting rulemaking (Rule Project 201O-016-11S-EN) to implement the CTG recommendations to limit the VOC content ofindustrial cleaning solvents used in the HGB area. The TCEQ revised the proposed rules for industrial cleaning solvents in response to comments received on the proposed rules andthis SIP revision. Additional details regarding these changes are provided in Appendix A. 

### 4.4.3.3 LargeAppliance Coatings The TCEQ has determinedthat portions ofthe LargeAppliance Coatings CfG recommendations are RACT for the HGB area. Concurrentwith this SIP revision, the commission is adopting rulemaking (Rule Project 2010-016-11S-EN) to limit the VOC content oflarge appliance coatings in the HGB area. The rulemaking implements the CfG recommendations to reducethe VOC content ofcoatings and imposes workpractices for cleaning materials usedduring large appliance coating. The TCEQ revisedthe proposed rules for large appliance coatings in response to comments receivedonthe proposed rules andthis SIP revision. Additional details regarding these changes are provided inAppendixA. 

### 4.4.3.4 Metal Furniture Coatings The TCEQ has determined thatportions ofthe Metal Furniture Coatings CfG recommendations are RACT for the HGB area. Concurrentwith this SIP revision, the commissionis adopting rulemaking (Rule Project 2010-016-11S-EN) to limitthe VOC content ofmetalfurniture coatings used in the HGB area. The rulemaking implements the CTG recommendations to reduce the VOC content ofcoatings andimposes workpractices for cleaning materials used during metal furniture coating. TheTCEQ revised the proposed rules for metal furniture coatings in response to comments receivedon the proposed rules andthis SIP revision. Additional details regarding these changes are provided inAppendixA. 

### 4.4.3.5 Paper. Film, and Foil Coatings TheTCEQ has determined thatportions ofthe Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CfG recommendations are RACTfor the HGB area. Concurrentwiththis SIP revision, the commission is adopting rulemaking (Rule Project 2010-016-11S-EN) to limitthe VOC content of paper, film, and foil coatings in the HGB area. The rulemaking implements the CTG recommendations to reduce the VOC content ofcoatings and imposes workpractices for cleaning materials used during paper, film, andfoil coating. 4.4.3.6 Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives The TCEQ has determined thatthe Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives CTG recommendations are RACffor the HGB area. Concurrentwith this 

### SIP revision, the commission is adopting rulemaking (Rule Project 201O-016-11S-EN) to implementthe CfG recommendations to limit theVOC content ofmiscellaneous industrial adhesives used in the HGB area. The TCEQ revised the proposed rules for miscellaneous industrial adhesives in response to comments received on the proposed rules andthis SIP revision. Additional details regarding these changes are provided in 

### AppendixA.

4-7

### 4.4.3.7 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings TheTCEQ has determinedthat portions ofthe Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG recommendations are RACTfor the HGB area. Concurrentwith this SIP revision, thc commission is adopting rulemaking (Rule Project 2010-016-1l5-EN) to limitthe VOC content of miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings used in the HGB area. The rulemaking implements the CTG recommendations to reduce the VOC content ofcoatings and imposes work practices for cleaning materials used during miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coating. The TCEQ revised the proposed rules for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings in response to comments received on the proposed rules and this SIP revision. Additional details regarding these changes are provided inAppendix A. 

### 4.5 REASONABLYAVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES (RACM) ANALYSIS (NO CHANGE)
4.6 NEW CONTROL MEASURES (NO CHANGE)
4.7 MOTORVEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGET (MVEB) (NO CHANGE)
4.8 MONITORING NETWORK (NO CHANGE)
4.9 CONTINGENCYPLAN (NO CHANGE)
4.10 REFERENCES (NO CHANGE)

4-8

### CHAPTER 5: 

### WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE (NO CHANGE)

5-1

### CHAPTER 6: ONGOINGAND FUTURE INITIATIVES (NO CHANGE)

6-1I 

## ,

APPENDIXA

REASONABLY AVAIlABLE CONfROL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS

HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROLTECHNOLOGYANALYSIS UPDATE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION FORTHE 1997 EIGHT-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Project No. 2010-028-SIP-NR

### Table ofContents 1.1 Introduction : 1 1.2 RACT EvaluationApproach 3 1.2.1 General Discussion 3 1.2.2 Identification ofCTGEmission Sources 3 1.2.3 Determining if

### State Regulations Fulfill RACT Requirements 3 1.3 RACT Determination and Discussion 4 1.3.1 General Discussion 4 1.3.2 VOC RACT Determination 4 1.3.2.1 Flexible Package Printing 4 1.3.2.2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents 5 1.3.2.3 LargeAppliance Coatings 5 1.3.2-4 Metal Furniture Coatings .............•............................................................... 6 1.3.2.5 Paper, Film, andFoil Coatings 7 1.3.2.6 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 8 1.3.2.7Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings 81.1 

### INTRODUCTION The eight-county Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) eight-hour ozone nonattainment area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, andWaller Counties) is currently classified as severe under the 1997 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Under the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, the HGB area is requiredto meet the mandates ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) under §172(c)(1) and §182(b)(2) and (D. 

### According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) final rule to implement the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS (40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) §S1.912, November 29, 2005), a state containing areas classified as moderate nonattainmentand above must submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision demonstrating thatits currentrules fulfill the reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for all Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) emission source categories. RACTis defined as the lowest emissions limitation that a particularsource is capable ofmeeting bythe application ofcontrol technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR53762, September 17, 1979). RACT requirements for moderate and above classification nonattainment areas are included in the FCAAto assure that significant source categories at major sources ofozone precursor emissions are controlled to a reasonable extent, but not necessarily to best available control technologylevels expected ofnew sources or to maximum achievable control technology levels required for major sources ofhazardous air pollutants. While RACT and reasonably available control measures (RACM) have similar consideration factors like technological and economic feasibility, there is a significant distinction between RACT and RACM. Acontrol measure must advance attainment ofthe area towards meeting the NAAQS for that measure to be considered RACM (see FCAA, §172(C)(1)). Advancing attainment ofthe area is not afactor ofconsideration when evaluating RACTbecause the benefit of implementing RACT is presumed under the FCAA. In the final approval notice for the revised HGB one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision published in the September 6, 2006, issue ofthe 

### FederalRegister(71 FR52676), the EPA noted that the HGB volatile organic compounds (VOC) rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115: 

### Control of AirPollution from Volatile Organic Compounds and nitrogen oxides (NO,J rules in Chapter 117: 

### Control of AirPollutionfrom Nitrogen Compounds were previously determined to meet the FCAA RACT requirements. Therefore, controls to satisfy RACTfor emission source categories addressed in a CTG document issued prior to 2006 were implemented bythe Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) under the one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision and previously approvedby the EPA. The EPA issued 11 CTG documents from 2006 through 2008 with recommendations forVOC controls on a variety ofconsumer and commercial products. Some ofthe new CTG recommendations are updates to previouslyissued CTG documents and some are recommendations for new categories. The RACT analysis included in the Houston-Galveston-BrazoriaAttainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan Revisionfor the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision) adopted March 10, 2010, addressed the following CTG documents:

• FlatWood Paneling Coatings, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Fiberglass BoatManufacturing Materials, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

A-1

### • Auto and Light-DutyTruckAssembly Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008. The RACT analysis includedin this SIP revision addresses the following seven CTG documents:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issuedin 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issuedin 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issuedin 2007;

• Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives, Group IV, issuedin 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008. Byletter datedDecember 8, 2008, the TCEQ requestedthe EPA clarify several issues related to the recommendations in the following three CTG documents: 

### Control Techniques Guidelinesfor LargeAppliance Coatings (EPA453/R-07-004), issuedin 2007; 

### Control Techniques Guidelines forMetal Furniture Coatings (EPA453/R-07-005), issued in 2007; and 

### Control Techniques

GuidelinesforMiscellaneousMetal andPlasticParts Coatings (EPA453/R-08-003), issued in 2008. Anumber ofthe recommendedVOC contentlimits for specific coatings categories in these 2007 and 2008 CTG documents are less stringentthan the more generalVOC content limits specifiedin the following EPA guideline series recommendations: 

### Control ofVolatile OrganicEmissionsfromExisting Stationary Sources Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances (EPA-450/2-77-034), issued in 1977; 

### Control ofVolatile OrganicEmissionsfrom Existing Stationary Sources Volume III: Surface Coating of MetalFurniture (EPA-450/2-77- 032), issued in 1977; and 

### Control ofVolatile OrganicEmissionsfromExisting Stationary Sources Volume VI: Surface Coating of MiscellaneousMetal Parts andProducts (EPA-450/2- 78-015), issued in 1978. TheTCEQ requested clarification to ensure that implementing the new 2007 and 2008 CTG recommendations would notbe consideredbacksliding andto be certain thattheTCEQ has the appropriate information to determine whether the CTG recommendations actually represent RACTfor Texas. On March 17, 2011, the EPAissued a guidance memorandumregarding thesethree CTG categories entitled

### Approving SIPRevisions Addressing VOCRACTRequirements for Certain Coatings Categories. The EPA statedin the memorandumthat: "

...ifa statebelieves the volume usage distribution among the general and specialtycategories in the docket is representative ofthe distribution in the nonattainment area, webelievethat ifa state undertakes wholesale adoption ofthe new categoricallimits in a specific CTG, the statemay rely onthe assessments in the docket to demonstratethat the range ofnew limits will 

### result in an overall reduction in emissions from the collection ofcoveredcoatings." Consistentwiththis EPAmemorandum, on June 8, 2011, the commission proposedrulemaking (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN) concurrent withthis SIP revisionto implementthe 2007 and 2008 CTG-recommended RACTlimits for these three emission source categories. The proposed rulemaking provided discussion regarding the estimatedpercentreductions for these CTG categories that supported the EPA's position that applying the new 2007 and 2008 CTGrecommendedlimits as a whole will result in net VOC emissions reductions. Despite the state's demonstrationthat implementingthe 2007 and 2008 CTG-recommended approach would not interfere with attainment of, orreasonable progress towards attainment of, the ozone standard for the HGB area, the EPA commented that in orderfor the proposed rules to be approved as RACT, the state must also demonstratethatthe existing Chapter 115linlitsfor these CTG categories, which were based on the EPA's original 1977 and 1978 recommendations, are no longer technologically or economicallyfeasible.

A-2

### The commission contends thatby promulgating higher CfG-recommended RACflimits for these source categories in 2007 and 2008, the EPAhas establishedthat the original 1977 and 1978 recommended limits, and thus the existing Chapter 115 limits, are no longer technologically or economicallyfeasible. However, the EPA's 2007 and 2008 CTG documents do not specifically explain why the lower limits included in the EPA's original 1977 and 1978 recommendations for these source categories are no longer technologically or economically feasible. In absence ofany specific information indicatingthat the existing Chapter 115 limits for these source categories are not technologically or economicallyfeasible, and given the EPA's stated intentionto disapprove the rules without such a demonstration, the commission is obligated under the FCAAto revise the proposed limits for these source categories. Therefore, in response to the EPA's comment, the commission is revising the proposed limits for thesethree source categories to only include the EPA's 2007 and 2008 CfG-recommended limits that are equivalentto or lower than the existing Chapter 115 limits. Where the EPA's 2007 and 2008 CfG-recommended emission limits are less stringentthan the EPA's original 1977 and 1978 recommendedlimits, the TCEQ is retaining the original emissionlimitin the current Chapter 115 rules, exceptfor the high performance architectural coatings limitfor the miscellaneous metal parts and products category. Additional details regarding the changes made in response to the EPA's comments can be found in Section 1.3.2: 

## vacRACTDetermination ofthis appendix and in the preamble for the adopted rulemaking (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN).

1.2 

### RACfEVALUATIONAPPROACH 1.2.1 

### General Discussion The TCEQ demonstrates that the RACTrequirements are being fulfilled in the HGBareaby: (l) 

### identifying all CfG source categories ofNOx andVOC emissions and submitting negative declarations for categories wherethere are no emission sources within the HGB area; (2) identifying all non-CTG major sources ofNOx andVOC emissions; (3) identifying the state regulation that implements or exceeds RACTfor each applicable CfG source category or nonCfG majoremission source; and (4) describing thebasis for concludingthat these regulations fulfill RACf. Because this SIP revision focuses specifically on the seven CTG documents issued bythe EPAfrom 2006 through 2008 that were not addressed in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, this RACfanalysis onlyprovides an updateto the HGB VOC RACf demonstration.

1.2.2 

### Identification ofCTG Emission Sources The EPA has issued CTG documents defining RACffor existing facilities. The TCEQ reviewed the seven Consumer and Commercial Products CfG documents issued from 2006 through 2008 that were not addressed in 

### the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 

### 2010, to identify all source categories ofVOC emissions that require RACf. RACfdeterminations are not required if there are no sources in the HGB area that are subjectto a CfG document. 1.2.3 

### Determining if

### State Regulations 

### Fulfill RACfRequirements The EPApreviously approved the VOC rules in 30 TAC Chapter 115 as meeting the FCAARACf requirements for CTG documents issued priorto 2006. Federally approved state rules and rule approval dates can be found in 40 CFR §52.2270(c), EPAApproved Regulations in the Texas SIP. RACffor the 11 CfG documents issued from 2006 through 2008 was evaluatedby comparing CTG recommendations to TCEQ rules to determine ifthe existing rules satisfied RACf. The TCEQ reviewed the emission sources in the HGB area and the applicable state rules to verify

A-3

### that all CTG emission source categories in the HGB areawere subjectto requirements that meet or exceed the applicable RACT

### requirements, orthatfurther emission controls onthe sources were either not economicallyfeasible or nottechnologicallyfeasible. RACT determinations for four ofthe CTG documents issued from 2006 through 2008 were submittedto the EPAon April 6, 2010 (SIP ProjectNumber 2009-017-SIP-NR). Additional discussion regarding the RACT 

### determinations forthe remaining seven CTG

### documents issued from 2006 through 2008 is provided in Section 1.3.2 ofthis appendix.

1.3 RACT DETERMINATIONAND DISCUSSION 1.3.1 

### General Discussion The HGB area is subjectto some ofthe most stringentNOx andVOC emission control requirements in the country, andfor many source categories the existing rules are more stringentthan recommended RACT

### standards for those categories. In 

### thefmal approval notice for the revised HGB one-hour ozone attainmentdemonstration SIP revision (71 FR 52676, September 6, 2006), the EPAnotedthatthe HGB VOC rules in Chapter 115 andNOxrules in Chapter 117 were previously determinedto meetthe FCAARACTrequirements. Under the onehour ozone NAAQS, the HGB areawas also designated severe nonattainment andthe threshold for major stationary sources under the one-hour ozone nonattainment designationwas identical to the currentthreshold under the 1997 eight-hour ozone designation. Therefore, controls to satisfyRACTfor most major sources underthe 1997 eight-hour ozone designation were implementedbytheTCEQ underthe one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision and previously approvedbythe EPA 1.3.2 VOC 

### RACT Determination 1.3.2.1 Flexible Package Printing Concurrentwiththis SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to the flexographic and rotogravureprinting rules in 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter E: 

### Solvent-Using Processes, Division 3: 

### Flexographic andRotogravurePrinting to implementthe EPA's 2006 Flexible Package Printing CTG recommendations thattheTCEQ has determined are RACTin the HGB area (Rule ProjectNumber 2010-016-115-EN). The Chapter 115 rulemaking reduces the VOC contentlimits ofcoatings, increases the overall control efficiency ofadd-on controls usedin flexible packageprinting processes, establishes workpractice procedures for materials used during associatedcleaning activities, and expands rule applicabilityto include smallerflexible package printinglines that were previously exemptfrom these rules. TheTCEQ is 

### notimplementing the EPA's 2006 CTG

### recommendation to exemptflexible packageprinting operations from allVOC coating content limits if

### the operations have total actualVOC emissions less than 15 pounds per day from inks, coatings, and adhesives. Forthe HGB area, the existing Chapter 115 rules provide an exemption for combinedflexographic and rotogravureprinting operations withthe potential to emitless than 25 tons peryear (tpy) of VOC from inks. Calculating only the VOC emissions resulting from flexible packageprinting operations to determine exemption from the required controls may createbacksliding issues for properties already complying with the current Chapter 115 rules because sources currently subjectto the Chapter 115 rules couldpotentiallybecome exempt. The existing Chapter 115 exemptionlimitis equal to orpotentiallymore stringentthan the 2006 CTG-recommended exemptionthresholdfor properties conducting multiple flexographic androtogravure printing operations, and is retained in the rules.

A-4

### Additionally, the TCEQ is not implementing the EPA's 2006 CTG recommendation to exempt a flexible package printing line from complying withVOC coating contentlimits ifthe line has the potential to emit less than 25 tpy ofuncontrolled VOC emissions from the dryer, inks, coatings, and adhesives. As 

### previously stated, the current Chapter 115 rules require combining the VOC emissions from all flexographic and rotogravure printing lines to determine exemption from the VOC coating contentlimits. Implementing the 2006 CTG recommendation may exemptflexible package printing lines co-located on a property with other flexographic and rotogravure printing lines that are currentlyrequired to complywiththe VOC control limits. The Chapter 115 rules retain the existing VOC contentlimits for a flexible package printing line withVOC emissions belowthe 2006 CTG-recommended exemption threshold. The EPA's 2006 CTG recommends requiring control equipment to have an overall control efficiency ranging from 65% to 80% depending on the first installation date ofthe press and control equipment. The TCEQ disagrees with the 2006 CTG recommendation for flexible package printing to correlate control device efficiencyrequirements withthe first installation date ofthe printing press or control device regardless ofwhere the equipmentwas first installed. Imposing this policy may encourage the installation ofolder, less efficient equipment and may create potentialbacksliding issues ifa source becomes subjectto a lower efficiency standard as a result ofequipment replacement. The policy may also create significant practical enforceability issues for TCEQ investigators with regardto verifying the first installation date ofthe control equipment. Instead, the TCEQ is requiring the CTG-recommended 80% overall control efficiency for flexible package printing, regardless ofthe first installation date. 1.3.2.2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to Chapter 115, Subchapter E, to create new Division 6: 

### Industrial Cleaning Solvents to implementthe EPA's 2006 Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommendations that the TCEQ has determined are RACT in the HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The Chapter 115 rulemaking establishes VOC contentlimits for cleaning solvents used in specific cleaning activities, provides exemptions for certain cleaning activities from all orportions ofthe rule, and requires certain work practice procedures for the use, storage, and disposal ofcleaning solvents. In response to comments on the proposed industrial cleaning solvents rules, the commission is adopting new §115.461(C) to exempt a solvent cleaning operation from the requirements in this division ifthe VOC emissions from that solvent cleaning operation are controlledbythe control requirements or emission specifications in another division in Chapter 115. The adopted new exemption provides flexibility and reduces the complianceburden for affected sources. Additionally, the commission expects that complying with requirements in other Chapter 115 rules is at leastas effective as meeting the industrial cleaning solvents rule requirements. The adopted exemption is consistentwith the EPA's 2006 CTG recommendation to ensure that a particularcleaning activityis not subjectto duplicative requirements. 1.3.2.3 Large Appliance Coatings Concurrentwith this SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to Chapter 115, SubchapterE, to create new Division 5: 

### ControlRequirements forSuiface Coating Processes to implementthe EPA's 2007 LargeAppliance Coatings CTG recommendations thatthe TCEQ has determined are RACTin the HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The Chapter 115 rulemaking reduces VOC contentlimits ofcoatings, increases the overall control efficiency for add-on controls used in large appliance coating operations, and establishes minimum transfer efficiencyfor coating application methods. The rules also require certainwork practice procedures for coating-related activities and materials used during associated cleaning operations.

A-S

### The EPA's 2007 CTG recommends exempting large appliance coating operations from the coating VOC content limits and workpractice standards iftotal uncontrolledVOC emissions from coatings and associated cleaning solvents are less than 15 pounds per day. The current TCEQ rules provide an exemption from the coatingVOC contentlimits for large appliance coating operations iftotal uncontrolledVOC emissions from all applicable coatingprocesses on apropertysubjectto Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2: 

### Surface Coating Processes are less than 3.0 pounds perhour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemptionfrom the required VOC controls maybe more stringentfor properties conducting multiple coating operations specified in Division 2because the exemption is not based onVOC emissions from a single coating category. To prevent potentialbacksliding for properties alreadyrequiredto comply with the state'sregulations, the Chapter 115 rules retain the existing exemption criteria. The existing Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 large appliance coatinglimitis based onthe EPA guideline series recommendations in 

### Control ofVolatile Organic

### Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources Volume V: Surface Coating of LargeAppliances (EPA-450/2-77-034), issued in 1977. Several ofthe EPA's recommendedVOC contentlimits for specific coating categories in the 2007 CTG document areless stringentthan the limit specified in the EPA's original 1977 recommendation for this coating category. The 2007 CTG also recommends minimum solids transfer efficiencyfor coating application equipment. Despite the higherVOC contentlimits for the specialty coatings, the EPA's 2007 CTG claims that implementing the limits as recommended would resultin an overall emissions reduction and provides documentation containing the methodology usedto estimate the reduction. The TCEQ also conducted a comprehensive comparison ofthe 2007 CTG recommendations to the existing Chapter 115 VOC limit and determinedthat implementing the 2007 CTG-recommended coating VOC contentlimits will not negativelyimpactthe status ofthe state's attainment of, or reasonable furtherprogress toward attainment of, the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. Despite the full 

### demonstration ofnoninterference provided in the proposed rule preamble (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN), the EPAcommented thatin orderfor the proposed rules to be approved as RACT, the state must also demonstrate thatthe existing Chapter 115 VOC emission limitfor large appliance coatings, which was based on the EPA's original 1977recommendation, is no longerteclmologically or economically feasible. The commission contends thatby promulgatinghigher CTG-recommended RACTlimits for large appliance coatings in 2007, the EPAhas established thatthe original1977-recommendedlimit, and thus the existing Chapter 115 limit, is nolongertechnologically or economically feasible. However, the EPA's 2007 CTG did not specificallyexplainwhy thelowerlimitincluded inthe EPA's original 1977 recommendation is no longertechnologically or economicallyfeasible. In absence ofany specific information indicating that the existing Chapter 115 large appliance coating emissionlimitis no longertechnologically or economicallyfeasible, the adopted Chapter 115 rules onlyinclude the EPA's 2007 CTG-recommendedlimits that are equivalentto orlowerthanthe existing Chapter 115 limit. 1.3.2.4 Metal Furniture Coatings Concurrent withthis SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to Chapter 115, SubchapterE, to create new Division 5to implementthe EPA's 2007 Metal Furniture Coatings CTG recommendations that the TCEQhas determined are RACTin the HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-0l6-115-EN). The Chapter 115 rulemaking reducesVOC contentlimits of coatings, increases the overall control efficiencyfor add-on controls used in metal furniture coating operations, and establishes mininmm transfer efficiencyofcoating application methods. The rules also require certain workpracticeprocedures for coating-related activities and materials used during associated cleaning operations.

A-6

### The EPA's 2007 CTG recommends exempting metal furniture coating operations from the coating VOC contentlimits and workpractice standards iftotal uncontrolledVOC emissions from coatings and associated cleaning solvents are less than 15 pounds per day. The current TCEQ rules provide an exemption from the coating VOC contentlimits for metal furniture coating operations iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions from coatings in all applicable coating processes located on a property subjectto Chapter 115, SubchapterE, Division 2 are less than 3.0 pounds perhour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemptionfrom the requiredVOC controls maybe more stringentfor properties conducting multiple coatingprocesses specified in Division 2 because the exemption is not based onVOC emissions from a single coating category. To preventpotential backsliding for properties alreadyrequired to complywiththe state's regulations, the Chapter 115 rules retain the existing exemption cri.teria. The existing Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 metal furniture coatinglimit is based onthe EPA guideline series recommendations in 

### Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (EPA-450/2-77-032), issued in 1977. Several ofthe EPA's recommended VOC contentlimits for specific coating categories in the 2007 CTG document are less stringentthanthe limit specified inthe EPA's original 1977recommendation for this coating category. The 2007 CTG also recommends minimum solids transfer efficiencyfor coating application equipment. Despite the higherVOC contentlimits for the specialty coatings, the EPA's 2007 CTG claims that implementingthe limits as recommended would result in an overall emissions reduction and provides documentation containingthe methodology used to estimate the reduction. The TCEQ also conducted a comprehensive comparison ofthe 2007 CTG recommendations to the existing Chapter 115 VOC limit and determined that implementing the 2007 CTG-recommendedcoating VOC contentlimits will not negatively impactthe status ofthe state's attainment of, or reasonable further progress toward attainment of, the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. Despite the full demonstration ofnoninterference provided inthe proposed rule preamble (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN), the EPAcommented thatin orderfor the proposed rules to be

. approved as RACT, the state must also demonstrate that the existing Chapter 115 VOC emission limit for metal furniture coatings, which was based on the EPA's original 1977recommendation for metal fumiture coatings, is no longertechnologically or economicallyfeasible. The commission contends that bypromulgating higher CTG-recommended RACT limits for metal furniture coatings in 2007, the EPAhas established thatthe original 1977 CTG-recommended limit, and thus the existing Chapter 115 limit, is no longertechnologically or economically feasible. However, the EPA's 2007 CTG for metalfurniture coatings did not specifically explain why the lower limitincluded in the original 1977 recommendation is no longer technologically or economicallyfeasible. In absence ofany specific information indicating thatthe existing Chapter 115 metal furniture coating limit is no longer technologically or economicallyfeasible, the adopted Chapter 115 rules only include the EPA's 2007 CTG-recommended limits that are equivalentto or lower than the existing Chapter 115 limit. 1.3.2.5 Paper. Film, and Foil Coatings Concurrentwiththis SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to Chapter 115, Subchapter E, to create new Division 5 to implementthe EPA's 2007 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CTG recommendations thatthe TCEQ has determined are RACTin the HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The Chapter 115 rulemaking reduces the VOC contentlimits ofcoatings; increases the overall control efficiencyfor add-on controls used in paper, film, and foil coating operations; and establishes workpractice procedures for materials used during cleaning operations associatedwithpaper, film, and foil coating.

A-7

### The EPA's 2007 CTG recommends exempting all paper, film, andfoil coating operations on a property from the coating VOC contentlimits andworkpractice standards iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions from paper, film, and foil coatings and associated cleaning solvents are less than 15 poundsper day. The currentTCEQ rules provide an exemption from the coating VOC content limits for paper, film, andfoil coating operations iftotal uncontrolledVOC emissions from all applicable surface coating processes on a property subjectto Chapter 115, Subc!lapter E, Division 2 

### are less than 3.0 pounds perhourand 15 pounds per day. The existing exemption from the requiredVOC controls maybe more stringentfor properties conducting multiple coating processes specified in Division 2 becausethe exemption is notbased onVOC emissions from a single coating category. To preventpotential backslidingfor properties conducting paper, film, and foil coating operations alreadyrequiredto complywith the state's regulations, the Chapter 115 rules retain the existing exemption criteria. Additionally, the TCEQ is notimplementingthe EPA's 2007 CTG recommendation to exempta paper, 

### film, and foil coating line from complying withVOC coating contentlimits ifthe line has the potential to emitless than 25 tpy ofuncontrolledVOC emissions from coatings. As 

### previously stated, the current Chapter 115 rules require combiningthe VOC emissions from all applicable surface coating processes located on aproperty subjectto Subc!lapterE, Division 2 to determine exemption from the VOC coating contentlimits. Implementingthe 2007 CTG recommendation mayexemptpaper, film, 

### and foil coating lines co-locatedon a property with other coating lines subjectto Division 2 thatare currentlycomplying theVOC coating content limits. To preventbacksliding, the Chapter 115 rules retain the existingVOC content limits for a paper, film, and foil coatingline withVOC emissions belowthe 2007 CTG-recommended exemption threshold. 1.3.2.6 Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives Concurrentwith this SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to Chapter 115, Subc!lapter E, to create new Division 7: 

### Miscellaneous IndustrialAdhesives to implement the EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives CTG recommendations thatthe TCEQ has determined are RACTin the HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The Chapter 115 rulemaking implements VOC contentlimits for general adhesive application processes, specialty adhesive application processes, and adhesive primerapplicationprocesses; provides exemptions for certain cleaning activities from all orportions oftherule; incorporates test methods and recordkeeping requirements; and establishes mininlum transfer efficiency of adhesive application methods. The rules also require certainworkpractice procedures for adhesive-related activities and materials used during associated cleaning operations. In response to comments, the commission is revising §115.470(a) to clarifythe rules in Division 7 apply to manufacturing operations thatuse adhesives for any ofthe adhesive application processes specified in the control requirements in §115-473(a); adhesives applied in the field (e.g., adhesives applied at constructionjobs in the field) are not subjectto this division. The revisedrule applicabilityin §115.470(a) more accuratelyreflects the sources affectedbythe CTG recommendations as described bythe EPAin the final rule for the 2008 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives CTG (73 FR58489). 1.3.2.7.Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings Concurrentwith this SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to Chapter 115, Subc!lapter E, to create new Division 5, to implementthe EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG recommendations thatthe TCEQ has determined are RACTin the HGB area (Rule ProjectNumber 2010-016-115-EN). The miscellaneous plasticparts category of the CTG represents a new RACT CTG categoryfor the HGB area, and the current coatings rules in Chapter 115, Subc!lapter E, Division 2 do notapply to miscellaneous plasticparts. The

A-8

### Chapter 115 rulemaking expands the scope ofthe existing rule applicabilityto include the new coating categories recommended in the 2008 CfG. The Chapter 115 rulemaking reduces VOC contentlimits ofcoatings, increases the overall control efficiency ofadd-on controls, and establishes minimum transfer efficiency ofcoating application methods. The rules also require certain workpractice procedures for coating-related activities and materials used during associated cleaning operations. The EPA's 2008 CfG recommends exempting miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coating operations from the VOC control requirements if

### total uncontrolled VOC emissions from coatings and cleaning solvents are less than 15 pounds per day. The currentTCEQ rules exempt miscellaneous metal parts and products coating operations from the requiredVOC coating limits iflocated on a property where total uncontrolledVOC emissions from all applicable surface coating processes subjectto Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 are less than 3.0 pounds perhour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemption from the required controls may be more stringentfor properties conducting multiple coating processes specified in Division 2 because the exemption is notbased on VOC emissions from a single coating category. To preventpotential backslidingfor sources already subjectto the Chapter 115 rules, the rule revisions integrate the new 2008 CfG coating categories into the existing exemptionfrom the VOC control requirements. The Chapter 115 rules retain the state's approach to maintain con.sistency ,vith the current exemption criteria. The existing Chapter 115, SubchapterE, Division 2 miscellaneous metal partand product coating limits arebased on the EPAguideline series recommendations in 

### Control of Volatile OrganicEmissionsfrom Existing Stationary Sources Volume VI: Surface Coating of MiscellaneousMetal Parts andProducts (EPA-450/2-78-015), issued in 1978. Several ofthe EPA's recommendedVOC contentlimits for specific coating categories in the 2008 CfG document are less stringentthan the limits specified inthe EPA's original 1978 recommendations for this coating category. The 2008 CfG also recommends minimum solids transfer efficiencyfor coating application equipment. Althoughthe 2008 CTG does not quantify the estimated VOC emissions reduced as a result ofimplementing the recommendedVOC contentlimits, the TCEQ applied an approach consistentwith the methodologythe EPAusedto estimate VOC emission reductions associated with implementing the 2007 LargeAppliance Coating CTG and 2007 Metal Furniture Coating CTG recommendations. The TCEQ determined that implementing the 2008 CfG-recommended.coatingVOC contentlimits for miscellaneous metal partandproduct coatings will not negatively impactthe status ofthe state's attainmentof, orreasonable further progress toward attainment of, the 1997eight-hourozone NAAQS. Despite the full demonstrationofnoninterference provided in the proposed rule preamble (Rule Project Number 201O-016-115-EN), the EPAcommented that in orderfor the proposed rules to be approved as RACT, the state must also demonstrate thatthe existing Chapter 115 VOC limits for miscellaneous metal part and product coatings, whichwerebased on the EPA's original 1978 recommendations, are no longertechnologically or economicallyfeasible. The commission contends that bypromulgating higher CTG-recommended RACflimits for miscellaneous metal part and product coatings in 2007, the EPAhas establishedthatthe original 1978-recommended limits, andthus the existing Chapter 115 limits, are no longer technologically or economically feasible. However, the EPA's 2008 CTG did not specificallyexplain why the lowerlimits included in the EPA's original 1978 recommendations are no longer technologically or economicallyfeasible, with the exception ofthe 2007-recommendedlimitfor high performance architectural coatings. In absence ofany specific information indicating thatthe existing Chapter 115 miscellaneous metal part and product coating limits are no longertechnologically or economicallyfeasible, the adopted Chapter 115 rules only include the EPA's 2008 CTGrecommendedlimits that are equivalentto orlowerthan the existing Chapter 115 limits. In light

A-9

### ofthe technological and economicfeasibility issues detailed in the EPA's 2008 CTGthat are associatedwith high performance architectural coatings containingless than 6.2 pounds ofVOC per gallon ofcoating (lb VOC/gal coating), the commission is adopting to retain the EPA's 2008 CTG-recommended 6.2 lb 

### VOCIgal coating limitfor high performance architectural coatings in the adopted Chapter 11S miscellaneous metalparts and products rules. In response to comments, the commission has revised §11S.427 to limitthe rule applicability to onlythose designatedon-site maintenance shops that re-coat used parts orproducts thatwere required to complywith the rules in Division 2priorto January 1,2012, which is the beginning ofthe calendaryearshortly after the expected effective date ofthe rule revision. Additionally, in response to this same comment, the commissionhas revised §11S.4so(a) to exclude designated on-site maintenance shops from the miscellaneous metal parts and products coatings rule applicability in Division S. The adopted revisions prevent anypotential backsliding concerns by requiring sources that are currently complying with these rules in Division 2to continueto meet these VOC limits. The adopted revisions are consistent with the intent ofthe EPA's 1977 and 2008 CTG RACTrecommendations for miscellaneous metal parts and products coatings and the commission maintains the rules continueto satisfy RACTrequirements in FCAA, §172(C)(1) and §182(b)(2) for this CTG emission source category. Regulating the coating ofmiscellaneous metal parts and products at a new designated on-sitemaintenance shop is not appropriate sinceVOC reductions do not advance attainment ofthe 1997eight-hour ozone standardfor the HGB area, as demonstrated inthe RACM analyses in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted on March 10, 

### 2010. In responseto comments, the commission addedn,ew §11SASl(2)(D) 

### to exempt all other coating categories regulated in Divisions 2 and Sfromthe miscellaneous metal and plasticparts coatings rules. Incorporating this new exemption into §11SASI 

### clarifies that the miscellaneous metal parts andproducts coatingsrules do not apply to the coating operations characterizedby anotherrule specified in Division 2 and Division S. Based on information provided duringthe public commentperiod, the commission determined that some ofthe pleasure craft coatingVOC limits included in the EPA's 2008 CTG recommendations are not technologicallyfeasible atthis time andtherefore do notrepresent RACT. In response to comments, the commission is increasingthe VOC limit for 

### extreme highgloss coatingsto S.olb 

### VOCIgal coating andrevising the definition include any coatingthat achieves greaterthan 90% reflectance on a 60 degree meter. In 

### response to comments, the commission is increasing the VOC limit

### forfinishprimer/surfacercoatingsto s.o lb VOC/gal coating. In responseto comments, the commission is increasingthe VOC limit for 

### other substrate antifoulantcoatings to 3.341b 

### VOCIgal coating. In 

### response to comments, the commission is introducing a new specialty coating category for 

### antifoulantsealer/tie coatings, which are coatings applied overbiocidal antifoulant coating for the purpose ofpreventing release ofbiocides into the environment, orto promote adhesion between an antifoulant and a primer or other antifoulants, and is establishing aVOC limit of3.SlbVOC/gal coating for this new category. In response to comments, the commission is 

### revising the definition of 

### pretreatmentwashprimercoatings to include any coatingthat contains no more than 2S% solids, by weight, and at least 0.1% acids, by weight; is 

### used to provide surface etching; and is 

### applied directly to fiberglass and metal surfaceto provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent coatings.

A-I0

### APPENDIXA

REASONABLYAVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS

Attachment 1 December 8, 2008, Letter to Mr. William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, United States Environmental ProtectionAgency on Issues Related to ControlTechniques Guidelines Documents,f

Buddy Garcia, Chairman Larry R. Soward, Commissioner Bryan W, Shaw, Ph.D., Commissioner Mark R. Vickery, p.e., ExecutiveDirector 

### TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protecting Texas by ReducingandPreventingPollution
.

December 8, 2008

Mr. WilliamT. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division Office ofAirQuality Planning and Standards Organization United States Environmental Protection Agency Mail Drop C504-01 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 Dear DirectorHarnett: The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCECD" Air Quality Division is currently reviewiDg the Consumer and Commercial Products Group II, Group III, and Group IV Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) documents released by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 2006 through 2008. Our evaluation of these CTG documents has prompted several questions regarding the CTG documents for Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. The issues and questions related to these CTG documents are detaiied below. Texas' existing rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115 for controlling volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the surface coating of large appliances I, metal furniture2

, and miscellaneous metal parts and products' were based on the EPA's Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) corresponding 1977 and 1978 Guideline Series' (GS) recommendations. The existing emission standards for surface coating oflarge appliances and metal furniture are not specific to coating zPes; however, the 2007 CTG documents for Large Appliance Coatings' and Metal Furniture Coatings recommend setting coaling type specific emission standards. Some of the recommended emissions standards are equivalent or more stringent than the existing generic standards while some recommended emission standards are less,stringent than the existing standards. Similarly, the 2008 CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings' also recommends emission standards for certain coating types that are less stringent than the existing 30 TAC Chapter 115 emission standards. Please see the enclosed table for a more detailed comparison ofthe existing VOC emission standards based on the 1977 and 1978 GS recommendations (and TCEQ rules) versus the 2001 and 2008 CTG documents for these categories. Since some ofthe limits recommended for these specifiC coating types are less stringent than the existing emission standards based on the EPA's original GS recommendations, TCEQ's Air Quality Division has,

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.us**prinL~d** 011 TlXytll>tl**r~per** u.'Iint! wy-bios.:d inkMr. William T. Harnett Page 2 December 8, 2008

concerns that implementing the new CTG recommendations could be perceived as backsliding. In addition, these discrepancies may make it impossible for TCEQ staff to determine if actual 

## vac reduction benefit would occur from implementing the CTG recommendations. Given the limited explanationS of how these differences should be considered in light of the original GS standards, the TCEQ Air Quality Division is requesting written guidance to clarify the intent ofthe EPA's new CTG recommendations with regard to the following issues. I. Specific clarification is needed that implementing the recommendations in the new CTG would not be consideredbacksliding. 2. Are the coating type categories in the new CTG considered by the EPA to be coating types that were unregulated by the original GS recommendations or is this a situation where these specific coatings were covered under the original guidance, but the EPA has re-evaluated what is technically feasible for these specialty coating types? What data was used to make this determination? 3. In light of the varying stringency of the recommended coating standards in these new CTG documents, how did the EPA determine the overall reduction benefit? Additional information, beyond what' is provided in the docket, is necessary for the state to determine whether implementing**th~** CTG recommendations will result in a net VOC reduction in the specific nonattainment areas where these CTG recommendations wouldbe. implemented.

The EPA's clarificationregarding these issues is critical for the Air Quality Division to complete our evaluation ofthe CTG recommendations and proceed with any recommendation to TCEQ's executive management and the commission regarding the potential implementation of the EPA's CTG recommendations. Therefore, your expeditious response regarding these issues is greatly appreciated. You may contactme at 512-239-4696. Sincerely, 

# ?uL/CcL
0usana M. Hildebrand, P.E.

. Director, Air Quality Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality SMH/LAIsy Enclosures: References Emission LimitComparison Table

cc: Mr. Guy Donaldson, EPA Region 6 Ms. Ellen Belk, EPA Region 6 Mr. BruceMoore, EPA, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards· Mr. Bill Johnson, EPA, Office ofAir Quality Planning and StandardsEnclosure: References I: Title 30 TAC §1l5.421(a)(I), Emission Specifications for Large Appliance Coating (Amended January 17,2003). 2: Title 30 TAC §1l5.421(a)(2), Emission Specifications for Metal Furniture Coating (Amended January 17,2003). 3: Title 30 TAC §115.42I(a)(9)(A), Emission Specifications for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating (Amended January 17, 2003). 4: Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources

- Volume V: Surface Coating ofLarge Appliances, Publication numberEPA-450/2-77-0.34.

. Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources

- Volume ill: Surface Coating ofMetal Furniture, Publication number EPA-45012-77-032. Guideline Series. cOntrol ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources

- Volume' VI: Surface Coating ofMiscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Publication number EPA-45012-78- 015, 5: Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings. Publication number EPA 453/R-07- 004. 6: Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture- Coatings. Publication number EPA 453/R-07- 005. 7: Control Te.chniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. Publication number EPA 453/R-08-003. 8: EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0329-0009 and EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0334-0010.Enclosure: EmissionLimit Comparison Table Comparison of30 TAC Chapter 115 Emission Limits and 2006-2008 CTGRecommended Emission Limits Chapter 115 CTG Recommended Coaling Type· Emission Limit··

. . Emission Limit-· Baked Coatinl! 

### I· Air-Dried**Coatin~** Larl!e Appliance Coatinl! General One Comoonent 

### 2.8 2.3 2.3 General Multi-Comoonent 

### 2.8 2.3 2.8 Extreme**Hi~h** Gloss 

### 2.8 3.0 2.8 Extreme Performance 

### 2.8 3.0 3.5 Heat Resistant 

### 2.8 3.0 3.5 Metallic 

### 2.8 3.5 3.5 Pretl'eatment Coatings 

### 2.8 3.5 3.5 Solar Absorbent 

### 2.8 3.0 3.5 Melal Furniture Coatine General One Comoonent 

### 3.0 2.3 2.3' General Multi-Comoonent 

### 3.0 2.3 2.8 Extreme Hil<h Gloss 

### 3.0 3.0 2.8 Extreme Perf.onnance 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5 HeatResistant 

### 3.0 3.0

. 3.5 'Metallic 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Pretreatment CoatinO's 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Solar Absorbent 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5

. Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products**Coatin~** General One Comoonent 

### 3.0 2.3 2.8 General Multi Comoonent 

### 3.0 2.3 2.8 CamouflaU'e 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Electric-!nsulatinl< Varnish 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Etchin!! Fille;' 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Extreme High-Gloss 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5 Extreme Ferfonnance 

### 3.5 3.0 3.5 Heat-Resistant 

### 3.5 3.0 3.5 Hiah Performance Al'chitectu

...1 

### 3.0 6.2 6.2 High Temperature 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Metallic 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Militarv Soecification

. 

### 3.0 2.3 2.8 Mold-Seal 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Pall Backing 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Prefabricated Architectllral 

### 3.0 2.3 3.5 Multi-Component Prefabricated Architectural One- 

### 3.0 2.3 3.5 Component Pretreatment Coatings 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Repair and Touchup 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5 SiliconeRelease 

### 3.0 3.5 3.5 Solar-Absorbent 

### 3.0 3.0 3.5· Comparison of30 TAC Chapter 115 Emission Limits and 2006-2008 CTG Recommended Emission Limits Chapter 115 CTG Recommended Coating Type" Emission Limit"" Emission Limit"" Baked Coatin!! Air-Dried Coatln!! VaCllum-Metalizino 3.0 3.5 3.5 Drum Coatin!!, New. Exterior 3.0 2.8 2.8 Drum Coatinl!;, New Interior 4.3 3.5 3.5 Drum Coating, Reconditioned, 3.0 3.5 3.5 ExteJior Drum Coating, Reconditioned, 4.3 4.2 4.2 Interior 

## *The CTG recommended emission limits for coatingtypes listed in red font are less stringentthan existing Chapter 115 limits. 

## *" Limit expressed inpounds per gallon ofcoating (minus water and exempt solvent) delivered to the application system.Mr. William T. Harnett Page 3 December 8, 2008

bcc: TheresaPella Ashley Forbes VincentMeiller Lindley Anderson Amy BrowningAPPENDIXA

REASONABLYAVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS

Attachment 2 March 17, 2011, Memorandum from Scott Mathias, Air Quality Policy Division, United States Environmental Protection 

### Approving SIPRevisionsAddressing 

### vacRAer Requirementsfor Certain 

### Coatings CategoriesUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711



### MAR ! 7 2011 OFFICE OF AlA QUALITY PlANNING AND STANDARDS MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain Coatings Categories FROM: Scott Mathias, Interim Direct 

# I**~/~.i.c** Air Quality Policy Division

# (~lA1a TO: Regional Air DivisionDirectors The Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards has received requests from Regional Offices for guidance on approving State ImplementationPlan (SIP) revisions resulting from newly-issued Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) documents. These CTGs provide recommendations to inform state determinations as to whatconstitutes 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 for these categories in 2007 and 2008, under authority ofClean AirAct (CM) section I83(e), to address volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from categories ofconsumer and commercial products. They replace similar CTGs issued byEPA 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 establishedin the 1970s guidelines. States are required to submit a SIP revision in response to any newly-issued CTGs. I Ifan 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 submitas a SIPrevision a certification that the existing SIP meets RACT requirements.

I eAA section 182(bX2)requires Moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to revise SIPs when a new eTG is issued by EPA after 1990. EPA is required to seta SIP submission deadline with the issuance ofeach CTG. For eTGs we have issued in the past several years, we have specified a submission deadline ofone year after the eTG was issued (See 72 FR 57215 Oct 9, 2007 and 73 FR5848 Oct7,2008).

Inteme' Address (URL). http;//www.spa.gov RecycledJRecyclable • Prtnled with Vegetable ON Based Ink! OIl Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Posloonsumer)We anticipate that EPA Regional Offices would be able to approve the MCT determinations in these circumstances. We note that EPA's recommendations in CTOs are generally treated as "presumptive" RACT and states may demonstrate that other limits are RACT for one or more sources within the soW'ce category addressed by the CTO. Where a state has previously detelmined 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. Ifa state chooses to revise more stringent rules that are alr,eady in the approved SIP, so that those rules reflect the less-stringent recommended limits in the new CTOs, 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 ofRACT. 

### See 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979). In addition, in order to comply with the SIP approval conditions ofCAA section 110(1), the state would need to demonstrate that the revision to the SIP would not interfere with attairunent of, or reasonable further progress toward attainment of, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, nor interfere with any other applicable requirement ofthe 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 from another source category in another industry to offset the increased emissions from the specialty coatings. In general, ifa 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 ofCAA section 110(1). The public dockets for the Large Appliance Coatings and the Metal Furniture Coatings CTOs contain information that states may find helpful in detelmining the reductions that can be achieved by adopting the new general use category CTO limits for these industrics. According to the docketed information, the estimated l'eductions from the new CTOs are 30 to 35 percent greater than from the older CTOs. 

### See documents EPA-HQOAR-2007-0329-0009 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0334-0010 in dockets EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0329 and EPA-HQ-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 CTOs do not contain area-specifiC analyses ofpotential emissions reductions. Oenerally, ifa state believes the volume usage distribution among the general and specialty categories in the docket is representative ofthe distribution in the nonattairunent area, we believe that ifa state undertakes wholesale adoption ofthe new categorical limits in a specific CTO, the state may rely on the assessments in the docket to demonstrate that the range ofnew limits will result in an overall reduction in emissions from the collection ofcovered coatings. However, ifa state adopts some specialty category limits, but not all ofthe 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 ofwhether tighter restrictions for some coatings, coupled with 2less stringcnt restrictions on other coatings would provide overall equal or greater emissions reductions than the set ofrules based on the recommendations in the 1970s guidelines. Ifyou have further questions on SIP-related issues you should contact Butch Stackhouse at (919) 541-5208. Ifyou have fUlfuer technical questions on the topics covered in this memorandum you should contact Kaye Whitfield at (919) 541-2509.

ec: Robin DUl1kins, SPPD Kimber Scavo, AQPD David Orlin, OGe Sara Schneeberg, OGe

3THE STATE**OF~XAS** 

### TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIR 

### lTY

# ~tha this is a true and correct copy ofa**Kh~E** Op Texas Commission on Environmental Quality document

. ,<>0, which is filed in the permanent records of the 

## cOIIlIIlisskJn 

# '" if Given under my hand and the seal of office on
.

# BritX;~rk [lEG 12 

# 2011
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

### ORDERADOPTING REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Docket No. 2011-0083-SIP 

### On December 7, 2011, 

### the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission), during a public meeting, considered adoption ofrevisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) 1997 

### eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air QualityStandard (NAAQS). The Commission adopts a reasonably available control technology (RACT) analysis update to include ControlTechniques Guidelines (CTG) notyet addressed in the HGB Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 

### eight-hour ozone NAAQS; and corresponding revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP). Under Tex. Health & 

### Safety CodeAnn. §§ 

### 382.011, 382.012, 

### and 382.023 

### (Vernon 2008), 

### the Commission has the authority to control the quality ofthe state's air and to issue orders consistent with the policies andpurposes ofthe Texas CleanAirAct, Chapter 382 

### ofthe Tex. Health & 

### Safety Code. Notice ofthe proposed revisions to the SIP was published for comment in the June 24, 2011, 

### issue ofthe Texas Register (36 

### TexReg 3985). 

### Pursuantto 40 

### Code ofFederal Regulations § 

### 51.102 

### and after proper notice, the Commission conducted public hearings to considerthe revisions to the SIP. Proper notice included prominent advertisement in the areas affected at least 30 

### days priorto the dates of the hearings. Public hearings were held in Houston, Texas on July 18, 2011 

### andAustin, Texas on July 22, 2011. 

### The Commission circulatedhearing notices ofits intended action to the public, including interestedpersons, the Regional Administrator ofthe EPA, and all applicable local air pollution control agencies. The public was invited to submit data, views, and recommendations on the proposed SIP revisions, either orally or in writing, at the hearings or during the comment period. Priorto the scheduledhearings, copies ofthe proposed SIP re,isions were available for public inspection atthe Commission's central office and onthe Commission's Web site. Data, views, andrecommendations ofinterested persons regarding the proposed SIP revisions were submittedto the Commission during the comment period, and were consideredbythe Commission as reflected in the analysis oftestimony incorporatedby reference to this Order. The Commission finds that the analysis oftestimony includes the names ofall interested groups or associations offering comment onthe proposed SIP revisions and their position concerning the same.,',**~.** ,j'': /-',! 

### t ":;;'1'



### , . IT

### ~S,**THE!lliF~F.$** ORRWD,BYTHE COMMISSION thatthe revisions to the SIP "'9'

### 1,)Ii,Co~P'9,f~i¢d"py."ie~eI.encetothiS orner are hereby adopted. The adopted revisions to the SIP ",,,'2ii'llar,ein:corporalted**byrJ)eferencein-thi!f'~rder** 

### as ifset forth atlength verbatim in this Order. ,,(: • .);11
..... ·] Tl "

...**:~** . .-., . ,"',": l)!,.,.', .,**"~"** ',r.'I."r.J



### __ '

. IT IS

## FUR:rtmiLOR'D~REEl BYTHE COMMISSION that onbehalfofthe Commission,

the Chairman should,transmifi acepy ofthis Order, togetherwith the adopted revisions to the SIPiTO theRegionat!Administrator6fEPA as a proposed revision to theTexas SIP pursuantto the Federal Clean AirAct, codified at 42 

### U,S, Code Ann. §§ 

### 7401

- 7671Q, 

### as amended. 

### Ifany portion ofthis Orderis for any reason heldto be invalidby a court ofcompetent jurisdiction, the invalidity ofany portion shall not affectthe validity ofthe remaining portions.

Date issued: 

# DEC 12 2011

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Bryan W, 

### haw, Ph.D., Chairman